Communicating Real-Life Classroom Innovations as Research

  • Peter Nielsen
  • Bernard Mageean
Part of the Higher Education Horizons book series (HEHO)


This is a narrative account of a particular teacher redefining his educational task through communication with research experts and colleagues. It ends with the suggestion that formal theoretical research communications about professional practice constitute a network operating and interacting with two other networks. One is the professional’s self-­communicating and self-­defining activity with a task and a problem. The other is essentially a validation and generalisation effort, driven by task-­defining messages that are constantly sent and received in the actions of networks of professional colleagues – communications that can be promoted, planned and formalised to foster further developments and refinements of practice, pedagogical or otherwise. Research for practice should keep in view all these interacting networks.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Executive summary: Developing literacy in second-languages learners. Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cummins, J. (1984). Implications of bilingual proficiency for the education of minority language students. In P. Allen, M. Swain & C. Brumfit (Eds.), Language issues and education policies: Exploring Canada’s multilingual resources. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cummins, J. (1991) Interdependence of first – and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gallie, W. B. (1952). Peirce and pragmatism. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Howell, K. W., Kaplan, J. S., & O’Connell, C. Y. (1979). Evaluating exceptional children: A task analysis approach. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Pub.Co.Google Scholar
  7. Howell, K. W. & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision-making (3rd ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  8. Lonergan, B. J. F. (1957). Insight: A study of human understanding. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
  9. Lonergan, B. J. F. (1967). Cognitional Structure. In F. E. Crowe (Ed.), Collection: Papers by Bernard Lonergan S.J (pp. 121–141) Montreal: Palm.Google Scholar
  10. Lonergan, B. J. F. (1972). Method in theology. New York: Herder and Herder.Google Scholar
  11. Louis, K., & Miles, M. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2011). Cross-linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding, phonological awareness and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(1), 114–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Riches, C., & Genesee, F. (2006). Literacy: Crosslinguistic and crossmodal issues. In F. Genesee, K. Lindholm-Leary, W. Saunders & D. Christian (Eds.), Educating English language learners. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Nielsen
    • 1
  • Bernard Mageean
    • 2
  1. 1.School of EducationFlinders UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.School of EducationFlinders UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations