Results (
Indonesian) 1:
[Copy]Copied!
Method This study is part of the project Interaction and Knowledge (IK), which studied and promoted social interactions in formal educational scenarios during 12 years (1994/1995–2005/2006) (for more details see César, 2009, 2013a; Hamido & César, 2009; Ventura, 2012). We assume an interpretative paradigm (Denzin, 2002) and a historically and culturally situated approach (César, 2009, 2013a). This is an ethno-graphic-based research (Hamido & César, 2009), based in the existence of a design of flexible research, prolonged fieldwork, use of thick descriptions, and emergence of inductive categories of analysis. 104 C. Courela, M. CésarDuring the course, which lasted three years (7th–9th grades), we developed an ac-tion-research project, as it was suitable for solving concrete problems, with a strong focus on intervention (Mason, 2002). After the course there was a 10-year follow up, making this a longitudinal study through which we could study and understand the impacts that those practices had (and have) on the participants’ life trajectories of participation. The research questions we focused on are: (1) How does an edu-cational community construct an inclusive and emancipatory curriculum?; and (2) How do the mechanisms of inter- and intra-empowerment,developed during this alternative curriculum, shape students’ life trajectories of participation? The participants were the seven students who completed this course, their teachers, and various elements of the educational community. We focus mainly on one student: Ernesto. The names are fictional, to guarantee anonymity. The most used data collecting instruments were: participant observation (audio- and vid-eo-recorded, as well as in photos and in researchers’ diaries), interviews, informal conversations, tasks inspired by projective techniques (TIPT), students’ protocols, and documents. Data collection took place throughout the course and during the follow up. Data treatment and analysis included codification. For instance, the ex-cerpts of the interviews carried out during the course are identified by the letter I, followed by the order in which they took place (I1, I2, and so forth), by the name of that participant, and, for teachers, by the subjects they taught and the years of the course in which they participated. In the follow up interviews we also used the letter I, the interview number, follow up(fu), and then the name of that participant. Therefore, I2fu, Ernesto, refers to the interview carried out in the 2nd year of the follow up with Ernesto. In the transcripts, we use ... after a word for a small pause in the account (less than 3 seconds), and (...) for longer pauses. For purposes of data treatment and analysis we resorted to a narrative content analysis (Clandinin & Connelly, 1998) in order to understand each participant’s life trajectory of par-ticipation (César, 2013a).
Being translated, please wait..