84
Conclusion
We complete this chapter by noting the implications of our case study for the prac-
tice and research of innovation in professional experience. The implications for
practice relate to boundary objects and learning communities, whilst the implica-
tions for research focus on the use of Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as
a generative tool as well as a call for researchers to be aware of the politically con-
tested nature of research in professional experience.
This case study has drawn attention to the importance of boundary objects and
brokers when innovation is attempted in professional experience. An implication
that might be drawn from this is that teacher educators should identify the boundary
objects or brokers that mediate boundary crossing when attempting innovation in
their own professional experience programs. They can then ensure that these objects
(or people) do not fall prey to arbitrary budget cuts or other program changes.
Professional experience programs should prioritise strong relationships with part-
nership schools and endeavour to build robust learning communities of practice that
include high-level academic and school staff.
This case study has provided some evidence that Cultural Historical Activity
Theory (CHAT) is a generative theoretical lens with which to examine innovations
in professional experience. The theoretical work in CHAT around boundary objects
and crossing boundaries is particularly fruitful for examining professional experi-
ence that exists as a contested third space between the activity systems of the school
and university (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011 ; Engeström et al., 1995 ). Furthermore,
CHAT can be used as a framework for establishing, planning, analysing and evalu-
ating systematic reforms in professional experience. CHAT has been used exten-
sively by Engeström and colleagues in the Centre for Research on Activity,
Development and Learning at the University of Oslo as a framework to guide for-
mative interventions to understand and improve organisational culture and learning
(Engeström, Sannino, & Virkkunen, 2014 ).
Acknowledgement This research was supported under the University of Sydney Postdoctoral
Research Fellowship Scheme at the University of Sydney, Australia.
References
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of
Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. doi:10.3102/0034654311404435.
Allen, J. M., Howells, K., & Radford, R. (2013). A ‘Partnership in Teaching Excellence’: Ways
in which one school–university partnership has fostered teacher development. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 99–110. doi:10.1080/1359866x.2012.753988.
Baumfield, V., & Butterworth, M. (2007). Creating and translating knowledge about teaching
and learning in collaborative school–university research partnerships: An analysis of what is
exchanged across the partnerships, by whom and how. Teachers and Teaching, 13(4), 411–427.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600701391960.
T. Loughland and H.T.M. Nguyen