| 1. |
- Francisco, Susanne, et al.
(författare)
-
Action research as professional learning in and through practice
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Professional Development in Education.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It is widely accepted that professional learning is a crucial aspect of the ongoing professional practice of educators. But how should this professional learning take place, and what arrangements enable and constrain practices associated with educator learning? In this article we explore two case studies of action research projects: one undertaken with Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) teachers, and the other undertaken with Swedish principals. Using the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis, Wilkinson et al. 2014) and the Professional Learning Framework developed by Salo et al. (2024), we consider what action research team members identified that they learnt through the action research projects, and what enabled and constrained that learning. Findings highlight five key themes that enabled and constrained educator professional learning and supported educators in making positive changes in their professional practice: power and solidarity, trust, recognition, agency and time. Further, reflection and collaboration were also highlighted as important factors in supporting educator professional learning. We conclude that action research can enable educator professional learning, can support the contextualised understanding of what works, how it works and for whom it works, and can enable educators to make positive changes in their professional practices.
|
|
| 2. |
- Frascisco, Susanne, et al.
(författare)
-
Action research as professional learning in and through practice
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Professional Development in Education. - : Routledge. - 1941-5257 .- 1941-5265. ; 50:3, s. 501-518
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It is widely accepted that professional learning is a crucial aspect of the ongoing professional practice of educators. But how should this professional learning take place, and what arrangements enable and constrain practices associated with educator learning? In this article, we explore two case studies of action research projects: one undertaken with Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) teachers, and the other undertaken with Swedish principals. Using the theory of practice architectures and the Professional Learning Framework (see text), we consider what action research team members identified that they learnt through the action research projects, and what enabled and constrained that learning. The findings highlight five key themes that enabled and constrained educator professional learning and supported educators in making positive changes in their professional practice: power and solidarity, trust, recognition, agency and time. Further, reflection and collaboration were also highlighted as important factors in supporting educator professional learning. We conclude that action research can enable educator professional learning, can support the contextualised understanding of what works, how it works and for whom it works, and can enable educators to make positive changes in their professional practices
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
-
Undervisning i förskolan. Förskollärare och forskare i dialog om didaktiska dilemman.
- 2024
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Undervisning som fenomen är inte något nytt i förskolan men det har oftast inte benämnts just undervisning. Sedan undervisningsbegreppet för förskolan infördes i skollagen år 2010 och i läroplanen 2018 har dock diskussionen om begreppet varit livlig bland både förskolans pedagoger och förskoleforskare. I denna bok definierar 13 förskollärare undervisningen i förskolan i form av didaktiska dilemman. I varje kapitel beskrivs ett undervisningsfall som sedan bearbetas i en dialog med forskare och andra förskollärare som kommenterar dilemmat ur sina perspektiv. Avslutningsvis reflekterar förskollärarna över dialogen och drar slutsatser som bidrar till ny didaktisk kunskap, sprungen ur och avsedd för förskolan. Undervisning i förskolan. Förskollärare och forskare i dialog om didaktiska dilemman vänder sig till förskollärare och annan personal i förskolan samt förskollärarstudenter som vill diskutera och utveckla sin kunskap och handlingskompetens när det kommer till undervisning i förskolan. Boken är även intressant som ett bidrag till utvecklingen av förskolans didaktiska kunskapsfält.
