This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]On: 18 November 2014, At: 12:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Action ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reac20

Participatory action research and thereconstruction of teachers’ practicalthinking: lesson studies and corereflection. An experience in SpainÁngel I. Pérez a , Encarnación Soto a & Mª José Serván aa School of Education , University of Malaga , SpainPublished online: 08 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Ángel I. Pérez , Encarnación Soto & Mª José Serván (2010) Participatoryaction research and the reconstruction of teachers’ practical thinking: lesson studies andcore reflection. An experience in Spain, Educational Action Research, 18:1, 73-87, DOI:10.1080/09650790903484533

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790903484533

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Action ResearchVol. 18, No. 1, March 2010, 73–87

ISSN 0965-0792 print/ISSN 1747-5074 online© 2010 Educational Action ResearchDOI: 10.1080/09650790903484533http://www.informaworld.com

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

Ángel I. Pérez*, Encarnación Soto and Ma José Serván

School of Education, University of Malaga, SpainTaylor and FrancisREAC_A_448856.sgm(Received 26 May 2009; final version received 24 September 2009)10.1080/09650790903484533Educational Action Research0965-0792 (print)/1747-5074 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis1810000002009Angel I. PerezGomezapgomez@gorki.jazztel.es

Following the thoughts and topics we have discussed and worked on for a verylong time with Bridget Somekh, we would like to present the theoreticalrelationship between lesson studies, action research and practical knowledge inteacher education. Inspired by the pedagogical philosophy of lesson studies,participatory action research, and core reflection of Korthagen’s approach, wehave carried out an educational innovation and research project in a master’sdegree on educational innovation, offered online for Spanish-speaking teachers bythree universities in Andalusia (southern Spain). In particular, we analyse thepossibilities of lesson studies as an action research model in which observation,action, reflection and cooperation between participants should help to reconstructthe theories in use that teachers count on in their school practice. Let us offerBridget this brief tribute, from Spain, to thank her and recognise her importantwork in teaching and cooperation ever since her first visit to Andalusia in 1985.

Keywords: PAR; LS; core reflection; teachers’ practical thinking

…. it is precisely because action research deliberately mixes discourses – and therebyerodes the boundaries between action and knowledge-generation – that it is uniquelysuited to generating and sustaining social transformation. Action research can make aunique contribution to educational reform because it challenges the body–mind dividethat has fractured Western conceptions of what it means to be human since the Enlight-enment. (Somekh and Zeichner 2009, 6)

The construction of the practical thinking of teachers: core reflection

Contemporary research establishes few doubts on the holistic and emerging characterof practical knowledge. Holistic positions, such as those of Dewey (1934, 1938), insiston considering human experience as a unity of multiple different, even conflicting,aspects. The challenge is to discuss opposing qualities without falling into extremistdualism. Practical thinking seems the most suitable place to understand the indissolu-ble yet complex integration of the logical and rational elements with the emotive andmotivational elements of our interpretation and action systems. It comprises a reper-toire of images, maps and artefacts that bring with them information, logical associa-tions and emotive connotations. In order to understand the complexity of practicalknowledge, we must understand the convergence and interaction of the conscious and

*Corresponding author. Email: apgomez@gorki.jazztel.es

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

74 Á.I. Pérez et al.

unconscious aspects of the processing of information found in all human experiences,in particular in the professional practice of the teacher (Bargh and Ferguson 2000).

It appears obvious that automatic, unconscious responses that appear to divergeand even contradict our rational and conscious knowledge are activated in manyprocesses of exchange and personal, social and professional action. For this reason, itis essential to deal with and emphasise the importance of intuition and of emergingmeanings that are often forgotten and that, nevertheless, penetrate practical knowledge(Greeno, Collins, and Resnick 1996).

All too often, teachers are not conscious of the maps, images and artefacts thatmake up our repertoires of practical knowledge, which we put into action in each situ-ation. Such repertoires contain assumptions, some better organised than others, on ourown identity, on others and on context. These assumptions constitute a microcosm ofdiverging day-to-day knowledge, occasionally in contradiction to the theories explic-itly proclaimed by the individual in order to explain the orientation of his/her conduct.This is why Argyris (1993) emphasises the need to differentiate between theories inuse and espoused theories. The personal and professional efficiency of each individualis related to the level of congruence that he is able to achieve between both ‘theoreti-cal’ devices, and there is no doubt that serious differences between the two imply highdoses of dysfunctionality in interpretation and in action.1 As highlighted by Eraut(1994), explicit language, proclaimed theory, often does not describe practice butrather is a defence or rationalisation of it.

On the other hand, practical knowledge, as current implicit theories have shown,is impregnated with beliefs, some better organised than others, in systems that areformed from early ages. Implicit beliefs are fundamentally of unconscious character,bound to emotions and affections, which remain throughout life and which are wellknown for their resistance to change, despite their logical and rational reasonings notbeing in abundance (Pajares 1992; May et al. 2009). It would therefore seem neces-sary to investigate not only the formal working of the practical knowledge of theteacher, but also its dominant meanings; and in particular, the central meanings thatcondition his/her specific priority orientation.

