比墙上的苍蝇多一点:基于设计的研究中的角色和责任

Elisabeth Iversen, Guðrún Jónsdóttir
{"title":"比墙上的苍蝇多一点:基于设计的研究中的角色和责任","authors":"Elisabeth Iversen, Guðrún Jónsdóttir","doi":"10.16993/DFL.79","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The above quotation originates from one science teacher, Arya, who raises questions concerning the roles and responsibilities in the present design-based research (DBR) study. Arya seems to perceive the researcher’s role as that of an observer who process what is happening much like a fly on the wall. By analysing the micro-communication processes between two science teachers and the first author (henceforth called the researcher), we explore the roles and responsibilities in a study concerning outdoor education in science at the upper-secondary level. The present study is guided by Wang and Hannafin’s (2005) definition of DBR as ‘a systematic but flexible methodology aimed to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation, based on collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually-sensitive design principles and theories’ (pp. 6–7). With regard to DBR, this definition includes the aim (improve educational practices) and the approach (iterative cycles in collaboration). It also indicates among whom (researchers and practitioners) and where (realworld settings) the DBR is conducted, as well as its outcome (context-sensitive design principles and theories). Collaboration among researchers and teachers are important for inclusion and participation, however, reflections concerning how roles and responsibilities are negotiated appear to be under-researched. Although educational researchers and teachers may share a number of similarities, they work in separate cultural communities (Caplan, 1979). On one side, teachers work within organisational structures with all of their practical implications and complexities (Doyle, 1986; Penuel et al., 2015). Teachers frequently seek practical approaches and want to gain knowledge that can improve their teaching (Kolmos, 2015). On the other side, DBR researchers work within an academic culture and ‘research often proceeds slowly, as researchers prioritize generating evidence through cycles of inquiry and analysis before they are ready to recommend action.’ (Penuel et al., 2015, p. 188). There is a broad consensus that teachers’ professional knowledge concerning educational practice is a key factor in DBR (Christensen, Gynther and Petersen, 2012; Juuti and Lavonen, 2006; Wang and Hannafin, 2005). Teachers should be encouraged to participate in DBR, especially to identify problems and articulate solutions (Christensen, Gynther and Petersen, 2012). The DBR discourse appears to be concerned about the lack of teacher involvement in RESEARCH","PeriodicalId":31187,"journal":{"name":"Designs for Learning","volume":"10 1","pages":"18-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Bit More than a Fly on the Wall: Roles and Responsibilities in Design-Based Research\",\"authors\":\"Elisabeth Iversen, Guðrún Jónsdóttir\",\"doi\":\"10.16993/DFL.79\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The above quotation originates from one science teacher, Arya, who raises questions concerning the roles and responsibilities in the present design-based research (DBR) study. Arya seems to perceive the researcher’s role as that of an observer who process what is happening much like a fly on the wall. By analysing the micro-communication processes between two science teachers and the first author (henceforth called the researcher), we explore the roles and responsibilities in a study concerning outdoor education in science at the upper-secondary level. The present study is guided by Wang and Hannafin’s (2005) definition of DBR as ‘a systematic but flexible methodology aimed to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation, based on collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually-sensitive design principles and theories’ (pp. 6–7). With regard to DBR, this definition includes the aim (improve educational practices) and the approach (iterative cycles in collaboration). It also indicates among whom (researchers and practitioners) and where (realworld settings) the DBR is conducted, as well as its outcome (context-sensitive design principles and theories). Collaboration among researchers and teachers are important for inclusion and participation, however, reflections concerning how roles and responsibilities are negotiated appear to be under-researched. Although educational researchers and teachers may share a number of similarities, they work in separate cultural communities (Caplan, 1979). On one side, teachers work within organisational structures with all of their practical implications and complexities (Doyle, 1986; Penuel et al., 2015). Teachers frequently seek practical approaches and want to gain knowledge that can improve their teaching (Kolmos, 2015). On the other side, DBR researchers work within an academic culture and ‘research often proceeds slowly, as researchers prioritize generating evidence through cycles of inquiry and analysis before they are ready to recommend action.’ (Penuel et al., 2015, p. 188). There is a broad consensus that teachers’ professional knowledge concerning educational practice is a key factor in DBR (Christensen, Gynther and Petersen, 2012; Juuti and Lavonen, 2006; Wang and Hannafin, 2005). Teachers should be encouraged to participate in DBR, especially to identify problems and articulate solutions (Christensen, Gynther and Petersen, 2012). The DBR discourse appears to be concerned about the lack of teacher involvement in RESEARCH\",\"PeriodicalId\":31187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Designs for Learning\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"18-28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Designs for Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.16993/DFL.79\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Designs for Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16993/DFL.79","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

上述引文来自一位科学教师Arya,她对当前基于设计的研究(DBR)研究中的角色和责任提出了质疑。艾莉亚似乎认为研究者的角色是一个观察者,他处理正在发生的事情,就像一只苍蝇在墙上。通过分析两位科学教师和第一作者(以下简称研究者)之间的微交流过程,我们探讨了在一项关于高中阶段科学户外教育的研究中,教师和第一作者的角色和责任。本研究以Wang和Hannafin(2005)对DBR的定义为指导,DBR是“一种系统但灵活的方法,旨在通过迭代分析、设计、开发和实施来改善教育实践,基于研究人员和实践者在现实世界环境中的合作,并导致情境敏感的设计原则和理论”(第6-7页)。关于DBR,这个定义包括目标(改进教育实践)和方法(协作中的迭代周期)。它还指出了谁(研究人员和实践者)和在哪里(现实世界的设置)进行DBR,以及它的结果(上下文敏感的设计原则和理论)。研究人员和教师之间的合作对于包容和参与很重要,然而,关于角色和责任如何协商的思考似乎研究不足。尽管教育研究者和教师可能有许多相似之处,但他们在不同的文化社区中工作(Caplan, 1979)。一方面,教师在具有所有实际含义和复杂性的组织结构中工作(Doyle, 1986;Penuel et al., 2015)。教师经常寻求实用的方法,并希望获得可以改善教学的知识(Kolmos, 2015)。另一方面,DBR研究人员在学术文化中工作,研究通常进展缓慢,因为研究人员在准备提出行动建议之前,首先要通过调查和分析的循环来获得证据。(Penuel et al., 2015, p. 188)。教师的教育实践专业知识是DBR的关键因素,这是一个广泛的共识(Christensen, Gynther and Petersen, 2012;Juuti and Lavonen, 2006;Wang and Hannafin, 2005)。应该鼓励教师参与DBR,特别是识别问题和明确解决方案(Christensen, gyynther和Petersen, 2012)。DBR话语似乎关注的是缺乏教师参与研究
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Bit More than a Fly on the Wall: Roles and Responsibilities in Design-Based Research
The above quotation originates from one science teacher, Arya, who raises questions concerning the roles and responsibilities in the present design-based research (DBR) study. Arya seems to perceive the researcher’s role as that of an observer who process what is happening much like a fly on the wall. By analysing the micro-communication processes between two science teachers and the first author (henceforth called the researcher), we explore the roles and responsibilities in a study concerning outdoor education in science at the upper-secondary level. The present study is guided by Wang and Hannafin’s (2005) definition of DBR as ‘a systematic but flexible methodology aimed to improve educational practices through iterative analysis, design, development, and implementation, based on collaboration among researchers and practitioners in real-world settings, and leading to contextually-sensitive design principles and theories’ (pp. 6–7). With regard to DBR, this definition includes the aim (improve educational practices) and the approach (iterative cycles in collaboration). It also indicates among whom (researchers and practitioners) and where (realworld settings) the DBR is conducted, as well as its outcome (context-sensitive design principles and theories). Collaboration among researchers and teachers are important for inclusion and participation, however, reflections concerning how roles and responsibilities are negotiated appear to be under-researched. Although educational researchers and teachers may share a number of similarities, they work in separate cultural communities (Caplan, 1979). On one side, teachers work within organisational structures with all of their practical implications and complexities (Doyle, 1986; Penuel et al., 2015). Teachers frequently seek practical approaches and want to gain knowledge that can improve their teaching (Kolmos, 2015). On the other side, DBR researchers work within an academic culture and ‘research often proceeds slowly, as researchers prioritize generating evidence through cycles of inquiry and analysis before they are ready to recommend action.’ (Penuel et al., 2015, p. 188). There is a broad consensus that teachers’ professional knowledge concerning educational practice is a key factor in DBR (Christensen, Gynther and Petersen, 2012; Juuti and Lavonen, 2006; Wang and Hannafin, 2005). Teachers should be encouraged to participate in DBR, especially to identify problems and articulate solutions (Christensen, Gynther and Petersen, 2012). The DBR discourse appears to be concerned about the lack of teacher involvement in RESEARCH
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信