Chapters 8 and 9 together raise a lot of interesting
questions about just how objective we can hope to be with social
science/educational research and, consequently, about the potential worth or
these sorts of inquiry. He also discusses action research as a potential way to
do work that matters…discuss.
Carolyn~One interesting question Pring raises has to do with the criticism about the non-cumulative nature of educational research—how lots of good studies are conducted but seem to add up to nothing. Except it’s not really nothing—its worthwhile in context, and “the uniqueness fallacy” (p. 129), or the argument that generalizations are impossible since everybody or every group is unique when perhaps we’re unique only in the details. Research findings can be ‘illuminating” in what they reveal about relevant similarities and situations, even if these findings are not universally generalizable. Conversely, the overgeneralization of “rigorous” medical-model research (with its own systematic distortions) to irrelevant contexts turns the ideal of objectivity a barrier to real quality and utility.
ReplyDeleteIf the purpose of education research is to make education better, teacher action research, which is aimed at improving practice, should qualify. Criticisms that it’s not rigorous because of the lack of public scrutiny or the testability of its conclusions, or that the aim of real research should just be to contribute to a body of knowledge seem to lose sight of the end goal of education research. Perhaps the standards for rigor should just be different for different projects. Gutiérrez & Penuel (2014) advocate for this in Relevvance to Practice as a Criterion for Rigor. Pring points out that when a teacher answers the question “Why did you do it?’ an underlying theoretical framework of goals, beliefs and values emerges (p. 151). If structures and supports are in place for teachers to conduct and disseminate research (like they are in the MERC and META teacher action research cohorts at VCU led by Dr. Jesse Senechal), practitioner research will more likely be subjected to peer review and open to possible replication. Perhaps Pring’s caution to avoid false dualisms applies here: if its systematic inquiry and if its goal is the advancement of education, it’s all good (within reason).
Hi Carolyn … It’s Holly. I really liked your final point about broadening the definition of research. Narrow conceptions of research limit both the work we do and what we think is possible to do. The idea of having supports, structures, and training in place to help teachers embark on research projects is important too, I think. I also wondered about expanding our thinking (and by our, I mean traditional universities) about how and where to disseminate the results of such inquiries. Can traditional peer-reviewed journals reach the intended audiences? If we look outside of those boundaries, how do we ensure the critical public examination of findings that Pring describes as being so important to action research?
DeleteHey, it’s Laurie.
ReplyDeleteI’m beginning to see education research like Computer Generated Imagery (CGI.) Each research study is a pixel, and the picture becomes clearer as pixels are added and refined. (Do they refine pixels? My daughter says they do, but maybe she’s messing with me.) It seems like we’ve passed Pong, but we haven’t reached Grand Theft Auto V – maybe we’re still somewhere between Frogger and Fable III? But each addition or refinement of a pixel helps, so (almost) any research study adds something to the picture, or the body of knowledge.
Higher quality research will add more to the picture than lower quality. Pixels are tiny, though, and I don’t necessarily think a large scale RCT quantitative study is more helpful than a really good qualitative study. Maybe the realistic dent in the car adds more to the authentic feel of the game than the highway on which it drives? I think the quality is determined by the trustworthiness and (perhaps eventual or indirect) applicability of the study. Objectivity makes a study more trustworthy.
I suspect objectivity, like Big T Truth, is an unattainable ideal to which researchers try to get as close as possible, the way video game designers create the most realistic worlds possible within the constraints of existing technology. I like the way Pring describes it on p. 157: “Objectivity is achieved in taking the necessary steps to eliminate bias or subjective interpretations of the evidence, and that is ensured by seeking wide and continuous criticism of the conclusions provisionally reached.” So even a seemingly subjective piece of qualitative research could be considered objective if the researcher is very clear about his/her own biases, transparent about methods and data collection and so on, and open to criticism and questions.
Because action research is generally useful, I think it adds detail and texture to the picture. Maybe it’s the hooker’s manicure or the auto thief’s tattoo that makes the game feel real? (I don’t know. I don’t actually like video games and I certainly don’t allow GTA in my house, so I’m kind of guessing here.) I was struck and a little annoyed by a phrase on p. 145, “this elevation of the teacher to the status of researcher.” Why would a researcher be higher in status than a teacher? I would think researchers exist to help the teachers do their job better. If we want to help teachers adopt or adapt effective teaching practices, dictating strategies from a position of power is almost a guarantee there will be no or, maybe, minimal and insincere effort, rendering the research useless. No one likes to be told how to do their job because it implies they are not currently doing it well enough. If we treated the teachers as equal, competent partners in research designed to help students, the results would be much different, I think. Enthusiastic and equal participation by teachers would add a richness and depth that might otherwise be lacking from the overall picture of educational research.
Would Becker call that a serious or a clichéd metaphor? How will I entertain myself when I write if I can’t play with pretentious words and cheesy metaphors? Next Becker will tell me to use simple sentences and run my drafts through the Hemingway editor app and eat more leafy green vegetables. *sigh*
Hey Laurie!
