Educational Action Research for Sustainability: Seeking Wisdom of Insight in Teacher Education

Open access

Educational Action Research for Sustainability: Seeking Wisdom of Insight in Teacher Education

The article presents experience from educational action research in teacher education, which was obtained by conducting an investigation with first year students during the first semester of their studies. The aim of this action research is focused on the concept of phronesis, which was theoretically substantiated by Aristotle and further elaborated by several contemporary scholars. The article emphasises the need to recognise different kinds of action research.

This study focuses on the investigation of specific characteristics of phronetic processes. The content of our educational action research is people's attitudes towards own and other species. It was considered a tool for investigating the research aim, which is to develop the ability to find wisdom of insight in phronesis. Three stages of prhonesis (A, B and C) can be distinguished in this educational action research. This article reflects the organisation of action research and evaluates the use of communicative space at the initial stage of research from the perspective of researchers and research participants. The article also contains evaluation of research outcomes concerning the extension of communication discourse and the evaluation of experiences regarding attitudes towards own and other species in various contexts. Finally, the article proposes a brief review of tendencies that reflect changes in the research participant opinions. Discussion and conclusions reflect the specific features of phronetically-oriented action research. The article presents the first experience from phronetically-oriented action research and seeks conditions for promoting wisdom of insight (phronetic skills) in communication and through discourse.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aguirre A. Jr. & Martinez R. (2002). Leadership practices and diversity in higher education: Transitional and transformational frameworks. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 8(3) 53-62. DOI: 10.1177/107179190200800305.

  • Angelides P. & Michaelidou A. (2009). The deafening silence: Discussing children's drawings for understanding and addressing marginalization. Journal of Early Childhood Research.SAGE publications 27(1) 27-45. DOI: 10.1177/ 1476718X08098352.

  • Aristotelis (1985). Nikomaha ētika [Nicomachean Ethics]. Rīga: Zvaigzne.

  • Barge K. J. Fairhurst G. T. (2008). Living leadership: A systemic constructionist approach. Leadership 4(3) 227-251. DOI: 10.1177/1742715008092360.

  • Birmingham C. (2004). Phronesis: A model for pedagogical reflection. Journal of Teacher Education 55(4) 313-324. DOI: 10.1177/0022487104266725.

  • Boylord R. M. (2008). Lived experience. In The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. SAGE Publications. Retrieved October 9 2009 from http://sage-ereference.com/research/Article_n250.html

  • Buber M. (2002). Between man and man. London New York: Routledge Classics.

  • Dymond S. K. (2001). A participatory action research approach to evaluating inclusive school programs. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 16(1) 54-63. DOI: 10.1177/108835760101200113.

  • Flyvbjerg B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice 5(3) 283-306. DOI: 10.1080/ 1464935042000250195.

  • Grint K. (2007). Learning to lead: Can Aristotle help us find the road to wisdom? Leadership. 3(2) 231-246. DOI: 10.1177/1742715007076215.

  • Gustavsen B. (2001). Theory and practice: The mediating discourse. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 17-26). London: SAGE.

  • Hayden B. (2009). Displacing the subject: A dialogical understanding of the researching self. Anthropological Theory 9 80-101. DOI: 10.1177/ 1463499609103548.

  • Hyland N. E. (2009). Opening and closing communicative space with teachers investigating race and racism in their own practice. Action Research 7 335-354. DOI: 10.1177/1476750309336717.

  • Kluth P. (2000). Community-referenced learning and the inclusive classroom. Remedial and Special Education 21(1) 19-26. DOI: 10.1177/ 074193250002100103.

  • Leo E. & Barton L. (2006). Inclusion diversity and leadership: Perspectives possibilities and contradictions. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 34(23) 167-180. DOI: 10.1177/1741143206062489.

  • Manen M. van (2003). Lived experience. In Encyclopedia of Social ScienceResearch Methods. SAGE Publicattions. Retrieved October 9 2009 from http://sage-ereference.com/socialscience/Article_n504.html

  • Mezirow J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. New York.

  • Newton J. & Goodman H. (2009). Systems psychodynamics and communicative space. Action Research 7(3) 291-312. DOI: 10.1177/1476750309336719.

  • Oxford Illustrated Dictionary (2000). Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC.

  • Salite I. (2002). Teachers' views on the aim of education for sustainable development. Journal of Teacher Education and Training 1 68-80.

  • Salite I. Vanagele E. & Jurane A. (2005). Organization of learning for sustainable education. In Proceedings of 19th International Conference of Learning Organization in A Learning World (ICLORD) 18-22 April 2005 (pp. 873-881). Bangkok Thailand.

  • Silverman J. C. (2007). Epistemological beliefs and attitudes towards inclusion in preservice teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children 30(1) 42-51. DOI: 10.1177/088840640703000105.

  • Whitehead J. (2009). Generating living theory and understanding in action research studies. Action Research 7(1) 85-99. DOI: 10.1177/1476750308099599.

  • Wicks P. G. & Reason P. (2009). Initiating action research: Challenges and paradoxes of opening communicative space. Action Research 7(3) 243-262. DOI: 10.1177/1476750309336715.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 1.65

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.255
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.496

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 268 92 0
PDF Downloads 111 33 0