On the other hand, the situated character of practical knowledge can help us tounderstand the training process and its change. Some representatives of socio-culturaland situated perspective (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989; Lave and Wenger 1991;Rogoff 1990; Vygotsky 2001; Gergen 2001) defend new interaction. They recognisethe fundamental unit of the person context as a basic principle, rejecting those analy-ses that treat them as independent and separate constructions. In this regard, Snowproposes that it would be much more beneficial to conceptualise aptitudes as beingsituated in this area of confluence between the person and his/her context rather thanas characteristics that reside only in the interior of each individual (Snow 1994; Cornoet al. 2002). This way of understanding interaction better explains how individualsacquire the values, beliefs and practices of the community, through long processes ofappropriation or culturalisation, of initial prolonged external interaction followed byindividual internalisation.

In the construction and reconstruction of the practical thinking of the teacher, itmust not be forgotten that the emotive component of teaching experience is key tosustainable development. As Wong (2007) states in his interesting interpretation ofDewey, ‘suffering’ or ‘challenge’ is passion. The most valuable experiences requiresomething more than control and rationality. Rather, they need to be understood as acontradictory yet complementary relation between ‘suffering’ or ‘challenge’ produced

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Action Research 75

by vital scenarios when they do not respond to our desires and our permanent attemptto rationally control the surrounding environment in order to bring it in line with ourneeds, interests and intentions. All experiences are transformational when weconstruct new thoughts, feelings and actions, due to us intensely living the contextwith its foreseeable regularities, its contradictions and its surprises (Garrison 2001).In order to be responsible, in addition to being reflexive and intentional, firstly wemust be sensitive to that which surrounds us, to that which appeals to us, living withintensity the interaction between our desires and goals, and the possibilities andresistances of the context.

The current proposals of Korthagen place these formulations a step further on. Theimportance of the beliefs, feelings and theories implicit in teachers’ practical thinkingis highlighted by Korthagen in his interesting theory on Core Reflection (Korthagenand Vasalos 2005), in which he proposes a multilevel analysis model represented bythe layers of an onion (Figure 1). It is not easy to explain the practical interactionprocesses of the individual, and in this case of the teaching professional, with hiscontext, relating the peculiarities of the context and of the situation to the exhibitedbehaviour. The explicit behaviour of each individual, or teaching professional, is theresult of complex interactions between different internal levels, the identity andinteractions of which need to be investigated.Figure 1. The onion model.Note: Adapted from Korthagen (2004).For Korthagen, the successive levels of interaction inward from the outside are:behaviour, competencies, beliefs, identity and mission. The last three levels make upthe most intimate and stable core, equivalent to the governing variables or Argyrisvalues concept.

Based on this model, Korthagen proposes a development model for the practicalknowledge of the professional, which includes three complementary levels:

● The Gestalt level. Human beings in general, and teachers in particular, formgeneric, intuitive perceptions, often unaware of the situations they face, knownas Gestalts, upon which they organise their behavioural reactions and responses.

● The schema level. This involves the actor reflecting on action and other situa-tions to form concepts, characteristics, relations and principles that are helpfulin interpreting situations and describing practice.

Figure 1. The onion model.Note: Adapted from Korthagen (2004).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

76 Á.I. Pérez et al.

● The theory level. This involves the construction of a logical order of conceptualrelations systems based on the integration of different action and comprehensionmethods.

Given its importance in understanding the practical thinking of the teacher and in thedesign we have used in our action research, it is now worthwhile analysing the config-uration and change of the Gestalts. Gestalts can be understood as immediate, complexjoint mechanisms of perception, interpretation, anticipation and inclination towardsaction. Feelings, similar previous experiences, values, conceptions and prior beliefswith regard to the role of the teacher, our own urgent, immediate concerns and needsas well as those of the institutional context, along with the habits and routines of eachteacher, all play significant roles in the Gestalts.

A key to the educational development of people is to identify and understand thenature of their Gestalts as products of the socio-cultural influx, of their own biograph-ical trajectory or as a result of reflection on previous Gestalts and methods.

In order to understand the formation of these Gestalts as practical thinking, intui-tive action and interpretation platforms, it is of decisive importance to understand thedelicate and complex balance of relations established between Phronesis andEpisteme. In keeping with Aristotle, Korthagen defines Phronesis as being in opposi-tion to Episteme. The latter refers to scientific, rational, generalisable knowledge.Knowledge as Phronesis, to the contrary, refers to practical knowledge, which helpsto know many aspects of one singular situation in order to intervene in a more suitablemanner. This knowledge shows a reinforced conscience of the moment and of thesituation, and is impregnated with feelings and intuitions.

The interaction between Episteme and Phronesis progressively forms interpreta-tion methods that, without losing the proximity of singular, specific situations or theemotions and beliefs involved in the individual, allow us to discern the possibilitiesand obstacles that appear in our interaction with the intervention contexts and situa-tions. Discovering the beliefs, theories, belongings and missions each individual hasin his professional interactions is key to promoting his valuation, conscious reformu-lation and intentional enrichment.2

Since all teaching professionals, when facing the complex context of the class-room, activate their most ingrained Gestalts, the first consequence of this approach isthat any training process which does not connect to the prior intuitions of the individ-ual will not greatly change practice. Not until the future teacher enriches his intuitiveGestalts through the critical appropriation of the knowledge of others and reduces theincorporated theories to new, own-informed Gestalts, is there any guarantee that moreelaborated and contrasted knowledge will orientate urgent practice in complexclassroom situations.

