Formative Classroom Research: Teachers and Students as Co-researchers in the Educational Process

Abstract

In school systems dominated by a hegemonic curriculum, classroom practice is often steered toward validated cultural objects and the measurable achievement of standardized learning outcomes. This context tends to constrain innovative methodologies. The article argues that formative classroom research—understood as inquiry embedded in everyday teaching—offers a viable path to pedagogical innovation because it breaks with transmissive teaching and invites teachers and students to become co-researchers in the educational act.

To examine how these roles are enacted, the authors conduct a case study of the “Proyecto Nuestra Escuela Pregunta Su Opinión” (NEPSO), a self-managed pedagogical community linked to the Universidad de La Frontera in Chile. NEPSO promotes project-based learning (PBL) oriented to research, in which students choose topics grounded in their interests and local concerns while teachers articulate those inquiries with curricular objectives. Data were generated through a semi-structured digital questionnaire with closed and open items, consistent with a mixed evaluative logic. Twenty-one teachers with experience implementing NEPSO between 2006 and 2022 participated, representing urban and rural settings, multiple educational levels and modalities, and diverse institutional types. The analysis combined thematic coding with a focused dialogue with relevant literature, and interpretations were refined through participant checking.

Conceptually, the paper frames classroom inquiry as eclectic and anti-dogmatic: it resists both narrow scientism and purely subjective exegesis, treating truth as socially constructed and open to methodological “bricolage” that combines quantitative, qualitative, participatory, and discourse-based routes.

Findings highlight a shift in classroom roles. Teachers describe students as co-protagonists who propose research questions, carry out methodological stages, analyze data, and communicate results. This agency is not framed as solitary independence: it requires scaffolding and sustained formative feedback from teachers, as well as openness to interdisciplinary collaboration with colleagues. Reported student learning extends beyond content knowledge to higher-order and socioemotional capacities—critical thinking, inquiry, leadership, communication, teamwork, and autonomy—often activated through authentic tasks such as designing and applying surveys, organizing and graphing data, and engaging community actors.

A distinctive contribution is the emphasis on territory. Teachers perceive that student-selected topics frequently align with concrete community problems, enabling students to see themselves as capable of improving their surroundings and understanding cause–effect relationships in their social and physical environments. The authors connect this to democratic and pragmatic traditions that value experience, usefulness, and the social construction of knowledge.

Teachers also identify constraints. Implementation may face resistance from technical-pedagogical teams and peers who fear losing time needed to “cover content,” especially under pressure from national standardized assessments. Large class sizes complicate the intensive feedback demanded by formative assessment.

Some participants question the over-privileging of opinion surveys as a primary instrument, arguing for methodological diversification (e.g., interviews) to capture richer perspectives.

Overall, the article concludes that formative classroom research via research-oriented PBL can enrich the prescribed curriculum, strengthen relevance to local territories, and protect student motivation and school engagement—potentially contributing to dropout prevention. However, these benefits depend on supportive working conditions and on initial teacher education that prepares educators to research with students and to sustain robust feedback and evaluation practices.