Constructing knowledge in professional conversations: The role of beliefs on knowledge and knowing

Tillema, Harm; Orland‐Barak, Lily

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.006

Cited by 56 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These last years have seen a growing interest in the way that professional conversations support and stimulate professional development (Tillema & Orland-Barak, 2006). Supervisory discussions are at the center of a large number of research projects (Caroll, 2005;Cartaut & Bertone, 2009;Chal-iès, Ria, Bertone, Trohel & Durand, 2004;Orland-Barak, 2006;Orland-Barak & Klein, 2005).…”

Section: Supervisory Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Discursive Approach to Recognition in the Practicum

Balslev

Vanhulle

Tominska

2011

mje

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is part of a larger research project on professional development, and more specifically the emergence of “professional knowledge” among pre-service teachers. The intent here is to analyze recognition phenomena in supervisory discussions. We consider recognition of pre-service teachers’ discourse as a condition for the emergence of professional knowledge. What “recognition markers” do evaluators seize from this discourse to decode its content and meaning, to adjust and influence it? How do these markers contribute (or fail to contribute) to establishing “shared communicative spaces”? Our analyses show that the emergence of these shared communicative spaces involves tensions that reveal (or fail to reveal) forms of recognition. These forms of recognition affect the shaping of pre-service teachers’ professional knowledge, as well as components of pre-service teachers’ identity that also influence the elaboration of professional knowledge.Cette contribution s’insère dans une recherche plus large portant sur les processus de développement professionnel, plus spécifiquement l’émergence de savoirs professionnels, chez des enseignants en formation. Cet article est centré sur les phénomènes de reconnaissance à l’oeuvre dans les entretiens de stage. Nous considérons en effet la reconnaissance du discours de l’enseignant en formation comme une condition d’émergence des savoirs professionnels. Quels « repères de reconnaissance » les évaluateurs prennent-ils dans ce discours pour en décoder le contenu et le sens, pour s’y ajuster et l’influencer ? En quoi ces repères contribuent-ils ou non à l’établissement de « zones de compréhension mutuelle » ? D’après nos analyses, l’émergence de ces zones de compréhension est soumise à des tensions qui révèlent ou non des formes de reconnaissance. Celles-ci influencent la configuration des savoirs professionnels que l’étudiant élabore, et partant, les composantes identitaires qui entrent dans cette élaboration

show abstract

Section: Supervisory Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Discursive Approach to Recognition in the Practicum

Balslev

Vanhulle

Tominska

2011

mje

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1) Evolving research questions Through critical appraisal of their own research collaboration Orland-Barak and Tillema (2007) took their own study (Tillema and Orland-Barak 2006) and analysed on-going written correspondences and documented conversations, and (re)examined their joint interpretations as co-researchers as they operated during their study to interpret their findings. Their retrospective account of dealing with data (Orland-Barak and Tillema 2007) specifies how researchers construct knowledge and arrive at a shared understanding collaboratively as a way of conceptualising interpretation from findings.…”

Section: Taking Positionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Taking our own studies on teachers' reflective expertise (Mena Marcos and Tillema 2006;Tillema and Orland-Barak 2006) for scrutiny, we illustrate how such realisations of researchers' intentions and goals are carried out and how it could foster critical subjectivity. In drafting specific dilemmas in analysing and interpreting accounts of teaching we show how a researcher's stance and values become 'embodied in the data'.…”

Section: Deliberation and Choice In Conducting A Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As present in the study of Tillema and Orland-Barak (2006) (1) Questions: the goals and intended outcomes of the study.…”

Section: Deliberation and Choice In Conducting A Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Table 4. Framework applied to the study by Tillema and Orland-Barak (2006). Á attending to the nature of exchange and debate in teams Á attending to individual diversity and contributions Á attending to the social dynamics of learning in teams Á attending to framing of the setting Á attending to mandated or self-organised teams Á attending to familiarity between members of a team Á attending to role of the researcher importance of research, therefore, is 'search', which is both meaningful and intentional.…”

Section: Deliberation and Choice In Conducting A Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Articulating choice and deliberation in conducting research – researchers ‘working in the interpretive zone’

Tillema

Barak

Mena

2008

Ethnography and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For researchers, committed to a research problem, finding meaningful answers is a process of careful weighting and interpreting what is actually found as an outcome of their mode of inquiry in reference to initial intentions and research goals. Particularly in doing qualitative research in/on teaching researchers have recognised the need to acknowledge the ways in which one's intentions interact with the process of study, and how they serve to shape research outcomes. Such a recognition calls for attention to working in the interpretive zone (Wasser and Bresler 1996). Based on our own studies on teachers' reflective expertise, we show how articulation of researchers' intent and deliberation in designing a study could ameliorate critical subjectivity and reflection while analysing and interpreting accounts of data and clarifying interactions between researcher and their object of study in the construction of knowledge. This lead us to construct a heuristic tool for achieving greater reflexivity in conducting research, which may be utilised, primarily, in programmes aimed at research education.

show abstract