In consequence, in order to stimulate the reconstruction of the subjective theo-ries of each future teacher, it is generally neither useful nor sufficient to bringabout modification from above through theoretic contrast, but rather it is necessaryto impregnate at the most primitive level of Gestaltic construction. It is advisablethat inexperienced teachers should begin by living innovative experiences that leadto the formation of new Gestalts and new intuitive, epistemic models. For thisreason, the configuration of quality epistemic contexts in accordance with ourpurposes and the induction of experimental situations that stimulate and help eachindividual to interpret and act in new ways are key in order to generate moresuitable and powerful Gestalts.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Action Research 77

This way of considering the images, artefacts, beliefs and central meanings thatmake up practical thinking, the Gestalts, is what Hagger (2006) calls ‘practical theo-rising’. Practical theorisation is the reflection of the teacher on his own practice, hisown way of acting, in the light of more relevant educational experiences and of theresults of more consistent educational research. In consequence, privileged strategy inthe training of teachers must involve learners in practical, disciplined and informedtheorisations on their own practice; in other words, participative action researchprogrammes and processes in professional contexts, which in Japanese tradition isknown as lesson studies (LS).

Lesson studies as participatory action research

Lesson studies (LS) could be conceptualised as a specific form of cooperative orparticipatory action research (PAR) specially designed for in-service teacher educa-tion. Lesson study involves a group of teachers cooperatively developing and teachinga lesson (bound by topic focus rather than time) through experimental cycles of actionand reflection. Lesson study serves to remind teacher researchers in western societiesthat teaching need not be so individualistic (Elliott and Tsai 2008).

It is intended to achieve both action and research:3 action for change, and researchfor understanding. Practitioners revise and reformulate the questions they are asking,the methods they are using, the plans they are implementing, the consequences onpupils’ learning, and the empowerment of teachers’ professional knowledge, as aconsequence of a regular and systematic cooperative study and critique of what theyare doing. This cooperative way of experimentation and research has been developedin a highly satisfactory and sophisticated manner amongst teachers in Japan and otheroriental countries, within this movement known as LS, reformulated by FerenceMarton as learning studies. Its practical approach, its commitment to change andimprovement, and its cooperative and solitary character, along with the necessaryrigour and structure in investigation and reflection, are, to our understanding, thestrengths of LS as PAR to lead to the development of more elaborate practicalthinking of teachers.

Recovering the leading role of change for the agents involved and breaking awayfrom the classic distinction between deciders and doers, LS as PAR is a way ofconceiving and promoting the ethical and political participation of the agents involved(Feldman 2007). Participation generates commitment when those affected by the deci-sions feel that they can intervene and take part in the decision-making process and inthe development of the activity that affects them.

We believe that one of the most outstanding aspects of LS as PAR can be foundin the balance between action and research, and the substantial importance of thetwo. The improvement of the change in the action research processes, unlike simplepractice processes, resides in the critical reflection of the participants on all aspectsof the process, from planning through to the assessment of the results. The richnessof PAR is its tendency to focus on the evidence that shows the deficiencies and limi-tations of our conventional and day-to-day way of thinking and doing. It encouragesthe people involved to seek out disconfirming evidence, evidence that does not matchtheir expectations. The dialogic and dialectical interaction between action and reflec-tion is the best way to improve both action and understanding. Critical thinking isverified in action, and action is analysed, assessed and reconstructed in the light ofthe critical thinking generated and reformulated as a result of the analysis of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

78 Á.I. Pérez et al.

practical consequences. The privileged purpose of investigation must be this interme-diate territory between action and understanding, made up of the practical thinking,the Gestalts, of the teacher.

The four fundamental aspects that make up all action research processes (empow-erment of participants, collaboration through participation, acquisition of knowledgeand social change) are outstanding in the privileged procedures, organised in succes-sive cycles, proposed in LS (Lewis 2002, 2005; Lewis et al. 2009; Stigler and Hiebert1999; Yoshida 1999).

Supported by the principles that govern the core reflection model, Korthagen(Korthagen et al. 2001; Korthagen, Lougran, and Russell 2006; Korthagen andVasalos 2005) proposes an intervention model or strategy that helps to orientate theaction research process and this, given its richness and simplicity, we have adoptedas the base of our LS as PAR project, with a group of teachers and students from aMaster’s Degree in Educational Innovation. The model differentiates the followingsteps:

(1) First, the student is encouraged to reflect on a specific experience duringteaching practice.

(2) Next, the student is helped to become aware of the often implicit beliefsplaying a role in his perception of, and behaviour in, this and other similarsituations.

(3) Then, through examining the disadvantages of this belief together with thestudent, dissatisfaction with the existing belief is created.

(4) The student is then offered an alternative, scientifically sound, theory.(5) Finally, alternative behaviour based on this theory is practised.

