[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form of communication
Action research, at least from a teacher-research perspective, is something I've always understood to emerge from participants' inquiries into their own practice. When teachers write about their classroom inquiries, they tend to begin with the story of the question, not what Hegel or Habermas thinks. Yet in this discussion of action research, the only people given credit for thinking are what you've called "researchers" who can stand back and take in the whole, rather than those with an emic perspective on their own experiences.
Or, at least, that's how it's come across to me. I know a lot of teacher-researchers, and have worked from that perspective myself, so I've been pretty well submerged in their discourse of emic understanding and distance from other people's detached study of them.
Distinguished Research Professor of English Education
Department of Language and Literacy Education
The University of Georgia
309 Aderhold Hall
Athens, GA 30602
Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education
Follow JoLLE on twitter @Jolle_uga
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Martin Packer
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 3:53 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form of communication
Could you spell this out a bit Peter? I'm not grasping your point.
On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
> What I find surprising about this whole discussion is that each and every source invoked is a highly placed theorist. It seems a bit patronizing to me.
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list