Abstract
Long association with a mathematics teacher at a Grade 4–6 school in Sweden, is basis for reporting a case of teacher–researcher collaboration. Three theoretical frameworks used to study its development over time are relational knowing, relational agency and cogenerative dialogue. While relational knowing uses narrative perspectives to explore the experiential and relational nature of collaboration; relational agency, draws on activity theory perspectives and identifies the change in the purpose of collaboration, from initially conducting classroom interventions to co-authoring research. Finally, cogenerative dialogue, deploys hermeneutic-phenomenological perspectives and investigates the dialogue that transpired between Lotta and the author, as they co-authored their research report. Such analysis sheds invaluable light on a case of expansive learning activity.
Svensk sammanfattning
Denna artikel undersöker ett långvarigt samarbete mellan Lotta, en matematiklärare på en mellanstadieskola, och författaren, en universitetsbaserad forskare. Samarbetet inleds med att författaren observerar Lottas undervisning och kulminerar i deras samförfattande av en forskningsrapport som beskriver en intervention de tillsammans genomfört. I detta samarbete är både Lotta och författaren forskare, där Lottas professionella kontext är platsen för forskningen och Lottas undervisningspraktik är i fokus för undersökningen. Tre teoretiska ramverk används för att analysera och förstå detta samarbete. För det första, relationellt vetande (relational knowing, Hollingsworth, Dybdahl, & Minarik 1993), som bygger på narrativa perspektiv och utforskar den erfarna och relationella karaktären hos ett samarbete. För det andra, relationell medverkan (relational agency, Edwards 2005), som bygger på perspektiv från aktivitetsteori och identifierar förändringen av samarbetets syfte från att initialt genomföra klassrumsinterventioner till att samförfatta forskning. För det tredje, medgenererande dialog (cogenerative dialogue, Roth and Tobin 2002), som bygger på hermeneutiska-fenomenologiska perspektiv och undersöker den dialog som försiggick mellan Lotta och författaren då de samförfattade forskningsrapporten. Förutom att ge empiriska belägg för samarbete mellan lärare och forskare, sprider en sådan insats ovärderligt ljus över hur författarens samarbete med Lotta blev ett fall av expansiv inlärning (expansive learning, Engeström 2001).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arbaugh, F., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Ramirez, N., Knuth, E., Kranendonk, H., & Quander, J. R. (2010). Linking research and practice: The NCTM research agenda. Retrieved October 23, 2010, from website: http://www.nctm.org/news/content.aspx?id=25315.
Blomqvist, C., & Gade, S. (2013). Att kommunicera om likamedtecknet. Nämnaren, 4, 39–42.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind—The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1998). Stories to live by: Narrative understandings of school reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 28(2), 149–164. doi:10.1111/0362-6784.00082.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher educators as researchers: Multiple perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(2), 219–225.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Donnell, K. (2006). Practitioner inquiry: Blurring the boundaries of research and practice. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 503–518). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2008). Research on teacher education: Changing times, changing paradigms. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 1050–1093). New York: Routledge.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 15–25.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). Executive summary. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 1–36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Craig, V. J., & Ross, V. (2008). Cultivating the image of teachers as curriculum makers. In M. F. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 282–305). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Day, C. (1997). Working with different selves of teachers: Beyond comfortable collaboration. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), International action research: A casebook for educational reform (pp. 190–203). London: Falmer Press.
Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182.
Edwards, A. (2009). From the systemic to the relational: Relational agency and activity theory. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 197–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner: The relational turn in expertise. Dordrecht: Springer.
Edwards, A., Gilroy, P., & Hartley, D. (2002). Rethinking teacher education: Collaborative responses to uncertainty. Cornwall: RoutledgeFalmer.
Elliott, J. (1978/2007). Classroom research: Science or commonsense. In J. Elliot (Ed.), Reflecting where the action is: The selected works of John Elliott (pp. 91–98). Wiltshire: Routledge.
Elliott, J. (2009). Research-based teaching. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 170–183). London: Routledge.
Ellis, V. (2011). Reenergising professional creativity from a CHAT perspective: Seeing knowledge and history in practice. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(2), 181–193.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
Engeström, Y. (2008). Crossing boundaries in teacher teams. In Y. Engeström (Ed.), From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work (pp. 86–107). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory and Psychology., 21(5), 598–628.
Etherington, K. (2006). Reflexivity: Using our ‘selves’ in narrative research. In S. Trahar (Ed.), Narrative research on learning: Comparative and international perspectives (pp. 77–92). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The Provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531–545.