DeleteI also noticed Pring’s teacher/researcher dichotomy and felt a little uneasy about it. I know that I’ve said this before, but I really think we should be looking at teachers as artists who are developing a skill, rather than researchers or scientists. The critical teacher/artist, should not have an end goal in mind, but instead should constantly seek to improve their skill. Improving artistic skill is usually an arduous and labor intensive task, but it also tends to be personal, reflective, creative, and hopefully community oriented.
I also liked your pixel/video game metaphor! You should check out the art genre called hyperrealism. Hyperrealism aims to create artworks that look real, and often make viewers question their perception of reality. It sort of turns the idiom of “I’ll believe it when I see it” on its head, in the sense that you’re seeing something that looks real, but you can’t believe it because of logic (or knowledge, or ‘common sense’). On the topic of hyperrealism, I think something similar occurs with numbers and quantitative data. Somehow being able to quantify an experience makes it ‘more real’ to others. It bothers me a bit, I do think that numbers and tables and charts and graphs are all subjective. Just try having a conversation about a controversial topic, like say gun control, and both sides can spin the same statistic to meet their needs.
Weade here...Laurie, I completely agree with your analogy! I would also echo your comment that a “Big T” is unattainable. Through research, we increase knowledge by drawing conclusions from our findings to make new claims, or to support or refute existing claims. With respect to objective and subjective research interpretations, Pring discussed the validity of both and offers criticism of each interpretation. Different kinds of research produce different interpretation of knowledge. For example, an ethnographic research produces subjective research interpretations when compared to an experimental quantitative research which would produce an objective interpretation of findings. I disagree with Pring when he states that it is “odd” to be both an insider and an outsider at the same time when conducting research. (p. 27) I don’t think that it’s is unusual for a researcher to be immersed in the culture and setting of the research participants. To some extent, having that level of interaction allows the researcher to collect extensive data and draw meaningful interpretations (subjective) from the research. The depth of this information can be used to to generate new knowledge and research ideas.
DeleteThis is Mo...Pring argues that educational research must focus on a range of transactions between teachers and learners and the ways in which learning is carried out. He suggests that an educational practice consists of those transactions where the teacher is constantly evaluating their ideas and trying new approaches while responding to the levels of understandings of the learners. In this context, classrooms are seen as laboratories.
ReplyDeleteHis elevation of the teacher to the status of a researcher raises questions about the validity and objectivity of educational research as objectivity usually suggests that the researcher is somewhat distant from what is being researched into. Pring explains the notion of the teacher as a researcher through the concept of the curriculum where the relationship between theory and practice shifts from that in which practice is seen to be an application of theory to one in which reflection upon practice reveals the theory embedded in it. The process of theorizing about curriculum is referred to as “situated cognition”. According to him, no practice stands outside a theoretical framework. By sharing problems, teachers are able to build a body of professional knowledge, which is open to criticism and improvement. He believes that the practical engagement of the teacher and their participation in action research redefine their role in accumulating a body of knowledge that, being transformed by practice, can be transformed into practice.
What are the implications of “situated cognition”, where context and cognition are deemed interwoven, on curriculum design and student learning? How does “situated cognition” transform learning in school from learning about a subject domain to learning to be a member of a community? How does it relate to identity development, which Pring did not discuss in Chapters 8 and 9?
Jorli-
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 8 and 9, Pring discusses using action research as a way to provide more in depth and practical knowledge. I feel that action research is very valuable to our field and a direction that our field needs to be exploring.
Critics of educational research will hold action research up as further indication that we are too far in quadrant IV. Action research is about empowering the teacher to conduct research in their own setting and about topics that apply to them. If the standards for research that education is or wants to follow, are the same as the standards of research that other hard sciences follow, action research would not meet the criteria for research. Also, action based research can be more difficult to share out. Individual teachers do not always know how to write up a paper or even how to publish the paper which prevents their research from entering the broader field. It is also research that is harder to replicate and has more "exceptions." Research is done inside of the classroom and influenced not only by the students and the student's background but also by the teacher (who is also the researcher).
Some already in the education field believe that individuals must be taught to be researchers. PhD students need to be trained to become not only stewards of the field, to leave their training as teachers behind, and also how to be good researchers. Action based research contradicts this opinion. Rather then engaging in specialized training, teachers are empowered to conduct the research.
Objectivity is considered a necessary component of sound research. The ability to distance oneself from the subjects of a study in order to avoid any biases or favor has long been viewed as a requirement for making honest and authentic interpretations of data. This is accomplished most simply by allowing individuals from outside of the school community to conduct research. These investigators have no relationships with their subjects and have been trained to interpret data and explain the reasoning behind the interpretation based on their research philosophy and perspective.
