A teacher performing action research: capturing pupils’ perspectives of didactic relations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2019.7.2.03aKeywords:
pedagogical action research, didactics, didactic relations, pupils’ agency, visual methodsAbstract
Selle uurimuse tarbeks olen õpetaja ja teadlasena uurinud enda kui õpetaja tööd. Artiklis vastan küsimusele, kuidas kasutada pedagoogilist tegevusuuringut metoodikana, mis võimaldab saada ülevaate sellest, kuidas õpilased tajuvad didaktilisi suhteid. Kirjeldan, kuidas mul õnnestus saavutada õppekavas püstitatud eesmärke ning samal ajal koos õpilastega koguda ja analüüsida uurimisandmeid. Artiklis kasutatud andmed on kogutud narratiivses vormis ja need koosnevad 4. klassi õpilaste loodud 136 pildist ja 25 audiovisuaalsest materjalist (20 pildiraamatut, kolm iMovie videot ja kaks PowerPointi esitlust). Tehtud uuring toetas mitmel tasandil õpilaste kaasatust, mis on pedagoogilise tegevusuuringu põhieesmärk. Õpilastel oli võimalik valida rakendusi ja nii palju pilte, kui nad soovisid. Uuringus kasutatud meetodid pakkusid õpilastele võimalusi avaldada arvamust ainedidaktika ja didaktika põhiküsimuste kohta – mida, kuidas ja miks õppida? – ning võimaldasid mul kujundada oma õpetamistavasid vastavalt õpilaste soovidele. Samas ei suutnud ma selle uuringu raames välja selgitada õpilaste seisukohti nende ja minu vaheliste pedagoogiliste suhete kohta.
Full textDownloads
References
Bold, C. (2012). Using narrative in research. London: SAGE Publications.
Brown, R., & Renshaw, P. (2006). Positioning students as actors and authors: A chronotopic analysis of collaborative learning activities. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1303_6
Brydon-Miller, M. (2012). Addressing the ethical challenges of community-based research. Teaching Ethics, 12(2), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.5840/tej201212223
Brydon-Miller, M., & Maguire, P. (2009). Participatory action research: Contributions to the development of practitioner inquiry in education. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802667469
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.
Clark, A. (2010). Young children as protagonists and the role of participatory, visual methods in engaging multiple perspectives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9332-y
Clark, J. (2012). Using diamond ranking as visual cues to engage young people in the research process. Qualitative Research Journal, 12(2), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1108/14439881211248365
Clark, J., Laing, K., Tiplady, L., & Woolner, P. (2013). Making connections: Theory and practice of using visual methods to aid participation in research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, Newcastle University.
Cook, T., & Hess, E. (2007). What the camera sees and from whose perspective. Fun methodologies for engaging children enlightening adults. Childhood, 14(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0907568207068562
Edwards, D., & D’Arcy, C. (2004). Relational agency and disposition in sociocultural learning to teach. Educational Review, 56(2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031910410001693236
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
Finnish National Board of Education (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014. Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/fi/koulutus-ja-tutkinnot/perusopetuksen-opetussuunnitelmien-perusteet.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. Journal of Learning Sciences, 15(4), 537–547. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1504_4
Hamilton, D. (1999). The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in England?). Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 7(1), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681369900200048
He, Y., & Levin, B. B. (2008). Match or mismatch: How congruent are the beliefs of teacher candidates, teacher educators, and cooperating teachers? Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(4), 37–55.
Heikkinen, H. L. T., Huttunen, R., & Syrjälä, L. (2007). Action research as narrative: Five principles for validation. Educational Action Research, 15(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790601150709
Kansanen, P. (1999). The Deutsche Didaktik and the American research on teaching. In B. Hudson, F. Buchberger, P. Kansanen, & H. Seel (Eds.), Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as Science(-s) of the Teaching Profession. TNTEE Publications, 2(1), 21–35.
Kansanen, P. (2003). Studying – the realistic bridge between instruction and learning. An attempt to a conceptual whole of the teaching-studying-learning process. Educational Studies, 29(2–3), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690303279
Kansanen, P. (2009). Onko ainedidaktiikka koulupedagogiikkaa? In A. Kallioniemi (toim.), Uudistuva ja kehittyvä ainedidaktiikka. Ainedidaktinen symposiumi 8.2.2008 Helsingissä. Osa 1 (ss. 19–32). Soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitoksen tutkimuksia 298. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto.
Kansanen, P., & Meri, M. (1999). The didactic relation in the teaching-studying-learning process. In B. Hudson, F. Buchberger, P. Kansanen, & H. Seel (Eds.), Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as Science(-s) of the Teaching Profession. TNTEE Publications, 2(1), 107–116.