The development of the interdisciplinary core as a particular example of LS as PAR in the reconstruction of practical thinking

This section refers to the LS as PAR project developed in an online Master’s Degreein Educational Innovation, imparted by three universities in Andalusia (southernSpain) for Spanish-speaking teachers: Universidad Internacional de Andalucía,University of Malaga, and University of Almería. The master’s degree used theMoodle platform for online learning. This article presents the structure and analysis ofpart of the master’s degree known as Interdisciplinary Core, which lasted for fivemonths from February to June 2007, as the development and implementation of theaforementioned model.

The master’s degree had 13 students, of whom 11 were women and two were men.With regard to nationality, two of the students were Spanish, one was from Venezuelaand the others lived in Argentina. Two students worked at university level, and theothers were primary and secondary teachers. Some students had responsibilitiesrelated to the management of the education centres where they worked or the teachingorientation of other teachers or students.

The development of this master’s degree has involved a dual LS as PAR. Firstly,the teaching and research team of the master’s degree carried out its own LS as PAR,which consisted of the design and experimentation of an innovative curricular model.This process was accompanied by an internal assessment and an external assessment.The internal assessment was carried out by the master’s degree teaching and researchteam through regular work meetings and seminars. The minutes for these meetings

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Action Research 79

were included in a sessions diary, which was subsequently one of the sources ofinformation for analysis and assessment in the LS as PAR cycle. Moreover, one ofthe team researchers carried out interviews with the teachers and students. Finally, asurvey was carried out amongst students and an assessment forum set up at our onlinecampus to discuss any aspects of the development of the master’s degree. At the sametime, an external assessment team made up of research personnel from anotheruniversity carried out its own assessment, attending our meetings and seminars asparticipating observers, whilst collecting information both from our online campusand also through interviews and by requesting reports from teachers and students(Pérez, Soto, and Serván 2008). At the same time as this LS as PAR developed by theteachers of the master’s degree, students carried out their own LS as PAR, whichforms the main object of the present article.

During the design of the curricular structure of the master’s degree, practice,cooperation and research emerged as being the three pillars that should sustain thedevelopment of this programme and, consequently, of the interdisciplinary core. Themain goal of the programme can be summarised as aiming to lead to significant,relevant learning, as the best guarantee for the personal and professional developmentof teachers. In our opinion, relevant, useful learning requires the intense, ongoinginteraction between theory and practice, between practice and theory, betweenresearch and action, and between reflection and all aspects of action. This generalprinciple took shape in the following basic aspects: activity played a crucial role inthe didactic model, collaboration was a fundamental methodological pillar, controlover one’s own learning process would be another fundamental methodologicalpillar, and promotion of personalised teaching was important – we used a plural,flexible didactic methodology.

In keeping with these cases, the curricular structure of the master’s degree is basedon two main components (Serván et al. 2007):

(1) The Personal Work Project – based on a point of interest chosen by eachstudent and overseen by a university teacher from the beginning. This interestwill give meaning to the concepts, theories, activities, experiences and tech-niques to be learnt in order to respond to the problems and challenges derivingfrom the carrying out of each personal project. This Project forms the pillar ofboth theory and practice throughout the programme, becoming, at the end ofthe process, the thesis of the master’s degree.

(2) The Interdisciplinary Core – this refers to the basic, formal components presentin all educational innovation processes, which require an interdisciplinaryapproach and cooperative treatment. It can be considered a practical and theo-retical tool that enriches the intellectual resources of the educational innovationspecialist, providing support when dealing with specific innovation projects indifferent contexts and situations (Serván et al. 2007). As we will see later on,this component is central to PAR, in order to facilitate the reconstruction of thepractical thinking of in-service teachers.

The disciplinary modules are offered to students as theoretical and practical resourcesand in order to support the development of their personal work project;4 these are aseries of ad hoc documents that cover an extensive range of subjects related to educa-tional innovation, and can be considered an essential didactic version of the state ofthe question.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

80 Á.I. Pérez et al.

With regard to the organisation of this curricular structure in the online campus, aMoodle course acted as a portal for all the online spaces of the master’s degree. Thisprovided a space for the general documents and forums, along with links to all theonline spaces of the different components of the curricular structure. A teamresearcher was entrusted with administering this portal and giving out general commu-nications to students. Moreover, each of the disciplinary modules constituted aMoodle course. Likewise, students developed their personal work project and portfo-lio with the guidance of a tutor, to which end they had an exclusive online space thattook shape as a Moodle course.

With regard to the Interdisciplinary Core on which this article focuses, the teachingteam of the master’s degree established the following principles for its development,coherent with the goals of the master’s degree:

● To establish strong connections between daily practice and the long-term goalsof education. We cannot easily disassociate the goals of the educational systemfrom the skills required of teachers.

● To formulate clear goals for the long-term learning and development ofstudents.

● To work with interdisciplinary pedagogical content that allows us to tackle thecomplex problems presented by educational innovation in a real context.

● To actively involve students in the analysis of their own practice and of the waythey behave in real, complex situations of educational innovation in contempo-rary school contexts.

