October 24…Scientifically-based Research and Teachers
Comment on the critique of SBR
offered by Stemhagen (me) and Nomi. Is it fair? Critique their critique!
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Dana Brookover- The critique of SBR (and Labaree in particular) is fair. I liked many things about the article. I liked how it's described as a "reframe" of educational research to recognize teacher's key role, and the description of the "fundamental tension". Many quotes were used to support your critique that I enjoyed: W. James, Kelly, Rudnick et al. I especially like the article had an teacher-empowerment focus. Just a thought- it could also be cool to hear from teacher's perspectives on this since the article mentions teacher empowerment. It could be neat to hear from teachers what they think about SBR and PAR and include that. Do some enjoy reading SBR (like you mentioned, newer teachers? I think new counselors enjoy reading what has been "shown" to work/have a "formula" for doing things as they're getting the hang of it)? Would a teacher be more willing to read and use research if it was reframed away from the current SBR focus? Looking forward to reading this article as it develops.
Yingying- I knew literally nothing about educational research and teaching at the beginning of the semester and now reading your paper, I can find half of my idea which was built in this classroom has reflected in this paper, and some ideas in the paper are able to add another layer on it. I know the purpose of this class is not to develop similar ideas, but from nothing to some ideas in foundation definitely made me peak through some of the education world. In the paper, this idea is clear, “teaching is an art, and sciences never generate arts directly out of themselves. An intermediate inventive mind must make that application, by using its originality”. This again valued the “action” stage, teachers’ role as the “evaluator” and “the success of an intervention cannot be claimed unless researchers can be sure that the teachers carried out the intervention faithfully.” (So exciting that I was able to generate this idea from our group discussion last week.) In addition, this paper introduced me to the idea of “controlling teachers”. Obviously, teachers should not simply “implemented the intervention as preferred by those who created it”. But a lot of teachers might have the same question that the teacher asked: “to what extent am I implementing the program structures and instructional strategies in a manner consistent with the intended program”??? P.S. I really liked Dana’s idea of hearing teachers’ side of stories.
Hi - Cat here. I thought I already posted a comment, but it must have vanished into the vortex. I'll try again. Apologies if it appears twice:
Fifteen years ago, there was a banner on the third floor of Oliver Hall that read “Teachers as Decision Makers.” At least I think that’s what it said. To what extent is SBR – or at least the kind of SBR that’s going through an identity crisis – a fundamental mismatch for the idea of classroom teachers as trusted professionals? As people who interact, inquire, research, care, and decide?
A few points:
I wonder if the particular problem with generalization (such cheek, really!) could be untangled even a little more. I mean, the discipline of inferential statistics has its own self-regulatory practices that are at odds with classroom reality. Specifically, the notion of a “representative sample” clashes with how school populations are composed.
Originally, I also wondered if there might be room to consider the notion that teaching is a complex cultural activity comprised of systems that can make it “change-proof” (per Stigler & Hiebert, 1998). I second-guessed myself on this, though, because it sort of leads us astray. It maybe even inadvertently feels like we’re still trying to fix teachers, as if they were problems to solve (by the way - - solve, not merely “manage”). It’s a little creepy, even though I kinda like that paper …
I also have margin notes about Lesson Study, but I see there’s a placeholder to discuss that further. That’s cool. Remember that Japanese Lesson Study also has postpositivism in its DNA.
If there is room to go beyond Lesson Study & PAR, consider also the DMI project (“Developing Mathematical Ideas” - - which came from a partnership between Mount Holyoke and folks from TERC, I think). The DMI materials are composed mostly of case studies in the form of first person testimonials from teachers. Children’s work and teachers’ reflections are featured so prominently, they really drive the learning (the “professional development”). It’s personal and human and avoids the heavy-handed, patriarchal voice of, say, an NRC pamphlet. Something to think about…
I agree with a lot of my classmates who have left their critiques so far. I do appreciate the considerations of both art and science in pedagogy and practice. It is so easy for practitioners to feel a pull towards doing what they are told instead of allowing things to be more intuitive.
Something that frustrated me in my time as a practitioner was receiving surface-level instructions or trainings on things that were deemed very important by those in authority (who also mandated that these things happen). I do understand the importance of implementing interventions with fidelity; however, often times, practitioners are not taught in ways that encourage fidelity to take place in their practice (the classroom) at a level that would satisfy the authority figures (the researchers). There are more gaps in this than I think are often realized. I am wondering how the information is disseminated to teachers in a way that encourages fidelity; hour-long workshops? Is understanding assessed after? Reading articles in their spare time? I think including the methods that instill "expertise" may strengthen your argument even further.
