Participatory action research and the reconstruction of teachers’ practical thinking: lesson studies and core reflection. An experience in Spain

Abstract

Following the thoughts and topics we have discussed and worked on for a very long time with Bridget Somekh, we would like to present the theoretical relationship between lesson studies, action research and practical knowledge in teacher education. Inspired by the pedagogical philosophy of lesson studies, participatory action research, and core reflection of Korthagen’s approach, we have carried out an educational innovation and research project in a master’s degree on educational innovation, offered online for Spanish‐speaking teachers by three universities in Andalusia (southern Spain). In particular, we analyse the possibilities of lesson studies as an action research model in which observation, action, reflection and cooperation between participants should help to reconstruct the theories in use that teachers count on in their school practice. Let us offer Bridget this brief tribute, from Spain, to thank her and recognise her important work in teaching and cooperation ever since her first visit to Andalusia in 1985.

Keywords:

• PAR
• LS
• core reflection
• teachers’ practical thinking

Notes

1. Argyris and Schön believe that the practical knowledge of teaching professionals cannot be considered merely as technical knowledge. They establish a distinction similar to that made by Aristotle between technical and practical thinking. They refer to single‐loop learning for that which each learner carries out in order to develop pre‐established values, plans, strategies and rules, the value of which is not questioned. The emphasis is placed on technical development in order to make them more efficient (action strategies). Double‐loop learning is that which questions the governing variables or values and established proposals, subjecting them to critical and public scrutiny, thereby questioning the purposes, contexts, content and learning systems.

2. Argyris proposes that the governing variables or values associated with the theories in use can be classified into two models of understanding and of action, which are clearly distinct from the epistemological and educational point of view:

• Model I, which includes those variables or values concerned with maintaining the status quo and impede or prevent double‐loop learning. These beliefs, values and theories platforms dominate in those people who are concerned with covering up defects and inconsistencies before themselves and before others, therefore preventing comparison, reconstruction, growth and independent development. The majority socialisation of contemporary citizens in current cultural contexts is developed within this model, in part as a defensive reaction before hostile, uncertain scenarios (predominance of socialisation processes in learning contexts; Pérez Gómez 1998).

• To the contrary, Model II, which groups together the variables or values that promote and favour double‐loop learning – which is more in‐depth and reflexive – allow us to identify, value and question not only the efficiency of actions with regards to our goals, but also the validity and meaning of the beliefs, feelings and motivations that make up the identity of our most stable positions. Within Model II, public scrutiny, plural comparison, freedom of choice and cooperative participation are not only allowed but encouraged (education as an autonomous construction process of the individual; Pérez Gómez 1998).

3. Lesson study involves a group of teachers cooperatively developing and teaching a lesson (delimited by topic focus rather than time) through experimental cycles of action and reflection. Lesson study serves to remind teacher researchers in western societies that teaching need not be so individualistic (Elliott and Tsai 2008).

4. The master’s degree has nine disciplinary modules dedicated to: Politics; Culture and Education; Methodology for Qualitative Research in Education; Quality and Institutional Assessment; Organisation and Management of Educational Centres; Equality, Equity and Diversity; Gender; Curriculum; Teacher Training and Assessment.

5. This team assumed the main responsibility of the task, but was accompanied by the entire teaching team of the master’s degree, who contributed their suggestions.

6. The acceleration project was created in 1986 and led by the Education Economy Professor Henry Levin and his team at the Center of Educational Research at Stanford University. Following an exhaustive five‐year study of the characteristics of the students in a situation of risk in the USA, they discovered that the incapacity of the existing schools to progress in the education of these students is not accidental.

7. Each disciplinary module provided the students with all kinds of components that helped to situate the problems, understand the concepts and see the analysis procedures. The materials of the disciplinary modules were theoretic tools for use in the analysis of the practical experiences.