● To promote cooperative work among students, by way of active group forumsthroughout the period of development of the LS.

● To promote the drawing-up of action and reflection projects, within the profes-sional work of the students, taking into consideration their real limitations andpossibilities.

In keeping with these principles and based on what we have defined for LS as PAR,between March 2006 and January 2007, a workgroup made up of five teachers (twofemale tutors, two male tutors and the Director of the Master’s Degree)5 drew up awork plan for the Interdisciplinary Core. This teaching team followed the stages estab-lished for the LS (Lewis 2002, 2005). Students were split into two groups, each tutoredby two teachers, counting on the Moodle platform as an independent online space.These teachers alternated the functions of animator and internal observer in order togather information on the development of the work proposal. At the same time, makinguse of the online context of the process, the possibility of acting as external observersof the other group was established, opening up the forums and online communicationareas, constituting an online way of observing the development of the lesson designedby the complete group. The main Moodle tools we used were the forums, as tools forcommunication and discussion, and the tasks, through which students provided us withtheir productions and we gave them feedback. Email was also an important means ofcommunication both amongst teachers and between teachers and students. All the writ-ten information produced in these spaces was also used as a source of information forthe LS as PAR carried out by the teaching team of the master’s degree.

In this regard, in line with the intervention strategy proposed by Korthagen, ourinterdisciplinary core took shape as an integrated, systematic spiral work structuredistributed in the following stages:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Action Research 81

● Description of one’s own practice (one month, February).● Internal comparison and discussion of their practice description among the

components of the student workgroup (one month, March). These two stages, aswe shall see in detail below, are related to steps one, two and three of the Korthagenmodel, since their purposes include encouraging students to reflect on their ownteaching practice and making them aware of their implicit beliefs and of the possi-ble relationship to their espoused theories, through debate and discussion amongstthe components of the group. Doubt, uncertainty and dissatisfaction appear whentheir Epistemes do not explain or accompany their Phronesis.

● External comparison (two months, April and May) with other educationalinnovation experiences in schools; in particular, the experience known asAccelerated Schools (Levin 1987). In this third stage, as Korthagen proposes,we offer students an alternative with which to compare their own practice, anopen door to the search for more coherent practice with innovative educationalprinciples.

● Individual educational innovation proposal (one month, June) in line with theconditions of the professional context of each one of the students by virtue ofthe work and discussion developed in the previous months. This stage, in linewith the proposal of Korthagen, aims to design an alternative behaviour,although, as we shall see, the teachers of the course left it to the students todecide whether to put this innovation proposal into practice, in keeping withtheir possibilities.

Stage one: description of the practice

In the first stage, the in-service teacher reflects upon the specific experience of his/herteaching practice, as a first step towards identifying and reconstructing his/herGestalts. To this end, the team of tutors of the interdisciplinary core drew up a guide-line of suggestions that students could follow in order to complete this description. Inthis manner, apart from referring to their work context and to the activities they devel-oped on a day-to-day basis, in-service teachers were asked to describe the goals thatled their teaching practice, and were questioned with regards to their level of satisfac-tion with them and, in particular, their feelings about their teaching practice (euphoria,confusion, happiness, etc.).

The greatest difficulty in-service teachers found was precisely focusing their teach-ing practice in a straightforward, descriptive manner without taking refuge in theoret-ical explanations and abstract frameworks that had little to do with what they reallydid in the classroom. The Core teachers had to repeatedly insist on them coming downfrom their theoretical level (espoused theory) in order to explain some of the realitiesthey came across in their educational system, in order to focus on the description andinterpretation of the specific activities they really carried out in their day-to-day prac-tice (theories in use). Despite our insistence, some in-service teachers failed to abandonthe espoused theory level in order to accurately describe their teaching practice andshow, both to themselves and to others, the theories in use, the Gestalts, which theywere using and the possible contradiction between the two.

This first stage was an initial approximation towards the following steps proposedby Korthagen. Firstly, the questions formulated by the tutors in order to improve thedescriptions caused the in-service teachers to become more aware of some of theirimplicit beliefs and the consequences they had on the way they perceived situations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

82 Á.I. Pérez et al.

and how they behaved in them. They took for granted that there were aspects of theirteaching practice which were assumed, which formed part of common-sense andwhich did not require explanation, and were surprised when we asked them forclarification of certain aspects. On occasion these were beliefs and theories that hadnot been considered, at least in detail, and that formed part of an imaginary sharedpedagogy which had gone unquestioned until this moment. The exercise of having toexplain them to the in-service teachers constituted the first chance to reflect upon themand to have to justify them, given the need to make them understandable to otherpeople. This exercise began to reveal contradictions between the explicit theories andthe theories in use, and to generate a certain level of dissatisfaction amongst the in-service teachers.

Stage two: internal comparison

During the following month the in-service teachers exchanged their descriptions. Tothis end, four forums were set up in the online learning environment where theInterdisciplinary Core was developed. The first of these forums was entitled QueriesForum and provided an area in which the in-service teachers could ask each otherfreely about their descriptions. The other three forums were organised in accordancewith the interdisciplinary topics that the teaching team believed to be fundamental foreducational innovation: context and community, curriculum and organisation, anddiagnosis and assessment.