ReplyDeleteSuch an approach is common among the sciences which are considered hard and pure. This objectivity adds to the validity and trustworthiness of a study. As usual, education and other social science, however don’t lend themselves to this sort of approach. Pring contends that education is a series of transactions between the teacher and the learner. These transactions are fluid, complex, and dynamic, making them too abstract and multifaceted for an outsider to understand fully. A periodic visit or brief acquaintance does not provide an investigator a thorough comprehension of the dynamics of a classroom and the student/teacher relationship. Data gathered on one visit may be different than information collected on another visit and the outside researcher does not possess a deep enough understanding of the community, school, and classroom to provide sound reasoning for the difference. This is why educational research must consider teachers as potential researchers.
Such research supports the belief that educational research is soft and applicable. Action research however, can be an invaluable asset to and increase our understanding of what works in the classroom. Only teachers have daily access to the data crucial to understanding the classroom. Teachers have the ability to consistently test hypothesis and conclusions drawn from transactions with students. A lack of proper training and the strong probability of research bias have the potential to demote the significance of findings in action research, but the knowledge gained from someone in the field that experiences the dynamics of the classroom daily is irreplaceable.
It's Jodi... I agree with much of what John has said here, although there is one area of action research that should be considered. From experience as a university supervisor, I have observed many things happening in a classroom observation over eight weeks that the teacher and student teacher were unable to observe. I find this interesting after being on both sides of teaching (teacher and observer). Action research is great when teachers can observe and implement new ideas to test out although I believe having an aide or co-teacher who can switch off as observer then teacher could also be a great way to do research in a classroom. The dynamics of the classroom is so important when conducting research as all classrooms are different due to the tone of the teacher and the tone/behavior and make up of students. What works in a Glen Allen school would probably look different when implemented in a Richmond school (not all schools but some) depending on the make up of the teacher/student combination. Being an outsider conducting research can sometimes be a great advantage in order to be objective in the observations and outcomes of the study. Would teachers want one more thing put on their plate in being asked to conduct research while tending to the many obligations they are already trying to keep up with? Would it be valid on days they are tired and not wanting to conduct research? Would it happen when there is a particularly disruptive student on those days? Just a thought...
DeleteI love the idea of action research. My dissertation topic is one in which I am doing with the idea of taking theory into practice and positively influencing the school counseling profession. In 702, we talked about ways in which to make research better known, and I think that action research is a way that school systems can empower educators to feel comfortable doing their own research and making it known. I think that instead of SMART goals or going to professional developments all the time, teachers/admin/counselors can just as easily get re-certification points or funding (which Pring talks about) to make the bridge between schools and research. If these results can be published...think about how much more information on specific practice guidelines can go out into the world. Maybe that would help the "higher ups" in the Board of Education make policies that more directly relate to what we are actually seeing in schools. I think much of the disconnect is from the policy makers truly not knowing what we are DOING or what school is actually LIKE. Action research might be a way to change this.
ReplyDeleteVivian here…
ReplyDeletePring’s descriptions of action research and educational practice made me think about the way the terms are used when discussing teaching practices, as opposed to research practices. Action research recognizes the value of teacher input and participation in research. As Pring pointed out in Chapter 8, action research does not refer to the interactions between teacher and learner in the classroom. While there may be some similarities between what teachers refer to as ‘data-based decision making’ in making instructional decisions in the classroom and research practices, there are also many differences. Action research can inform instructional practice and can include teachers, but it must meet the standards of quality research if the information generated by the research is to be used to make wide-reaching educational decisions such as funding, resources, teacher expectations and curriculum. However, in a teacher’s day to day practice, they are engaging in activities that inform their own practice, adding knowledge and increasing their effectiveness and, in some cases, the effectiveness of their colleagues (such as in the practice of professional learning communities).
As Laurie experienced, I too was “struck” by the phrase elevation of the teacher to the status of researcher” (pg. 145). I was actually very annoyed (and maybe even insulted) that within the field of education, there would be this presumption of a hierarchy with teachers being below researchers. While researchers may be the experts at structuring research and implementing a procedure that meets rigorous standards, it is the classroom experiences (activities between the teacher and the learner) that drive the research. Action research seems to recognize the importance of the practitioner (the teacher) and the researcher, with both playing important roles in advancing educational practices. In their everyday practice, teachers could not meet the rigorous standards for quality research, but that does not mean that the information they gather cannot inform their own practice or the practice of their colleagues. However, this information could not be used to change division-wide practices, create policies or drive funding – that requires the more structured approach of research that follows rigorous guidelines.
Vivian sums up a lot of what I was thinking while reading the Pring passage. I too was annoyed but not surprised by the comment of the "elevation of the teacher". Teachers live the action research - constantly evaluating their values, deciding what works and informing their practice.
DeleteI think one area that teachers perhaps lack in their practice is the lack of scrutiny by their peers and being open to a "research forum". I believe the hesitation is the constant criticism teacher receive from the public - do they wish to open themselves up to even more? In addition, where is the time? Teachers are afforded very little time to collaborate with colleagues and seek the feedback.
The view of theory research and action research working hand and hand makes sense. One guides the other.