Following the process of my practitioner research, I will share my thoughts, bumpy moments, theoretical framing, methodological choices, analyses and hopefully my final conclusions in a narrative on this blog. Simply because research is for sharing and a narrative might inspire more than reporting ‘objectively’. Moreover, I ‘d especially like to share my personal but academic perspective on things along the way. That’s something very different than claiming whatever my research will show. Obviously I will elaborate on that in later posts.
Now, first things first, what are my research intentions? Well, that’s perhaps the most difficult question of all for me, since I do not have a clear goal or any strict plans requested by some sort of money providing institution. So, most of my intentions I have written before in the first post. In general, I am just doing this because I can, it can support my professional development and it seems interesting. However, that will not get me get a “Go” if I would grade myself for research class.
On the other hand, I’d like to be open for research outcomes that can emerge along the way. So setting very specific goals now, would hinder me to adjust my inquiry in later phases. Hence, as a way of making my intentions explicit, I rather describe the object of my research activity. This also makes sense, because my theoretical framework will be the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT, in a post on my theoretical framework I will come back to that). Describing my object now gives direction to my actions, but does not limit me, since the possible outcome remains open.
The object of my research is the practical usability of CHAT in physical education, especially in prevocational education. First, I hope to increase the explicit use of my theoretical framework. Now it is rather clear for me in an abstract way. In my own teaching practice, however, it is rather intuitive. In other words, can I use the tools from developmental primary education for p.e.? Secondly, can I make visible that developmental education ‘fits’ well in prevocational education; that it can be the preferred educational concept to use? Possible outcomes are adjusted tools from developmental education for (p.e. in) prevocational education, a personal method for teaching, a journal article (one that I am tinkering on for years now).
As a final step in this phase of the process, a short list of references and authors to be used in the next phases, when I narrow down my object and articulate my theoretical framework.
Janssen-Vos, F., & Pompert, B. (2002). Werken aan kwaliteit met HOREB. Zone. Tijdschrift voor ontwikkelingsgericht onderwijs, 1(1).
Molter, J. A. (2014). Ontwikkelingsgericht onderwijs in het vmbo. Masterthese Onderwijspedagogiek (Masterthese). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.Van Kan, C. A., Ponte, P., & Verloop, N. (2010). How to conduct research on the inherent moral significance of teaching: A phenomenological elaboration of the standard repertory grid application. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1553–1562. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.007
Van Kan, C., Brouwer, P., & Zitter, I. (2012). “Bumpy moments” in de dagelijkse onderwijspraktijk. Een verkenning in het speciaal onderwijs, primair onderwijs, voortgezet onderwijs en middelbaar beroepsonderwijs. Een verkenning in het speciaal onderwijs, primair onderwijs, voortgezet onderwijs en middelbaar beroepsonderwijs. ’s-Hertogenbosch: ECBO.
Van Oers, B. (2001). Ontwikkelingsgericht werken in de bovenbouw van de basisschool. Vrije Universiteit/Academie voor Ontwikkelingsgericht Onderwijs.
Van Oers, B. (2009). Narrativiteit in leerprocessen. Pedagogische studiën, 86(2), 147–156.Van Oers, B. (2013). Is it play? Towards a reconceptualisation of role play from an activity theory perspective. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 185–198. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2013.789199
Van Schaik, M., & Molter, J. A. (2015). Ontwikkelingsgericht onderwijs in het vmbo. Een derde weg naar betekenisvol onderwijs. van 12 tot 18, 25(5), 8–10.