|
|
| 6. |
- Almqvist, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
Didactical Dilemmas in a Research and School Development Project
- 2019
-
Ingår i: ECER-conference, Hamburg, 3-6 September 2019.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In this paper, we will present a study of development dialogues between researchers and practitioners in a Swedish upper secondary school. In working with this project we have used and further developed an approach, inspired by the work of Kathleen Armour (Armour, 2014; Casey et al., 2016), that we have named Dialogue for Didactic Development (Almqvist et al., 2016; Almqvist et al., 2017; Olin et al., 2017; Olin et al. 2018). This is a method which was enacted and developed in a book project (Almqvist et al., 207) and which is now used in a large school development project in a Swedish municipality. The aim of the presentation is to describe and discuss didactical knowledge produced by researchers and practitioners together. The idea of didactic inquiry emphasizes both researchers and teachers as crucial actors in development of disciplinary knowledge about teaching (Carlgren, 2012; Ingerman & Wickman, 2015; Ko, 2018; Wickman, 2015). In our study, we highlight the notion that researchers’ and practitioners’ mutual knowledge production may have consequences for both practices. To be able do this, we turn to previous didactical research built on pragmatism, namely, the cooperative engineering and the didactic modeling approaches (cf. Hamza et al., 2018; Joffredo-Le Brun et al., 2018; Sensevy et al., 2013; Wickman et al, 2018). In our work, we have combined this line of didactical research with theories, methodologies and results from the field of action research (Almqvist et al., 2016; Almqvist et al., 2017; Olin et al., 2017; Olin et al. 2018). Action research contributes to this in many ways, but especially in its interest in changes of practices and what is at stake for the participants in collaborative work (cf. Edwards-Groves et al., 2016). The combination of these approaches makes it possible to study teachers’ and school leaders’ practice. In this work, the dialogue between participants (both practitioners and researchers) is central, both as a base for development and as a unit of analysis. Meetings between practitioners and researchers are being arranged and developed in the project. One ambition is to create knowledge in the intersection between the two fields of action research and didactics, two fields that are both interested in the development of the teacher profession and school development. If and how the collaboration between researchers and teachers may occur is, in this perspective, not an uncontested area of knowledge, and depends on underlying views of theory and practice as well as how professional learning may be framed (Carlgren, 2012; Hamza et al, 2018). Thus, one crucial question in development work is how the relation between the participating actors in a practice is constituted. Hence, the basic idea of the project is to use research and practice in reflection on and development of concrete didactic dilemmas. In our previous studies in the project, we have concentrated on the two forms of recognition identified by Ricœur, namely recognition of oneself and the notion of mutual recognition between participants (Almqvist et al., 2016; Olin et al., 2017; Olin et al. 2018). In this paper we focus on the third form of recognition, namely recognition of something. We understand this as the didactical dilemmas recognized by the practitioners in the project. Method The empirical material analyzed in this study is produced in a research and development project in Landskrona, a municipality in the southern part of Swedish. The project centers on school development on the basis of teaching challenges. In the very center of the work are didactical dilemmas identified and described by practitioners. These dilemmas are written as cases by the practitioners, describing the problem that they have identified, together with a description of how the dilemma is handled by them in practice. Three experts (researchers and teachers) from different fields contribute with comments on the case from their different perspectives. The comment is based on the case and has to be of a reasoning nature. It can, for example, be about (1) Strengthening: The arguments and points presented by the case author are highlighted, confirmed and discussed. (2) Supplementing: The comment points to things that may be missing in the description of the case and complements additional aspects of how the dilemma has been dealt with in other contexts. (3) Problematizing: The starting points on which the case is based are challenged and nuanced. In this way, the commentary is about changing focus and suggesting alternative ways of understanding the current dilemma. A collaborating author (researcher) pulls together and summarizes the case and the different comments, and finally, the practitioner discusses and reflects on the comments. We see the last section of each dialogue as very central. This is where the practitioner’s voice and agency become most evident in the dialogue. The empirical material consists of eleven didactical development dialogues organized in eleven chapters in a forthcoming anthology. For the study presented in this paper, we have made a qualitative analysis of the chapters, focusing on the