Over the last few decades, a number of authors (e.g. Arnstein, 1969; Brager and Sprecht, 1973; Cornwall, 1996) have developed useful typologies of participation based primarily on distinguishing between different degrees of shared power and influence. These models do not address the participation of children and young people directly, which is quite specific even though originating from the same theoretical principles.
Hart uses the metaphor of a ladder to highlight the distinction between several types of children’s ‘non-participation’ on the one hand and different levels of ‘real participation’ on the other (1992; 1997). The ladder metaphor has been criticised for suggesting ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ levels of participation, with the higher often valued more positively than the lower. The danger of this is that participation becomes ritualised, with higher levels imposed as an imperative, creating a case for what some critics have called ‘participation as tyranny’ (Cooke and Kothari, 2001: 4). Hart (1997) emphasises, however, that using this conceptualisation does not mean that it is always necessary for children to participate at the highest possible level. The most important principle in determining the level of participation, according to Hart, should be the students’ choice; ideally, children and young people should be able to determine how much they would like to be involved while conditions should be provided to optimise the opportunity for every child to participate at the highest level of his or her competence, interest and motivation. Yet, research has demonstrated that a number of determinants such as the overall societal and school culture, the specific issues that are being dealt with in teaching, as well as the skills and competences of teachers influence the level and quality of student participation in practice (Johnson et al., 1998; Simovska and Jensen, 2003).
176 The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice
When we think about participation from a variety of perspectives in learning theory the meaning of it varies substantially. Conventional learning theories typically attempt to explain the ways individuals learn and to discuss the implications of these explanations by considering teaching strategies that would foster an isolated individual’s learning. In contrast, the socio-cultural theory of learning and development inspired by the ideas of Vygotsky, among others, interprets learning as a profoundly social process, linked closely to the processes of psychological development. In Vygotsky’s view (1978; 1987), the problems of teaching and learning cannot be successfully analysed without exploring the relation between learning and development first. He suggests a radically new approach based on the concept of zone of proximal development, defined as:
…the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978: 86).
In other words, as the developmental processes take place ‘behind’ the learning process; this difference results in the zone of proximal development. This means, according to Vygotsky (1987), that any ‘good’ learning leads the development. One of the crucial characteristics of learning is that it stimulates a number of developmental processes within an individual, which can operate only in the context of interaction of the individual with the adults or peers in her or his surrounding. Then, through the processes of internalisation these developmental processes become part of the individual’s independent development. Internalisation refers to a process of internal reconstruction of an external operation. The concept of zone of proximal development points to a change of focus in learning theories, involving deeper consideration of the interaction between cognition, context and practice. The change in focus also means that the unit of analysis is not the individual but the dynamic integration of the individual and the social environment.
In her interpretation of Vygotsky’s theory, Rogoff (1990; 1995) extends the concept of zone of proximal development by emphasising the interrelatedness of the roles of children and adults and pointing to the active role of children as participants in their own learning and development. Instead of internalisation the notion of ‘appropriation’ is suggested to describe the mechanisms through
which learning takes place. Appropriation is determined as a process in which individuals participating in an action change so they can more easily handle further actions and interactions. Internalisation means that children make external things internal. In contrast, appropriation is participatory; children
‘must already be functioning in the social activity in order to be making their contributions’ (Rogoff, 1993: 139) and that is how they develop insights, critical skills and competence. Building on Vygotsky, Rogoff suggests that processes of learning and development should draw attention to how personal efforts, interpersonal relationships and culturally structured activities constitute each other. In other words, it would not be sufficient to focus on individual learning or competence development without paying attention to the interpersonal relationships as socio-cultural activities in which learning and development are taking place.
It is through the process of guided participation that the link is provided between previous experience and competences and the skills and information needed to solve new problems (Rogoff, 1995; Rogoff et al., 2001). Intersubjec-tivity and participation-in-meaning are therefore considered to be core elements of participatory learning. These two concepts serve to emphasise that creation of meaning and understanding is relational, that is, it happens betweenpeople.
Both the concepts of intersubjectivity and participation-in-meaning refer to a process in which participants reach an agreement and common, dialogical understanding of actions with which they are faced. Intersubjectivity is, in a way, a shared meaning that persons involved in interaction create on the basis of a joint focus of attention, shared visions and other assumptions that shape their common communication ground.
In this perspective, knowledge is interpreted as a social process of knowledge construction rather than an object for students to internalise. Meaning and knowing are negotiated and dynamically created and re-created through participation in socially organized activities. Thus, authentic student participation and social guidance that builds on students’ perspectives in teaching and learning processes are considered essential dimensions of personally meaningful learning.
The socio-cultural perspective inevitably puts forward the importance of interpersonal relationships in facilitating active student participation in teaching and learning processes. Particularly important seem to be the relationships with teachers and other adults or ‘more experienced participants’, as they play the vital role of supporting and guiding learning in the zone of
178 The Health Promoting School: International Advances in Theory, Evaluation and Practice
proximal development. Experience needs to be related before it can be conceptualized. Therefore, the relationships form a kind of developmental infrastructure on which school experiences build (Pianta, 1999). Teachers need to be aware of educationally critical aspects of students’ experience and build participatory situations that are slightly beyond their current competence. In other words, relationships constitute part of a specific quality of the zone of proximal development, which could be more or less conducive to encouraging students’ learning and enhancing their competences. It is essential that through authentic participation and also through ‘intent participation’, i.e.
listening-in in anticipation of participation (Rogoff et al., 2003), students attempt to create meaning for the actions in which they take part. The process of creating meaning takes place while they actively search for common ground and understanding with the other participants.
Thus, in the context of the health promoting schools one can argue that participation in dialogue, changes of perspective, reflecting on and constructing shared meanings about health problems and strategies for solutions, are equally important in the development of action competence as is undertaking specific actions.