6.1. Introduction
6.2.4. Division of labour
131
Seeing that there was no response from teachers, he explained that if there is a shift in any curve it is the long term equilibrium and he immediately asked another follow up question:
Mr Khambule: What is the impact of the move in the price and quantity?
All teachers: The quantity increase.
Mr Khambule: The price drops because of abundance.
The above-mentioned observation extracts show that the facilitator opened the discussion with teachers by using questions. Questions and answers were the main mediating artefacts which enabled interaction between Economics teachers and the facilitator for Economics teachers to develop more understanding of graphs and concepts of the market structures.
Furthermore, questions, knowledge and sharing of answers were the mediating artefacts that also lead to collaboration and engagement between teachers which occurred when they were demonstrating their answers on the board for the house at large. In terms of the CHAT multi- voicedness principle, this task reflects an interchange where one was being a resource for others while drawing on others as resources during collective engagement in activity.
This collaboration and engagement of Economics teachers seem to show a relationship between knowledge as possession of individuals and knowledge as the collective activity of knowers (Ahmed, 2014). This relationship is in line with Engeström (2005) when he contends that the centrality of relational dimensions and interdependence in CHAT involves both learning from and with each other and exploring the activity jointly. In this Economics activity system, the subject- object relation was not only mediated by psychological and material tools and artefacts, but also by the community and division of labour in interaction
132
suggest that revision workshop was a collaborative activity between Mr Khambule and the Economics subject advisor. However, a contradiction of division of labour and rules played up when Mrs Mathe was directing or coordinating the programme, which is the duty of the chairperson of the Commerce Teachers Association.
The pacing of the content and the tasks were determined by Mr Khambule. The facilitator gave questions after the explanation and the teachers respond to questions by writing the answers on the board or chart then the facilitator elaborates on teacher’s answers and ends the activity. The sequencing of tasks during the mediation was also determined by Mr Khambule because at the beginning of his facilitation he stated that he was going to start with markets, Cost-benefit analysis, environmental sustainability and South African growth and development policies. The first topic; Markets took most of the time. There was little interaction among teacher themselves. There were little informal interactions between teachers when there was a lack of understanding between the facilitator (community) and subjects which led to contradictions rooted on psychological tools. Lack of understanding facilitated the contradiction between the subjects and object which emerge when the facilitator as a member of the community enacting the division of labour was elaborating on graph 2. The following extract shows contradiction of community, object and subjects:
Mr Khambule: You are a price taker is taking the price from the industry.
The profit maximisation point (while showing MC=MR on the graph) learners must know all the points. Above profit maximization point the profit of a firm will decline not that the firm will make a loss. Note the AC and the price line. How do you differentiate long run and short run? Why is the industry known as the price maker? (Teachers were speaking to one another after this question)
Male Teacher from table 9: I don’t agree that the industry is the price maker.
Male Teacher from table 10: If we say the industry is the price maker in the perfect competition, what about monopoly in the imperfect market?
(Observation held on the 27th August 2013)
This was a very interesting time when teachers were actively engaged with the facilitator by questioning, and not only by answering questions. There was a discussion amongst teachers about the issue of price maker they seemed to be hesitant about the industry being the price maker; Mr Khambule continued to explain projecting the other graph showing the shutdown point.
133
Same teacher from table 9: But Sir these questions do not need a rush they need to be printed now you are in a rush… (Teachers in the house were laughing).
Mr Khambule: You are going to get a printed version.
In terms of CHAT the above observation extracts show a collaborative and dialogical process in which different perspectives and voices met, collided and emerged (Saka, Southerland and Brooks 2009. p. 1017). This situation is in line with Blunden (2010) when he states that an activity is a multi-voiced formation because of multiple voices from subjects are prompted when they were not agreeing with facilitator that the industry is a price maker. it appears as if there is also a contradiction of object, subjects and community that occurs because of lack of understanding of concepts from the explanation of Mr Khambule. Mr Khambule’s response towards the above-mentioned contradiction was telling the teachers that he was going to give teachers printed explanation about the price maker and price taker. The authority and power carried by the facilitator ceased the debate between him and the Economics teachers.
The CHAT framework also posits that division of labour can show power dynamics during the enactment of the object. The two main concepts of CHAT namely horizontal and vertical division of labour are used to trace power dynamics. Vertical division of labour during Economics workshop is evident from the roles played by Chief Education Specialist, Deputy Chief Education Specialist and Economics subject advisor because they were enacting division of labour as DBE officials. The facilitator focused on markets, brief explanation of environmental sustainability, costs–-benefit analysis and growth and development policies of South Africa. He also presented a set of questions that teachers must do with their learners.
So he stressed the importance of questions in this way. The facilitator also carried DoE authority because he is an Economics subject advisor of in another district.
There is also some evidence of horizontal division of labour which occurred when the subjects were reporting back their answers to other subjects and the facilitator. According to Bryko (2013) the structure of an activity system is shaped and constrained by cultural factors such as community’s establishment procedure of rules as well as division of labour within the community. In line with Bryko (2013), it seems as if division of labour in Commerce Teachers’ Association is also one of the factors that constrained the structure of the activity system in that the subjects cannot enact roles accordingly because of the strong vertical division of labour of the community. The vertical division of labour of DBE officials imply
134
that Commerce Teachers’ Association is shaped by DBE culture. Culture in CHAT refers to the dialectical nature of instrumental human activity in particular, the way in which people act upon their social context aided by cultural tools (Saka, Southland and Brooks, 2009). For example, the Economics subject advisor co-ordinated the programme of the day, Deputy Chief Education Specialist explained the object of the activity, the facilitator was lecturing and the Chief Education Specialist did the vote of thanks. This situation is in contrast with what takes place in an ideal teacher learning community where the members act on equal basis.