What is to be Learned? Teachers’ Collective Inquiry into the Object of Learning

Kullberg, Angelika; Mårtensson, Pernilla; Runesson, Ulla

doi:10.1080/00313831.2015.1119725

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Teachers plan lessons together with the researchers, and lessons are taught and observed as in Lesson Study. Students are tested on their knowledge and understanding before and after each cycle of lessons and the results fed back into the next cycle (e.g., Kullberg et al 2016). It was interesting that our survey did not return any papers relating to Learning Study.…”

Section: Lesson Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

ICME international survey on teachers working and learning through collaboration: June 2016

Robutti

Cusi

Clark-Wilson

et al. 2016

ZDM Mathematics Education

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Lesson Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

ICME international survey on teachers working and learning through collaboration: June 2016

Robutti

Cusi

Clark-Wilson

et al. 2016

ZDM Mathematics Education

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, in SDG, all teachers collect data from their own classes, which is then reflected upon and evaluated. Despite these differences, an interesting point, as we see it, is that SDG seems to be an arrangement that may help develop teachers' knowledge in ways similar to LearS (Björkholm, 2015;Kullberg et al, 2016;Mårtensson, 2015;Pang and Ki, 2016;Thorsten, 2015). It is tempting to surmise that SDG may be as effective as LearS, if the purpose is to develop teachers' learning of what the students need to learn, even if teachers do not observe or revise lessons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In some studies (e.g. Björkholm, 2015;Kullberg et al, 2016;Mårtensson, 2015;Thorsten, 2015), the teachers took their own group of students' ways of seeing the object of learning into consideration and investigated the aspects the students focused on. This enhanced the ways the teachers transformed their knowledge, and it shows that the object o f learning is relational in nature (Pang and Ki, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenging teachers’ ideas about what students need to learn

Mårtensson

Hansson

2018

IJLLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the processes that make teachers learn in a collaborative arrangement similar to lesson study (LS) and learning study (LearS). The teachers in this collaboration wanted to enhance teaching and student learning (grades 4-7) about decimal numbers. Design/methodology/approach The analysis is based on data from five teachers’ collaborative work in an adaptive arrangement of LS and LearS called subject didactic groups. Data consist of eight audio recordings of the teachers’ meetings as well as written and photographic documentation of the meetings. The analysis was carried out through the lens of expansive learning within an activity system (Engeström, 1987). This entailed a focus on contradictions between teachers’ ways of thinking and acting when individually and collaboratively developing their teaching, on the solutions to the conflicts produced by the teachers, and on how these challenged the teachers’ ideas about what the students need to learn. Findings The authors identified contradictions between formative and summative assessment, exams and stressed students, prevailing norms about teaching and the theoretical tool used for planning and analyzing lessons and student learning, and the local curriculum and time constraints. The solutions to the conflicts were the driving force for developing new and more qualitative knowledge about what the students need to learn. Originality/value This paper gives explicit examples of contradictions and solutions that can challenge and drive teachers to expand their learning in an adaptive form of LS and LearS suited to daily teaching.

show abstract

“…The majority of these procedures depended on observations of classroom practice ( n = 44) and teacher interviews ( n = 49). Indeed, only three studies did not use interviews to gather language data; relying on group discussions of some form to elicit teacher perspectives (de Vocht, 2015; Kullberg et al, 2016; Runesson, 2013). Generally, the interviews were semistructured, yet researchers noted a variety of interview types, also displayed in Table 3.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, in some cases researchers mentioned "debriefing" interviews or "informal" conversations with teachers before or after observing instruction (n = 6), which raises an interesting question about whether researchers simply saw these interactions as procedural or included data from such informal debriefings in their studies. In addition to interviews, researchers collected language data through teacher logs (e.g., Camburn & Barnes, 2004, Maloch, 2002, recording teacher meetings (e.g., Crockett, 2002;Hughes & Ooms, 2004;Kullberg et al, 2016;Souto-Manning, 2010), researcherteacher discussions of videos (e.g., de Vocht, 2015), by gathering teachers' autoethnographic and oral reflections (e.g., Riojas-Cortez et al, 2013;Tobin, 1988), or administering questionnaires (e.g., Friesen & Butera, 2012;Hofer & Swan, 2008). Among these, researcher-teacher discussions of videos, reflective writing, or questionnaires were used much less frequently as collection procedures.…”

Section: Rq1: Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bifurcating Worlds? A Systematic Review of How Visual and Language Data Are Combined to Study Teachers and Their Teaching

Schachter

Freeman

Parakkal

2020

Review of Research in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Connecting teachers’ perspectives with their practice is an enduring challenge shaping what and how we understand teaching. Researchers tend to bifurcate teachers’ work between their private and their public lives. These “worlds” bring particular meanings that are rendered through the analyses of visual documentations of teaching and teachers’ language-based accounts of their teaching. Combining these two forms of data is a basic research challenge both operationally and conceptually. Operationally, the researcher determines how the forms are connected and which decisions reflect (and are anchored in) conceptual warrants. This review identified 52 studies that combine visual and language data to study teachers and teaching to examine how data were collected and analyzed in the studies and what types of the theoretical frameworks were used to warrant the interpretations resulting from the connections. The review found only seven studies that balanced both worlds by explicitly warranting how the two forms of data were interconnected. Otherwise, most studies foregrounded one form of data and drew on the other to support or explain the first. Whereas most of the authors rationalized the connection between the forms of data in their studies, few took the more complex step of theorizing how the two worlds were connected. We argue that such incomplete connections risk inaccurately representing the work of teaching. We propose some design questions and research procedures that researchers may use to avoid bifurcating teachers’ worlds.

show abstract

What is to be Learned? Teachers’ Collective Inquiry into the Object of Learning

Cited by 20 publications

References 24 publications

ICME international survey on teachers working and learning through collaboration: June 2016

ICME international survey on teachers working and learning through collaboration: June 2016

Challenging teachers’ ideas about what students need to learn

Bifurcating Worlds? A Systematic Review of How Visual and Language Data Are Combined to Study Teachers and Their Teaching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About