I am also intersted in hearing from tea hearing from teachers, though I am curious about their feelings in two areas. A.) I wonder if they truly feel they have been prepared enought to implement with fidelity, and B.) the difference in teacher feelings about research when their teaching practices feel respected versus when they feel restricted. Having their professional identities validated - or not - honestly may impact their implementation in the classroom. Hearing teacher accounts could definitely be an interesting addition.
I found this article to be quite clear and easy to read, albeit obviously a work in progress. I very much enjoyed seeing what a manuscript looks like at this advanced stage, and seeing where there is still much work to be done. Thank you for allowing us into this "risk", and please thank Brionna as well.
Here is my "critique": the philosophical and ideological foundations for your argument seem sound. Labaree's explanation of the nature of educational knowledge and the graphic depiction are familiar to me from our discussion in this class, as well as the ideas from Dewey and William James. In the end, though, I wasn't quite sure what the goal of the article is. What is it supposed to DO? Is it meant to be simply a discussion of the issues of SBR with some softly proposed alternatives, or do you really want to make a strong statement in favor of more democratic research methods? It seemed to me that there is a lot of qualifying and hedging your remarks, such that by the end of the article the strength of the argument was somewhat diluted. I do think the logic is sound, but the conclusions could be more clearly articulated.
I think Dana's idea of some teacher input is brilliant, and would certainly underscore your point while giving an example of what that kind of "humility" looks like.
How cool to see what we’re learning in class translated into a publishable paper! I second Andrea in sending our thanks to you and Briona for sharing your work in progress and giving us an opportunity to not only experience what academic writing process is like, but practice giving feedback. It is always encouraging to see our professors walking the (academic life) talk!
Overall I enjoyed reading your paper advancing Deweyan democratic approach in education research. Your critique of SBR was strong and respectful. I noted your plan to include a little bit more on the value of SBR which would probably strengthen your argument overall. Your effort and care to continually place the teacher as dynamic expert and creator of research were evident throughout the paper. Including the Labaree four quadrants was helpful as a visual and conceptual grounding for the other arguments. I am interested to hear more in your results section about the context surrounding inexperienced teachers’ role in SBR. Your language was evocative, especially when discussing teachers as ‘robots’. I could see where there might be some backlash on that one! I noted you didn’t include qualitative research as a way to hear teacher’s voices and capture their experience/art/science; I’m curious what your thinking was on leaving that out. The headings were catchy and helpful in moving through the paper. I enjoyed the Freudian joke to illustrate your point! I wonder too if more context such as overall research directions (favoring STEM which is quadrant 1 in educational research) and funding considerations (favoring SBR) have a place in this article as part of our democratic process.
Thanks again for letting us practice. Looking forward to discussing more as a group later today! Rachel
Andrea Moreau here, I have a nice little head cold so please bear with me if some of this doesn’t make sense. I found the critique of SBR in this article to be fair and argument to be easy to understand. There is a one glaring downside of SBR research in education that being the ‘disempowering and deprofessionalizing teachers’. Science-based research takes the autonomy and power out of the hands of teachers and makes them into information managers. I understand that this type of research wants to control all variables but I just don’t know how you can control for external variables AND teachers. It just seems like too many moving parts to solely use SBR as the tool to improve education in this country. I just don’t see how education research can completely move to quadrant I of the nature of educational knowledge. I think researchers forget that every school, classroom, and student is made up of living beings that all have different ways of interpreting and processing the world.
I apologize for the late posting but you know, c'est la vie. Thank you for sharing this work in progress and it is wonderful to see the concepts that we are reading and studying this semester connect in an environment such as this paper. The SBR to PAR highlights the usefulness of of SBR while acknowledging the sometimes forgotten practice of application. The X/Y diagram helps readers (like we did in class) understand the hard-soft / applied-pure duality and how it's clear to use SBR in the hard/pure side of things but the marshy/murky terrain of soft/applied is not as simple. The suggestion that a more practical use is to combine research with practice in a symbiotic feedback loop that is a on-going process rather than a robotic application really tugs at the heartstrings of the applied practitioner.
Hi This is Preeti. Thank you for sharing this draft of article with us. It is so fascinating to see a bunch of concepts that we have learned through this course have been reshaped in a better form of a research article. As far as my critique is concerned, here it is: Though the analysis that you put forward is through, I would like to second Andrea Woodward in saying that I am not sure what the goal or purpose of the article is and that by the end of this article the strength of your arguments seems to be somewhat diluted. It will be better to have some clarity in that sense.
9 comments:
Dana Brookover- The critique of SBR (and Labaree in particular) is fair. I liked many things about the article. I liked how it's described as a "reframe" of educational research to recognize teacher's key role, and the description of the "fundamental tension". Many quotes were used to support your critique that I enjoyed: W. James, Kelly, Rudnick et al. I especially like the article had an teacher-empowerment focus.