Gade, S. (2010). Narratives of students learning mathematics: Plurality of strategies and a strategy for practice? In C. Bergsten, E. Jablonka, & T. Wedege (Eds.), Mathematics and mathematics education: Cultural and social dimensions Proceedings of the seventh mathematics education research seminar MADIF7 (pp. 102–112). Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Gade, S. (2011). Narrative as unit of analysis for teaching-learning praxis and action: Tracing the personal growth of a professional voice. Reflective Practice, 12(1), 35–45. doi:10.1080/14623943.2011.541092.
Gade, S. (2012a). Teacher researcher collaboration at a grade four mathematics classroom: Restoring equality to students usage of the ‘=‘ sign. Educational Action Research, 20(4), 553–570.
Gade, S. (2012b). Close-to-practice classroom research by way of Vygotskian units of analysis. Paper presented at Topic Study Group (TSG 21) Research on classroom practice. In Proceedings of the 12th international congress on mathematics education (ICME), (pp. 4312–4321) 8–15 July 2012, Seoul, South Korea.
Gade, S. (2014). Practitioner collaboration at a grade four mathematics classroom—By way of relational knowing and relational agency. In F. Rauch, A. Schuster, T. Stern, & A. Townsend (Eds.), Promoting change through action research—International case studies in education, social work, health care and community development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers B.V.
Gade, S., & Blomqvist, C. (2014). “Crooked Carsson had 160 kronor. He bought a robot for 50 kronor and the entire universe for 50 kronor” From problem posing to posing problems by way of explicit mediation at grades four and five. In F. M. Singer, N. Ellerton, & J. Cai (Eds.), Problem posing: From research to effective practice. New York: Springer.
Gade, S., & Blomqvist, C. (submitted). Investigating everyday measures through talk: Whole classroom intervention and landscape study at Grade four.
Gallego, M. A., Hollingsworth, S., & Whitenack, D. A. (2001). Relational knowing in the reform of educational cultures. Teachers College Record, 103(2), 240–266.
Greene, M. (1979). Teaching as personal reality. In A. Liberman & L. Miller (Eds.), New perspectives of staff development (pp. 23–35). New York: Teacher College Press.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (2001). Narrative research on school practice. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 226–240). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.
Hollingsworth, S. (1992). Learning to teach through collaborative conversation: A feminist approach. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 373–404.
Hollingsworth, S., & Dybdahl, M. (2007). Talking to learn: The critical role of conversation in narrative inquiry. In J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 146–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hollingsworth, S., Dybdahl, M., & Minarik, L. T. (1993). By chart and chance and passion: the importance of relational knowing in learning to teach. Curriculum Inquiry, 23(1), 5–35. doi:10.2307/1180216.
Kincheloe, J. (2003). Critical ontology: Visions of selfhood and curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 19(1), 47–64.
Krainer, K. (2011). Teachers as stakeholders in mathematics education research. In B. Ubuz (Ed.), Proceedings of the international group of psychology of mathematics education (PME) (pp. 1–47, 1–62) 10th–15th July, Ankara, Turkey.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analyzing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of applied linguistics, 1(2), 137–168.
Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in schools (pp. 55–71). London: Sage.
Niss, M. (2007). Reflections on the state of and trends in research on mathematics teaching and learning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1293–1323). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 38(6), 771–781.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1997). Reporting qualitative research as practice. In W. G. Tierney & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the text: Reframing the narrative voice (pp. 3–21). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2010). The practice of narrative. Narrative Inquiry, 20(2), 392–396.
Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002). At the elbow of another—Learning to teach by coteaching. New York: Peter-Lang Publishing.
Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2004). Coteaching: From praxis to theory. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(2), 161–179.
Smith, T. (2008). Fostering a praxis stance in pre-service teacher education. In S. Kemmis & T. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education (pp. 65–84). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Stetsenko, A. (2004). Introduction to scientific legacy: Tool and sign in the development of the child. In R. W. Rieber & D. K. Robinson (Eds.), The essential Vygotsky (pp. 501–512). New York: Kluwer/Plenum Publishers.
Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 70–88.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework for reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 13–22.
Wardekker, W. (2010). Afterword: CHAT and good teacher education. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher education and development (pp. 241–248). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Winter, R., Buck, A., & Sobiechowska, P. (1999). Art of professional reflection. London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Lead Editor: K. Tobin.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gade, S. Unpacking teacher–researcher collaboration with three theoretical frameworks: a case of expansive learning activity?. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 10, 603–619 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9619-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9619-7