A teacher performing action research: capturing pupils’ perspectives of didactic relations

Authors

  • Reetta Niemi

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2019.7.2.03b

Keywords:

pedagogical action research, didactics, didactic relations, pupils’ agency, visual methods

Abstract

In this practitioner research, I work as a teacher-researcher and examine my own teaching. In the paper I have answered the question: How can pedagogical action research be used as a methodology in capturing pupils’ perceptions of didactic relations? In this article I describe how I was able to implement the goals set in the curriculum and at the same time collect and analyse data with my pupils. The data for this paper is narrative and it comprises 136 pictures and 25 audio-visual artefacts (20 picture books, three iMovie videos and two PowerPoint presentations) created by 4th grade students. This study supported the pupils’ agency, the core goal of pedagogical action research, on many levels. The pupils were able to choose the number of pictures and the application they wanted to use. The methods used in the study also worked in launching pupils’ perspectives of subject didactics and issues connected to the traditional classification of didactics: what to study, how to study and what purpose to study for and gave me an opportunity to develop my teaching according to the pupils’ wishes. However, in the study I failed to reveal the pupils’ perspectives of the pedagogical relationship between them and myself.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

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

2019-11-01

How to Cite

Niemi, R. (2019). A teacher performing action research: capturing pupils’ perspectives of didactic relations. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education, 7(2), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2019.7.2.03b

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 2 (2019)

Section

Articles

License

The authors who publish in Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education agree to the following terms:

  1. This journal provides immediate open access to its content. All the articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
  2. Authors grant the journal right of (1) first publication and distribution of the article, (2) making it available to public, (3) public presentation.
  3. 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.
  4. 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).