2004
Volume 40, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1567-7109
  • E-ISSN: 2468-1652

Abstract

Abstract

The conceptualism-impasse emerges when educational authorities (such as the Education Inspection) offer conceptual knowledge based on ‘objective’ research while expecting that such knowledge consists of knowhow that is ready for use by teachers. Conceptual ‘knowledge that,’ however, is of a different kind than ‘knowhow’. Knowhow is embodied knowledge that cannot be transferred to other people via language. It is developed by deliberate practice. If authorities offer conceptual knowledge while expecting to offer the technical knowhow to make education work, they (inadvertently) impose inadequate requirements on teachers and draw untimely conclusions about teachers’ failure, with all due consequences for the pedagogical climate in schools.

The emergence of this impasse is related to a technical view of education that was established by behaviorism and resulted in an architecture of our education field in which knowledge and action are separated. This article addresses the question whether participative action research (handelingsonderzoek) that connects knowledge and action can prevent this impasse. It concludes that participative action research can contribute a great deal, but the present architecture of our educational field and the pretensions of ‘objective’ research need to be addressed too.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/PED2020.3.004.BULT
2021-03-01
2021-06-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15677109/40/3/04_PED2020.3_BULT.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/PED2020.3.004.BULT&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Admiraal. W.(2013). Academisch docentschap. Naar wetenschappelijk praktijkonderzoek door docenten. Oratie bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar onderwijskunde. Universiteit Leiden.
  2. Berliner, D.C.(2001). Learning about and learning from experts. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 463-482.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biesta, G.(2018). Tijd voor pedagogiek. Pedagogiek, 38(3), 327-348.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biesta, G.(2020). Educational research: An unorthodox introduction. London: Bloomsbury.
  5. Bronkhorst, L.H., Meijer, P.C., Koster, B., & Vermunt, J.D.(2014). Deliberate practice in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 18-34.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bulterman-Bos, J.A. (2008a). Will a clinical approach make education research more relevant for practice?Educational Researcher, 37(7), 412-420.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bulterman-Bos, J.A. (2008b). Clinical study – a pursuit of responsibility as the basis of education research. Educational Researcher, 37(7), 439-445.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bulterman-Bos, J.A.(2010). Geef de onderwijsontwikkeling terug aan leraren. Lectorale Rede. Ede: Christelijke Hogeschool Ede.
  9. Bulterman-Bos, J.(2017). How can a clinical research approach contribute to knowledge-building for the teaching profession?Educational Action Research, 25(1), 119-127.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bulterman-Bos, J.(2020). Barriers to creating a science of the art of teaching via Participative Action Research; Learning from the tribulations of Lesson Study in different epistemic cultures.Educational Action Research, 1-17.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, X.(2017). Theorizing Chinese Lesson Study from a Cultural Perspective. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies6(4), 283-292.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cook, S.D., & Brown, J.S.(1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Creemers, B., & Sleegers, P.(2003). De school als organisatie. In N.Verloop & J.Lowyck (Ed), Onderwijskunde (pp. 113-148). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Depaepe, M, & Bakker, N.(1998). Een gemeenschappelijke studeerkamer. In N.Verloop (red.) 75 jaar onderwijs en opvoeding. 75 jaar Pedagogische Studiёn. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dewey, J. (1904/1974). Relation of theory to practice in education. In Archambault, R.D. (Ed.), John Dewey on Education: Selected writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  16. Eisner, E.(1992). Objectivity in educational research. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(1), 9-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fenstermacher, G.D., & Richardson, V.(2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186-213.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Floden, R.E., & Buchmann, M.(1993). Between routines and anarchy: preparing teachers for uncertainty. Oxford Review of Education, 19(3), 373-382.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Good, T.L.(2010). Fourty years of research on teaching 1968-2008: What do we know that we didn’t know then? In R.J.Marzano (Ed.), On excellence in teaching (pp. 30-62). Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M.(2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 273-289.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J.W.(2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one?Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Inspectie van het onderwijs
    Inspectie van het onderwijs. (2007/2008). Onderwijsverslag 2007/2008. Utrecht: Inspectie van het onderwijs.
  23. Inspectie van het onderwijs
    Inspectie van het onderwijs. (2012). Onderwijsverslag 2012. Utrecht: Inspectie van het onderwijs.
  24. Inspectie van het onderwijs
    Inspectie van het onderwijs(2019). Motivatie om te leren. Motiverende kenmerken van het voortgezet onderwijs. Utrecht: Inspectie van het onderwijs.
  25. Kelchtermans, G.(2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message: self-understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 257-272.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kessels, J.P.A.M., & Korthagen, F.A.J.(1996). The relationship between theory and practice: Back to the classics. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 17-22.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kneyber, R.(2009). Orde houden in het VMBO. Culemburg: Handelingsbrutaal.
  28. Kneyber, R., & Evers, J. (red) (2013). Het alternatief. Weg met de afrekencultuur in het onderwijs. Amsterdam: Boom
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kneyber, R., & Evers, J. (red) (2015). Het alternatief II. De ladder naar autonomie. Culemborg: Phronese.
  30. Korthagen, F.(2017). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional development 3.0. Teachers and Teaching, 23(4), 387-405.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Labaree, D.F.(2000). On the nature of teaching and teacher education: Difficult practices that look easy. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 228-233.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lagemann, E.C.(1989). The plural worlds of educational research. History of Education Quarterly, 29(2), 185-214.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lagemann, E.C.(2000). An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000
  34. Lampert, M., & Graziani, F. (2005, March). Unpacking practice: The pedagogies of learning from practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lewis, C.(2009). What is the nature of knowledge development in lesson study?Educational Action Research, 17(1), 95-110.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lewis, C.(2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education?Educational Researcher44(1), 54-61.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lewis, C.C., Takahashi, A., Murata, A., & King, E.(2003). Developing “the eyes to see students”: Data collection during lesson study. In Research Pre-session of the Annual Meeting of the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics, San Antonio, TX.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lewis, C., & I.Tsuchida(1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: Research lessons and the improvement of Japanese education. American Educator, 22(Winter), 14-52.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ryle, G.(1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
  40. Polanyi, M.(1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  41. Polanyi, M.(1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  42. Schön, D.A.(1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books
  43. Stigler, W.J., & Hiebert, J.(1999). The teaching gap. Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press
  44. Takahashi, A., & McDougal. T.(2016). Collaborative Lesson Research: Maximizing the Impact of Lesson Study. ZDM48(4), 513-526.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ter Horst, W.(1980). Theoretische orthopedagogiek, Proeve van een Theorieconcept. Kampen: Kok.
  46. Van IJzendoorn, M.H.(1997). Empirisch analytische pedagogiek. In S.Miedema (red.), Pedagogiek in meervoud. Wegen in het denken over opvoeding en onderwijs. Houten/Diegem: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Van Manen, M.(1997). Over pedagogisering en ontpedagogisering. In B.Levering (red.), Hoe gaat het eigenlijk met opvoeding in Nederland. Utrecht: SWP
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Veen, K., Van Driel, J., & Veldman, I. (2011).Relaties tussen masterniveau en kwaliteit van onderwijs: Conclusies en verklaringen vanuit onderzoek. Paper geschreven in opdracht van het ministerie van OCW. Leiden: ICLON.
  49. Verloop, N.(1989). Interactive cognitions of student teachers. An intervention study. Dissertation Leiden University. Arnhem: Cito
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/PED2020.3.004.BULT
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error