Enabling collaborative lesson research

Sally Bamber, Sarah Blears‐Chalmers, Daryn Egan-Simon, Christine Packer, Sarah Guest, Joanna Hall
{"title":"Enabling collaborative lesson research","authors":"Sally Bamber, Sarah Blears‐Chalmers, Daryn Egan-Simon, Christine Packer, Sarah Guest, Joanna Hall","doi":"10.1002/curj.263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we interrogate and justify the design of a local project that used collaborative design research in a secondary school in England. As authors, we represent teachers and teacher educators engaged in design research, whereby we acknowledge the difficulties implicit to university and school collaborations within a performative culture. Our analysis recognises the struggle for research‐informed professional judgement in the decision‐making and actions of educators that are situated in schools. A professional learning project is analysed to position teachers and teacher educators as practitioner researchers. In this respect, Stenhouse's work provides an analytical framework that is both a lens through which to interpret the nature of collaborations, as well as a methodology that allows us to understand the way in which we navigate the gap between educators' aspirations and the curriculum design and teaching within the project. The collaborative design research project was stimulated by an aspiration to make trigonometry accessible to low prior attaining pupils in a secondary mathematics classroom. This provides a stimulus for understanding the conditions that enable collaborative lesson inquiry and to question whether it can provoke raised aspirations for young people in inclusive classrooms. This allows us to understand the work of teachers as researchers and research users in an increasingly messy teacher education context. We interrogate the potentially problematic connection between research and practice within collaborative inquiry, as we understand how we enable research that is “held accountable for its relevance to practice” because “that relevance can only be validated by practitioners” (Stenhouse, 1988, p. 49).","PeriodicalId":93147,"journal":{"name":"The curriculum journal","volume":"80 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The curriculum journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we interrogate and justify the design of a local project that used collaborative design research in a secondary school in England. As authors, we represent teachers and teacher educators engaged in design research, whereby we acknowledge the difficulties implicit to university and school collaborations within a performative culture. Our analysis recognises the struggle for research‐informed professional judgement in the decision‐making and actions of educators that are situated in schools. A professional learning project is analysed to position teachers and teacher educators as practitioner researchers. In this respect, Stenhouse's work provides an analytical framework that is both a lens through which to interpret the nature of collaborations, as well as a methodology that allows us to understand the way in which we navigate the gap between educators' aspirations and the curriculum design and teaching within the project. The collaborative design research project was stimulated by an aspiration to make trigonometry accessible to low prior attaining pupils in a secondary mathematics classroom. This provides a stimulus for understanding the conditions that enable collaborative lesson inquiry and to question whether it can provoke raised aspirations for young people in inclusive classrooms. This allows us to understand the work of teachers as researchers and research users in an increasingly messy teacher education context. We interrogate the potentially problematic connection between research and practice within collaborative inquiry, as we understand how we enable research that is “held accountable for its relevance to practice” because “that relevance can only be validated by practitioners” (Stenhouse, 1988, p. 49).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
促进协作式课程研究
在本文中,我们对英国一所中学的合作设计研究本地项目的设计进行了分析和论证。作为作者,我们代表从事设计研究的教师和教师教育者,承认在表演文化中大学和学校合作所隐含的困难。我们的分析认识到,在学校教育工作者的决策和行动中,他们努力争取以研究为依据的专业判断。通过对专业学习项目的分析,我们将教师和教师教育者定位为实践研究者。在这方面,斯滕豪斯的著作提供了一个分析框架,它既是解读合作性质的一个视角,也是一种方法论,使我们能够理解我们是如何在教育者的愿望与项目中的课程设计和教学之间找到差距的。在中学数学课堂上,让成绩较差的学生也能学习三角函数的愿望激发了合作设计研究项目。这为我们了解促成合作探究课程的条件提供了动力,也为我们质疑合作探究是否能在全纳课堂上激起年轻人更高的期望提供了动力。这使我们能够在日益混乱的师范教育背景下,了解教师作为研究者和研究用户所开展的工作。我们审视了合作探究中研究与实践之间可能存在的问题,因为我们了解如何使研究 "对其与实践的相关性负责",因为 "这种相关性只能由实践者来验证"(Stenhouse,1988 年,第 49 页)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Toward a grammar of curriculum practice: Embracing new conceptions of curriculum and curriculum planning By Edmund C.Short, State University of New York Press. 2023. 160 pp. $33.95 (paperback). ISBN: 9781438493473 Rethinking student teachers' professional learning in Wales: Promoting reflection‐in‐action Development and evaluation of neuroscience lesson content to improve Key Stage 3 (11–14 year old) students' understanding of the early years in England Reclaiming accountability through collaborative curriculum enquiry: New directions in teacher evaluation Barriers to curriculum accessibility for students with visual impairment in general education setting: The experience of lower secondary school students in Senegal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1