practitioners’ dilemmas. More specifically, we have concentrated on the last section of the case descriptions, analyzing the knowledge that is expressed in practitioners’ reflections about their own development based on their case description and the three comments they have received. Expected Outcomes In the analysis of the dialogues, we have found three categories of dilemmas, with sub-categories. These correspond very well with the three different kinds of relations expressed in the didactical triangle, namely teacher-student, teacher-content and student-content. Our findings about practitioners’ identification and handling of didactic dilemmas are the following. First, the teachers handle dilemmas related to the relation between teacher and student. This concern issues such as individualization while working with large heterogenic student groups, teaching students to become independent, teachers’ and students’ respective responsibilities in the classroom, and how to act in and change the school system in order to enhance the prerequisites for teaching. Secondly, the teachers handle dilemmas related to the relationship between teacher and educational content. They select, opt out and organize educational content and teaching method, teach study technique and hand out homework. Thirdly, teachers handle dilemmas related to the relationship between student and educational content, which means that they handle dilemmas concerning for example students’ difficulties to understand a task or a content of some kind and students’ different prerequisites for learning. The study indicates that the researchers and practitioners who are participating in the development dialogues mutually contribute to the construction of knowledge. The dilemmas that the teachers identify are in a way very general, but they are also specific and situational in the sense that they concern the teachers’ work in specific classrooms. In development dialogues, teachers and researcher contribute with new ways of understanding and dealing with didactical dilemmas. This becomes very obvious when reading and analyzing the concluding remarks made by the practitioners. References Almqvist, J., Hamza, K., Olin, A. (2016). Didactical investigations for professional development. Paper presented at ECER in Dublin, August 22-26 Almqvist, J; Hamza, K. & Olin, A. (Eds.)(2017). Undersöka och utveckla undervisning [Investigating and Developing Teaching]. Lund: Studentlittteratur. Armour, K.(Ed.)(2014). Pedagogical cases in physical education and youth sport. Oxon: Routledge. Casey, A.; Goodyear, V. & Armour, K. (Eds.)(2016). Digital technologies and learning in physical education. Pedagogical cases. Oxon: Routledge. Carlgren, I. (2012). The learning study as an approach for “clinical” subject matter didactic research. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(2), 126-139. Edwards-Groves, C.; Olin, A & Karlberg-Granlund, G. (2016). Partnership and recognition in action research: understanding the practices and practice architectures for participation and change. Educational Action Research, 24(3), 321-333. Hamza, K., Palm, O., Palmqvist, J., Piqueras, J., & Wickman, P.-O. (2018). Hybridization of practices in teacher-researcher collaboration. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 170-186 Ingerman, A., & Wickman, P.-O. (2015). Towards a teachers' professional discipline: Shared Responsibility for didactic models in research and practice. In P. Burnard, B.-M. Apelgren & N. Cabaroglu (Eds.), Transformative teacher research (pp. 167-179). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Joffredo-Le Brun, S.; Morellato, M.; Sensevy, G. & Quilio, S. (2018). Cooperative engineering as a joint action. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 187-208. Ko, P.Y. (2018): Beyond labels: what are the salient features of lesson study and learning study?, Educational Action Research. Published online 11 October 2018. Olin, A., Almqvist, J & Hamza, K. (2017). Didactics, dialogue and development. Paper presented at the ECER conference, August 22-25, 2017. Olin, A., Lenzen, B & Sensevy, G (2018). Professional development and recognition. Paper presented in the double symposium Comparative Didactic Analyses of Science Education and Physical Education and Health in Sweden, Switzerland and France, at ECER in Bolzano. Sensevy G, Forest D, Quilio S, et al. (2013) Cooperative engineering as a specific design-based research. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education 45(7): 1031–1043. Wickman, P.-O. (2015). Teaching learning progressions: An international perspective. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (2nd ed., pp. 145-163). New York: Routledge. Wickman, P.-O., Hamza, K., & Lundegård, I. (20
|
|
| 7. |
- Almqvist, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
Didactical Investigations for Professional Development
