This article delves into the concept of ‘puzzles’ in exploratory practice (EP), an innovative branch of inclusive practitioner research. EP encourages teachers and learners to define their own agendas (i.e. puzzles) to explore their practice. It has been argued that puzzles are most effective when framed as why questions (e.g. Why do we cheat? ) rather than other types of questions. This is because why questions are believed to assist practitioners in gaining a deeper understanding of their practice. However, I have observed that learners often generate other forms of questions, such as what or how . Additionally, exploring a why question did not always lead to a deeper understanding. To address this issue, I conducted an investigation with my own 66 second-year undergraduate students in Japan to determine whether the puzzle had to be a why question in EP. The students created and investigated their puzzles using a preferred format of what, how , and why questions and shared their thoughts with their classmates through poster presentations. This was followed by questionnaires and focus group discussions where I asked for their thoughts on the differences between the three puzzles. The results revealed a general affinity between EP and why questions, but the qualitative analysis of EP posters suggested that, rather than the puzzle format itself, ensuring process-oriented puzzling in EP could be key to developing practitioners’ local understandings. This article highlights the significance of curiosity-driven ongoing engagement in practitioner research and discusses ways to cultivate this ‘I/we wonder’ mindset among practitioners.
- Inicie sesión para enviar comentarios