The Queries Forum provided a further step in the feedback process started by thetutors in the previous stage, since the in-service teachers asked each other questionsand many of the demands that had not been met in the previous stage were reiteratedby their fellow students. The geographical distance of the in-service teachers and theirinvolvement in different educational systems and cultures became an element thathelped stimulate and facilitate this comparison and the participation of the students ininvestigating the experiences of others. At the same time, this process, enriched by thecomparison of differing practices, allowed the in-service teachers to apply theirperception to teaching situations other than their own and, in the same way, to contem-plate how their own day-to-day practice was interpreted by colleagues who were work-ing on different contexts and had different behaviours, competencies, beliefs, identitiesor missions. The role of the tutors in this stage involved encouraging discussions andorganising interventions, despite coming up against significant difficulty when tryingto overcome resistance to question and analyse the proposals and descriptions in moredetail, going beyond simple cultural differences or the pedagogical language used.

The single-issue forums tried to take the concerns expressed in the descriptionsand in the Queries Forum and use them for further analysis and reflection. Unlike therole played by the Core teachers in the Queries Forum, the single-issue forums alwaysbegan with a range of questions by the tutors of each group that focused on thecorresponding topic and, using the descriptions of the in-service teachers, aimed tohighlight the concerns, worries and dissatisfactions implicit or explicit in theirdescriptions and in the messages sent to the forums. This helped the in-service teach-ers to continue to analyse the gulf between espoused theories and theories in use,generating dissatisfaction not only with the strategic actions that dominated theirpractice, but also with regards to the governing values that sustained them, clearlyshowing the need for reconstruction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Action Research 83

Stage three: external comparison

The third stage is related to the next step of the action strategy designed by Korthagen:to offer an alternative theory. We stated previously that in order to help to reconstructthe Gestalts of the teacher, it is necessary to configure a quality epistemic context and,at the same time, to make the in-service teachers face the personal experience of newsituations. Within the limitations of the online environment, we achieved this throughthe study and analysis of an integrated, systematic educational innovation model thatinvolved a network of schools (n = 1700), with a clear educational direction and abun-dant available material: the Accelerated Schools6 movement developed in the UnitedStates and extended to other countries such as Brazil and Japan.

Aside from the international relevance and the innovative character of the experi-ence, the amplitude and quality of the available visual and written resources allow usto analyse Accelerated Schools from a theoretical and practical perspective, and toknow and understand through different formats (videos, articles, guides, books, etc.)both the philosophy and their real practice based on experiences recounted by theteachers involved in the change process.

One of the most relevant aspects for our purposes was the organisational structureof the change, ‘The Big Wheel’ and ‘The Small Wheels’ developed by the AcceleratedSchools. The Big Wheel refers to the structures of initial and global change within theAccelerated Schools project. This involves a series of activities and meetings in whichthe complete school, through committees, begins by analysing the current situation; inother words, trying to analyse and detect the main problems to be faced, in order tothen establish the intervention priorities and the strategies necessary to this end (SotoGómez 2006). The Small Wheels (Bruner and Hopfenberg 1992; Hopfenberg andLevin 1993) are the gears of ‘The Big Wheel’ collaboration activities and take shapeas small, creative experiments of all the members of the school community. Class-room innovations are what give teachers the immediate opportunity to make changesin their own environment. This structure contributes to establishing relations betweenspecific classroom practice and the holistic, integrating view of the basic theoreticalcomponents of the innovation process: organisational context of the centre, curricu-lum and community. All this is developed through an action research process sharedby all the educational community in the different commissions. As with our Interdis-ciplinary Core, this requires setting aside personal theories and beliefs and trying toconsider the issue in question from the point of view of others.

At the same time, a digital guide (learning object) was drawn up as additionalmaterial to establish itineraries for detailed theoretical study of the content of thedisciplinary modules,7 along with analysis of the experience of these schools.

In order to develop this stage we established specific forums for the analysis anddiscussion of the external experience using the three interdisciplinary topics indicatedin the second stage. Following the analysis and comparison carried out, a sharedconcern emerged with regard to one of them: the management and participation of theeducational community. In this regard, the students indicated the need to improve thecooperation strategies between teachers as an essential condition for the satisfactorydevelopment of any reform or change that is important, relevant or sustainable inschool practice. The result is the need to carry out in-depth analysis of the tools thatthis and other experiences proposed in order to establish and experience structureswhich systematise the cooperative work of teachers. True, rather than merely bureau-cratic, cooperation is complex and arduous and requires systematic discussion,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

84 Á.I. Pérez et al.

consensus, role distribution, attention to interaction and the creation of a climate oftransparency and trust.

External comparison through the reading of texts in online contexts presents manylimitations, which must be dealt with through practical personal experiences andsynchronous communications that also allow, insofar as possible, the visual interac-tion of those involved.

Stage four: innovation proposal

This fourth stage is related to Korthagen’s idea of rounding off the process with thepractice of alternative behaviour based on the proposal. However, following anintense discussion amongst the teaching team in the LS design stage, it was decidedthat it would be too much to ask students to put into practice an innovationproposal that exceeds their individual responsibilities. It was resolved that it wouldbe preferable to ask them for a theoretical plan of systematic character, integratinga practical strategy that could be carried out within the limits of their possibilitiesand work contexts. The in-service teachers had to start off from the description oftheir own practice and the resources obtained in the internal and external compari-son (stage II and stage III) with their colleagues, with the proposed innovationexperience and with the material of the disciplinary modules in order to constructthis innovation proposal. In some cases, those students whose personal interest inthe topic chosen for their Personal Work Project converged with their teachingpractice were encouraged to integrate the innovation proposal of this fourth stage inthe Personal Work Project. In these cases, the Interdisciplinary Core constituted thefirst stage in the spiral of reflection and shared epistemological comparison of aPAR process.

The effects of PAR on the reconstruction of practical thinking: process conclusions

Once the lesson had been developed (four stages of the Interdisciplinary Core), theteachers met and discussed the evidence and the registers collected through theinternal and external assessment process with regard to the learning of the students(in-service teachers). Some of the most significant conclusions of this process ofreflection and revision of the lesson are as follows:

● The development of the core has also allowed, as shown in the external assess-ment report, constant interaction between practice, the educational practice ofour students and the practice of the Accelerated Schools movement, and theory– both that which accompanies the chosen innovation experience and that of thedisciplinary modules that provided the resources for analysis and discussion ofthese practices, placed clearly at the service of the reconstruction of the personaltheories or Gestalts.

● In this regard, important incongruities were found between the espoused theo-ries and the theories in use of our students, whilst it was also shown that theformer are often used as rationalisations of rather unsatisfactory practice (Eraut1994). Our demands for information based on the initial description and internalcomparison carried out amongst the students of the course as a way to under-stand the practice of their colleagues has allowed the epistemological distances

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Action Research 85

between the theories in use and the espoused theories of some students to bemade clear.

● In consequence, students have, to different degrees, reflected upon their ownprofessional practice, analysing different dimensions they had not previouslyconsidered, and some of them were able to reconstruct, having dealt with impor-tant conflicts and resistance, their governing values and to question their beliefs,identity and mission as teachers, coming to realise that it is possible to undertakean organised process for the improvement of their practice.

● In this sense, the innovation proposals described in the last stage contain, to agreater or lesser degree, not only fundamental theoretical principles upon whichto base future practice, but also specific practical measures in line with theprinciples formulated.

● Students have understood that their practice may have unforeseen consequencesand that school contexts are uncertain and changing, which means they mustbecome reflexive professionals who are constantly investigating these as ameans for improvement.

● In a curricular structure based on individual work, the Interdisciplinary Coreintroduces the essential cooperative element that, firstly, mitigates the isolationof the online environment and, more importantly, shows that the innovationprojects to be promoted must be based on teamwork, as the LS proposes as PAR.

● The deficiencies detected in our model with regard to the lack of shared,contrasted practice have led to the reformulation of our current proposal for thesame master’s degree, to be carried out at Malaga University during academicyear 2009/10, in the sense of including a period of practice in innovativecontexts in order to analyse and enrich the external comparison stage with apersonal experience that stimulates the formation of new Gestalts, new intuitiveand epistemic models that reconstruct the uncertainties which come about in theinternal comparison stage.

Notes1. 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 madeby Aristotle between technical and practical thinking. They refer to single-loop learning forthat which each learner carries out in order to develop pre-established values, plans, strat-egies and rules, the value of which is not questioned. The emphasis is placed on technicaldevelopment in order to make them more efficient (action strategies). Double-loop learningis 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 usecan be classified into two models of understanding and of action, which are clearly distinctfrom the epistemological and educational point of view:

● Model I, which includes those variables or values concerned with maintaining the statusquo and impede or prevent double-loop learning. These beliefs, values and theories plat-forms dominate in those people who are concerned with covering up defects and incon-sistencies before themselves and before others, therefore preventing comparison,reconstruction, growth and independent development. The majority socialisation ofcontemporary citizens in current cultural contexts is developed within this model, in partas a defensive reaction before hostile, uncertain scenarios (predominance of socialisationprocesses in learning contexts; Pérez Gómez 1998).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

86 Á.I. Pérez et al.

● To the contrary, Model II, which groups together the variables or values that promoteand favour double-loop learning – which is more in-depth and reflexive – allow us toidentify, 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 upthe identity of our most stable positions. Within Model II, public scrutiny, pluralcomparison, freedom of choice and cooperative participation are not only allowed butencouraged (education as an autonomous construction process of the individual; PérezGómez 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 andreflection. Lesson study serves to remind teacher researchers in western societies thatteaching need not be so individualistic (Elliott and Tsai 2008).

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

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

6. The acceleration project was created in 1986 and led by the Education Economy ProfessorHenry 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 situationof risk in the USA, they discovered that the incapacity of the existing schools to progressin the education of these students is not accidental.

7. Each disciplinary module provided the students with all kinds of components that helpedto situate the problems, understand the concepts and see the analysis procedures. The mate-rials of the disciplinary modules were theoretic tools for use in the analysis of the practicalexperiences.

ReferencesArgyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for action. A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational

change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Bargh, J.A., and M.J. Ferguson. 2000. Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher

mental processes. Psychological Bulletin 126, no. 6: 925–45.Brown, J.S., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Education Researcher 18, no. 1: 32–42.Bruner, I., and W. Hopfenberg. 1992. The interactive production of knowledge in accelerated

schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, April 20–24 in San Francisco, USA.

Corno, L., L.J. Cronbach, H. Kupermintz, D.F. Lohman, E.B. Mandinach, A.W. Porteus, andJ.E. Talbert. 2002. Stanford aptitude seminar. Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extendingthe legacy of Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Dewey, J. 1934. Art as experience. New York: Perigree. (LW.10.)Dewey, J. 1938. Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books (LW.13.)Elliott, J., and Ch. Tsai. 2008. What might Confucius have to say about action research?

Educational Action Research 16, no. 4: 569–78.Eraut, M. 1994. Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer.Feldman, A. 2007. Existential approaches to action research. Amherst: University of

Massachusetts.Garrison, J. 2001. An introduction to Dewey’s theory of functional ‘trans-action’: An alterna-

tive paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity 8, no. 4: 275–96.Gergen, K. 2001. Social constructions in context. London: Sage.Greeno, J.G., A.M. Collins, and L.B. Resnick. 1996. Cognition and learning. In Handbook of

research in educational psychology, ed. D. Berliner, and R. Calfee, 15–46. New York:Macmillan.

Hagger, H. 2006. Learning teaching from teachers: Realising the potential of school-basedteacher education, 186. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Action Research 87

Hopfenberg, W.S., and H.M. Levin, and associates. 1993. The accelerated schools. Resourceguide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Korthagen, F.A.J. 2004. In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holisticapproach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, no. 1: 77–97.

Korthagen, F.A.J., and A. Vasalos. 2005. Levels in reflection: Core reflection as a means toenhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 11, no. 1: 47–71.

Korthagen, F.A.J., J. Kessels, B. Koster, B. Lagerwerf, and T. Wubbels. 2001. Linking prac-tice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Korthagen, F.A.J., J. Loughran, and T. Russell. 2006. Developing fundamental principles forteacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education 22, no. 8:1020–41.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levin, H. 1987. Accelerated schools for the disadvantaged. Educational Leadership 44, no. 6:19–21.

Lewis, C. 2002. Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional improvement.Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.

Lewis, C., R. Perry, and A. Murata. 2005. How should research contribute to instructionalimprovement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher 35, no. 3: 3–14.

Lewis, C., E. Perry, and R. Friedkin. 2009. Lesson study as action research. In The SAGEhandbook of educational action research, ed. S.E Noffke and B. Somekh, 142–55.London: SAGE Publications.

May, M.H. Cheng, Kwok-Wai Chan, Sylvia Y.F. Tang, and Annie Y.N. Cheng. 2009. Pre-service teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and their conceptions ofteaching. Teaching and Teacher Education 25: 319–27.

Pajares, M.F. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messyconstruct. Review of Educational Research 62, no. 3: 307–32.

Pérez Gómez, A.I. 1998. La cultura escolar en la sociedad neoliberal. Madrid: Morata.Pérez Gómez, A.I., E. Soto, and Ma J. Serván. 2008. Lesson studies in virtual in-service

teacher education postgraduate programme for international Spanish speaking teachers.Possibilities and difficulties. Paper presented at the WALS 2008 Lesson Studies Interna-tional Conference, December, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong.

Pérez Gómez, A.I., E. Soto Gómez, J.F. Murillo Mas, and M. Sola Fernandez. 2009. Theimpact of action research in the Spanish schools in the Post-Franco era. In The SAGEhandbook of educational action research, ed. S.E. Noffke and B. Somekh, 482–94.London: SAGE Publications.

Rogoff, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Serván, MaJ., J.F. Murillo, A.I. Pérez, M. Sola, and E. Soto. 2007. Project-based online teachingand learning. An example of curricular design. In E-Learning 2007, (Online Conference),75–9. Lisbon: IADIS.

Snow, R.E. 1994. Abilities in academic tasks. In Mind in context: Interactionist perspectiveson human intelligence, ed. R.J. Sternberg and R.K. Wagner, 3–37. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Somekh, B., and K. Zeichner. 2009. Action research for educational reform: Remodellingaction research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research 17,no. 1: 5–21.

Soto Gómez, E. 2006. Las escuelas aceleradas: relevancia, intensidad y experimentacióncomo ejes de una escuela para todos. Cooperación Educativa Kikiriki 80: 40–9.

Stigler, J.W., and J. Hiebert. 1999. The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers forimproving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. 2001. Pensamiento y lenguaje. Trad. P. Tosaus. Barcelona: Ediciones PaidósIbérica.

Wong, D. 2007. Beyond control and rationality: Dewey, aesthetics, motivation, and educativeexperiences. Teachers College Record 109, no. 1: 192–220.

Yoshida, M. 1999. Lesson study: An ethnographic investigation of school-based teacherdevelopment in Japan. Unpub. doctoral diss., University of Chicago.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

22 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014