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Paper presented at ECER conference, 22-26 August 2016, Dublin.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The research presented in the paper is part of a large research project built on a comparative didactics approach (cf. Almqvist & Quennerstedt 2015; Ligozat et al 2015) with the overall ambition to search for and analyze different teaching traditions in order to optimize the possibility to find effective and fruitful teaching approaches. One of the aims in the project is to use and develop didactic knowledge and concepts in cooperation with teachers (cf. Sensevy et al 2013, Wickman 2015). In this paper we will present and discuss a way for researchers to participate in teachers’ development of teaching. Teaching is a complex, transactional process affected by numerous contingencies both within and outside the classroom. Thus, it is necessarily underdetermined by any theories about teaching and learning. Just like medicine or engineering, didactic knowledge therefore needs to be developed in interaction between more general, ”theoretical” models of teaching, and the actual practices which these theories are intended to support (Wickman, 2015). This realization is consistent with current views of teacher professional development as needing to involve teachers in collaborative and inquiry-based projects grounded in problems identified by the teachers themselves (McNicholl, 2013; Sensevy et al 2013; van Driel, Meirink, van Veen, & Zwart, 2012). The idea of didactic modelling or inquiry goes beyond these notions by emphasizing not only teacher learning and the development of local practice but also the successive modification and refinement of the theories themselves (Lijnse & Klaassen, 2004; Wickman, 2012). From that point of view, researchers in didactics and practicing teachers are seen as different but equally crucial actors in the joint construction and successive development of disciplinary knowledge about teaching. Neither teacher professional learning nor didactic research primarily proceeds by substituting old ideas with new ones. Instead knowledge, personal as well as institutional, is transformed bit-by-bit through noticing of and reflection upon consequences for both practice and theory (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Wickman, 2012). Through this kind of joint and reciprocal work, generating personal as well as institutionalized knowledge which is thoroughly and continuously mangled through actual practice (Pickering, 1995), teachers as a collective may develop a common basis for their choices of content and methods for teaching (Wickman, 2015). However, the ambition to find ways for researchers too contribute to educational development is not new. A research field with long experience of and knowledge about development work where researchers and teachers collaborate is the action research field. Action research is a broad field both in a geographical as well as theoretical sense (Somekh & Zeichner, 2009), including different purposes, conditions, philosophical starting-points and forms for inquiry. Nevertheless, there are also characterizing features in all variations of action research. According to Reason and Bradbury (2001), action research always has an emergent developmental form; it deals with practical issues, supports human development, is founded on knowledge-in-action and aims at participation and democracy (p. 2). The role of teachers in educational research has been an essential topic for decades especially in critical theoretical approaches such as Participatory Action Research (PAR).
|
|
| 8. |
- Almqvist, Jonas, 1968-, et al.
(författare)
-
Didactical Investigations for Professional Development
- 2016
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The research presented in the paper is part of a large research project built on a comparative didactics approach (cf. Almqvist & Quennerstedt 2015; Ligozat et al 2015) with the overall ambition to search for and analyze different teaching traditions in order to optimize the possibility to find effective and fruitful teaching approaches. One of the aims in the project is to use and develop didactic knowledge and concepts in cooperation with teachers (cf. Sensevy et al 2013, Wickman 2015). In this paper we will present and discuss a way for researchers to participate in teachers’ development of teaching.Teaching is a complex, transactional process affected by numerous contingencies both within and outside the classroom. Thus, it is necessarily underdetermined by any theories about teaching and learning. Just like medicine or engineering, didactic knowledge therefore needs to be developed in interaction between more general, ”theoretical” models of teaching, and the actual practices which these theories are intended to support (Wickman, 2015). This realization is consistent with current views of teacher professional development as needing to involve teachers in collaborative and inquiry-based projects grounded in problems identified by the teachers themselves (McNicholl, 2013; Sensevy et al 2013; van Driel, Meirink, van Veen, & Zwart, 2012).The idea of didactic modelling or inquiry goes beyond these notions by emphasizing not only teacher learning and the development of local practice but also the successive modification and refinement of the theories themselves (Lijnse & Klaassen, 2004; Wickman, 2012). From that point of view, researchers in didactics and practicing teachers are seen as different but equally crucial actors in the joint construction and successive development of disciplinary knowledge about teaching.Neither teacher professional learning nor didactic research primarily proceeds by substituting old ideas with new ones. Instead knowledge, personal as well as institutional, is transformed bit-by-bit through noticing of and reflection upon consequences for both practice and theory (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Wickman, 2012). Through this kind of joint and reciprocal work, generating personal as well as institutionalized knowledge which is thoroughly and continuously mangled through actual practice (Pickering, 1995), teachers as a collective may develop a common basis for their choices of content and methods for teaching (Wickman, 2015).However, the ambition to find ways for researchers too contribute to educational development is not new. A research field with long experience of and knowledge about development work where researchers and teachers collaborate is the action research field. Action research is a broad field both in a geographical as well as theoretical sense (Somekh & Zeichner, 2009), including different purposes, conditions, philosophical starting-points and forms for inquiry. Nevertheless, there are also characterizing features in all variations of action research. According to Reason and Bradbury (2001), action research always has an emergent developmental form; it deals with practical issues, supports human development, is founded on knowledge-in-action and aims at participation and democracy (p. 2). The role of teachers in educational research has been an essential topic for decades especially in critical theoretical approaches such as Participatory Action Research (PAR).Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In the seminal book Becoming critical (Carr & Kemmis, 1986) the aim was to clarify that teachers have to be a part of the research together with researchers if there is going to be more than purely theoretical knowledge about educational change, and if actual change is to be effected. From a Swedish perspective working in action research partnerships between teachers and researchers, school and university, has been emphasized and developed since policies for education in the 1990s opened up for this kind of collaborations as a strategy of developing schools on the basis of research (Salo, Furu & Rönnerman, 2008, p.16). Being interested in how research and practice development may occur through productive relationships between researchers and teachers means that not only knowledge itself needs to be explored, but also dimensions like dialogue and recognition (Groves, Olin, & Karlberg-Granlund, forthcoming). In action research, there is a quest towards sound communication in community with other individuals as a foundation for professional growth and development in practices, which can contribute to knowledge formation. In transformative partnerships reciprocal relationships between research and practice based on ongoing negotiation and renegotiation of substantive claims and judgments by all involved in the research, rests on the possibility of recognition of the other within intersubjective spaces that openly nurtures an individual’s sense of being a valuable contributor in the professional learning projects. The methodology developed and discussed in the paper is a way for researchers and teachers to produce knowledge about teaching in common writing about educational cases. The case, which is written by an educational researcher (the lead author) together with an active teacher will (1) describe some kind of didactic dilemma or problem that the teacher has identified and (2) a description of how the dilemma is handled in the teacher's practice. In a second step of the analyses, a couple of researchers from different fields write comments on the case from their different perspectives. In the third step, the lead author and the teacher pull together, summarize and discuss the case and the different comments. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings In the paper we describe and discuss three cases of teaching written by teachers and researchers together. The results show how questions identified by active teachers can be developed by using results from didactical research, but also how didactical knowledge and concepts may be developed when applied in the cases. Preliminary themes handled in the cases are (a) different ways of teaching the same educational content, (b) student’s participation in the classroom discussion and (c) application of scientific knowledge in everyday situations. During the writing process we also analyze if and how the writers’ ways of thinking about the specific cases develops. Consequently, we produce and present two different kinds of knowledge in the paper. Firstly, the results show how the teaching practices was developed in the joint work of teacher and researcher, and secondly how didactical knowledge and concepts can be applied, and perhaps developed, in the writing process. We will also discuss the cases in relation to professional development – specifically the development of teaching in terms of educational content, teaching and learning – and how the relation between researcher and teacher in cooperation depends on their recognition of each other’s perspectives and knowledge.ReferencesAlmqvist, J. & Quennerstedt, M. (2015). Is there (any)body in science education? Interchange, 46(4), 439-453.Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London: Falmer Press.Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947-967.Groves, C.E., Olin, A., & Karlberg-Granlund, G. (forthcoming). Partnership and Recognition in Action Research: understanding the practices and practice architectures for participation and change. Educational Action Research.Ligozat, F., Amade-Escot, C. & Östman, L. (2015). Beyond subject specific approaches of teaching and learning: Comparative didactics? Interchange, 46(4), 313-321.Lijnse, P., & Klaassen, K. (2004). Didactical Structures as an Outcome of Research on Teaching-Learning Sequences? Special Issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 537-554.McNicholl, J. (2013). Relational agency and teacher development: a CHAT analysis of a collaborative professional inquiry project with biology teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 218-232.Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human Aspiration. I P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Red.), Handbook of Action Research. Participative Inquiry and Practice (s 1-14). London: SAGE.Salo, P., Furu, E.M., & Rönnerman, K. (2008). Educational policies and reforms. In K. Rönnerman, E. Moksnes Furu, & P. Salo (Red.). Nurturing Praxis. Action Research in Partnerships Between School and University in a Nordic Light (s 11-20). (Pedagogy, Education and Praxis, 3). Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense.Sensevy, G., Forest, D., Quilio, S. & Morales, G. (2013). Cooperative engineering as a specific design-based research. ZDM, The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 1031-1043Somekh, B. & Zeichner, K. (2009). Action research for educational reform: remodeling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 5–21.van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J. A., van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. C. (2012). Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: a review of design features and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48, 129-160.Wickman, P.-O. (2015). Teaching learning progressions: An international perspective. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (2nd ed., pp. 145-163). New York: Routledge.Wickman, P.-O. (2012). How can conceptual schemes change teaching? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 129-136.
|
|
| 9. |
- Almqvist, Jonas, 1968-, et al.
(författare)
-
Teaching Traditions in Classroom Practice : A Comparative Didactic Approach
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Didactics in a Changing World. - Cham : Springer Nature. ; , s. 55-65, s. 55-65
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Teachers make a lot of choices and handle different kinds of didactical dilemmas in their everyday teaching. Research on teaching traditions in classroom practice show that didactical challenges often do not have any clear or obvious solution, but rather needs to be made visible, problematized and discussed by teachers. In this chapter, we illustrate and discuss how comparative didactics as a growing research area may contribute to a deeper understanding of teaching in different subjects. We take our departure in research in the Nordic and French traditions of didactics and describe how research contribute to analyses, critical discussions about and development of teaching and classroom practice. More specifically, we argue that comparative didactics should be seen as a way of dealing with questions about similarities and differences in teachers’ selection of content and manners of teaching and how these selections may influence classroom practice and students’ learning. In the chapter, we focus on, illustrate and discuss two characteristics of comparative didactics. First, one of the overall ambitions of comparative didactics is to analyze what is taken for granted in different educational practices and to identify things not possible to see without doing the comparisons with other practices. Second, the comparisons between educational practices contribute with knowledge of a wide range of alternative ways of selecting goals, content and manners of teaching and can be used in the development of teaching. We focus on these questions with the specific ambition to focus on issues about teaching, classroom practice and educational content.
|
|
| 10. |
- Almqvist, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
Undersöka och utveckla undervisning. Professionell utveckling för lärare.
- 2017
-
Bok (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Boken erbjuder konkreta och autentiska exempel på hur beprövad erfarenhet och utbildningsvetenskaplig forskning kan användas som stöd för utveckling av såväl undervisning som didaktisk kunskap. Detta sker genom att forskare och lärare möts i så kallad didaktisk utvecklingsdialog om och utveckling av konkreta undervisningsfall där lärare berättar om hur de hanterat ett dilemma i sin undervisning. Nio kapitelredaktörer har samordnat den skriftligt baserade dialogen mellan lärare och forskare utifrån specifika fall. Varje kapitel består av en inledande beskrivning av fallet, som åtföljs av kommentarer och reflektioner från forskare och erfarna lärare, och avslutas med en reflektion av läraren över vad som framkommit i dialogen och vilken relevans det har för lärarens fortsatta undervisningspraktik. Undersöka och utveckla undervisning är avsedd att användas av såväl lärarstudenter som yrkesverksamma lärare. Genom att den hanterar både konkreta undervisningsfall och hur forskning och beprövad erfarenhet kan användas för att reflektera över dessa, passar den flera områden i den utbildningsvetenskapliga kärnan, såsom didaktik, utvärdering och utveckling samt läroplansteori.
|
|