Kaplan, I., Lewis, I., & Mumba, P. (2007). Picturing global educational inclusion? Looking and thinking across students’ photographs from the UK, Zambia and Indonesia. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00078.x
Kemmis, S. (2006). Participatory action research and the public sphere. Educational Action Research, 14(4), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790600975593
Klette, K. (2007). Trends in research on teaching and learning in schools: Didactics meets classroom studies. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.147
Loughran, J. (2002). Researching teaching for understanding. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 1–9). London: Routledge.
Lytle, S. L., Portnoy, D., Waff, D., & Buckley, M. (2009). Teacher research in urban Philadelphia: Twenty years working within, against, and beyond the system. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802667428
Mannay, D. (2016). Visual, narrative and creative research methods: Application, reflection and ethics. New York: Routledge.
Mohr, M. M. (2001). Deafting ethical guidlines for teacher research in schools. In J. Zeni (Ed.), Ethical issue in practitioner research (pp. 3–12). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Niemi, R. (2018). Five approaches to pedagogical action research. Educational Action Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1528876
Niemi, R., Heikkinen, H. L. T., & Kannas, L. (2010). Polyphony in the classroom: Reporting narrative action research reflexively. Educational Action Research, 18(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650791003740485
Niemi, R., & Kiilakoski, T. (2019). "I learned to cooperate with my friends and there were no quarrels": Pupils’ experiences of participation in a multidisciplinary learning module. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1639817
Niemi, R., Kumpulainen, K., & Lipponen, L. (2015a). Pupils as active participants: Diamond ranking as a tool to investigate pupils’ experiences of classroom practices. European Educational Research Journal, 14(2), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115571797
Niemi, R., Kumpulainen, K., & Lipponen, L. (2015b). Pupils’ documentation enlightening teachers’ practical theory and pedagogical actions. Educational Action Research, 23(4), 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2014.942334
Niemi, R., Kumpulainen, K., & Lipponen, L. (2018). The use of a diamond ranking and peer interviews to capture pupils’ perspectives. Improving Schools, 21(3), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480218774604
Niemi, R., Kumpulainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Hilppö, J. (2015). Pupils’ perspectives on the lived pedagogy of the classroom. Education 3-13, 43(6), 683–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2013.859716
Nind, M., Curtin, A., & Hall, K. (2018). Research methods for pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury.
Nordkvelle, Y. T. (2003). Didactics: From classical rethoric to kitchen-Latin. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 11(3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360300200177
Pithouse, K., Mitchell, C., & Weber, S. (2009). Self-study in teaching and teacher development: A call to action. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802667444
Roberts, H. (2008). Listening to children: And hearing them. In P. M. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 260–275). Oxon: Routledge.
Rudduck, J., & Hopkins, D. (1985). Research as a basics for teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
Savin-Baden, M., & Tombs, G. (2017). Research methods for education in the digital age. London: Bloomburry.
Stenberg, K., Karlsson, L., Pitkäniemi, H., & Maaranen, K. (2014). Beginning student teachers’ teacher identities based on their practical theories. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.882309
Stevens, D. M., Brydon-Miller, M., & Raider-Roth, M. (2016). Structured ethical reflection in practitioner inquiry: Theory, pedagogy, and practice. The Educational Forum, 80(4), 430–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2016.1206160
Zeni, J. (2013). Ethics and the ’Personal’ in action research. In S. E. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 254–266). London: SAGE Publications. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857021021.n24
Taber, K. S. (2013). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: An introduction. London: Sage.
Waring, M., & Evans, C. (2015). Understanding pedagogy: Developing a critical approach to teaching and learning. London: Routledge.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1–33). London: Sage.
Woolner, P., Clark, J., Laing, K., Thomas, U., & Tiplady, L. (2012). Changing spaces: Preparing students and teachers for a new learning environment. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.22.1.0052
Woolner, P., Clark, J., Laing, K., Thomas, U., & Tiplady, L. (2014). A school tries to change: How leaders and teachers understand changes to space and practices in a UK secondary school. Improving Schools, 17(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480214537931
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The authors who publish in Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education agree to the following terms:
- This journal provides immediate open access to its content. All the articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
- Authors grant the journal right of (1) first publication and distribution of the article, (2) making it available to public, (3) public presentation.
- Authors have the right to enter into separate contractual arrangements for posting the article to an institutional repository or publish it in a book with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted to post citations from their work online (e.g. on their website) with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal (see Open Access).