Just a thought- it could also be cool to hear from teacher's perspectives on this since the article mentions teacher empowerment. It could be neat to hear from teachers what they think about SBR and PAR and include that. Do some enjoy reading SBR (like you mentioned, newer teachers? I think new counselors enjoy reading what has been "shown" to work/have a "formula" for doing things as they're getting the hang of it)? Would a teacher be more willing to read and use research if it was reframed away from the current SBR focus?
Looking forward to reading this article as it develops.
Yingying-
I knew literally nothing about educational research and teaching at the beginning of the semester and now reading your paper, I can find half of my idea which was built in this classroom has reflected in this paper, and some ideas in the paper are able to add another layer on it. I know the purpose of this class is not to develop similar ideas, but from nothing to some ideas in foundation definitely made me peak through some of the education world.
In the paper, this idea is clear, “teaching is an art, and sciences never generate arts directly out of themselves. An intermediate inventive mind must make that application, by using its originality”. This again valued the “action” stage, teachers’ role as the “evaluator” and “the success of an intervention cannot be claimed unless researchers can be sure that the teachers carried out the intervention faithfully.” (So exciting that I was able to generate this idea from our group discussion last week.) In addition, this paper introduced me to the idea of “controlling teachers”. Obviously, teachers should not simply “implemented the intervention as preferred by those who created it”. But a lot of teachers might have the same question that the teacher asked: “to what extent am I implementing the program structures and instructional strategies in a manner consistent with the intended program”???
P.S. I really liked Dana’s idea of hearing teachers’ side of stories.
Hi - Cat here. I thought I already posted a comment, but it must have vanished into the vortex. I'll try again. Apologies if it appears twice:
Fifteen years ago, there was a banner on the third floor of Oliver Hall that read “Teachers as Decision Makers.” At least I think that’s what it said. To what extent is SBR – or at least the kind of SBR that’s going through an identity crisis – a fundamental mismatch for the idea of classroom teachers as trusted professionals? As people who interact, inquire, research, care, and decide?
A few points:
I wonder if the particular problem with generalization (such cheek, really!) could be untangled even a little more. I mean, the discipline of inferential statistics has its own self-regulatory practices that are at odds with classroom reality. Specifically, the notion of a “representative sample” clashes with how school populations are composed.
Originally, I also wondered if there might be room to consider the notion that teaching is a complex cultural activity comprised of systems that can make it “change-proof” (per Stigler & Hiebert, 1998). I second-guessed myself on this, though, because it sort of leads us astray. It maybe even inadvertently feels like we’re still trying to fix teachers, as if they were problems to solve (by the way - - solve, not merely “manage”). It’s a little creepy, even though I kinda like that paper …
I also have margin notes about Lesson Study, but I see there’s a placeholder to discuss that further. That’s cool. Remember that Japanese Lesson Study also has postpositivism in its DNA.
If there is room to go beyond Lesson Study & PAR, consider also the DMI project (“Developing Mathematical Ideas” - - which came from a partnership between Mount Holyoke and folks from TERC, I think). The DMI materials are composed mostly of case studies in the form of first person testimonials from teachers. Children’s work and teachers’ reflections are featured so prominently, they really drive the learning (the “professional development”). It’s personal and human and avoids the heavy-handed, patriarchal voice of, say, an NRC pamphlet. Something to think about…
Erin Hanley
I agree with a lot of my classmates who have left their critiques so far. I do appreciate the considerations of both art and science in pedagogy and practice. It is so easy for practitioners to feel a pull towards doing what they are told instead of allowing things to be more intuitive.
Something that frustrated me in my time as a practitioner was receiving surface-level instructions or trainings on things that were deemed very important by those in authority (who also mandated that these things happen). I do understand the importance of implementing interventions with fidelity; however, often times, practitioners are not taught in ways that encourage fidelity to take place in their practice (the classroom) at a level that would satisfy the authority figures (the researchers). There are more gaps in this than I think are often realized. I am wondering how the information is disseminated to teachers in a way that encourages fidelity; hour-long workshops? Is understanding assessed after? Reading articles in their spare time? I think including the methods that instill "expertise" may strengthen your argument even further.
I am also intersted in hearing from tea hearing from teachers, though I am curious about their feelings in two areas. A.) I wonder if they truly feel they have been prepared enought to implement with fidelity, and B.) the difference in teacher feelings about research when their teaching practices feel respected versus when they feel restricted. Having their professional identities validated - or not - honestly may impact their implementation in the classroom. Hearing teacher accounts could definitely be an interesting addition.
I found this article to be quite clear and easy to read, albeit obviously a work in progress. I very much enjoyed seeing what a manuscript looks like at this advanced stage, and seeing where there is still much work to be done. Thank you for allowing us into this "risk", and please thank Brionna as well.
Here is my "critique": the philosophical and ideological foundations for your argument seem sound. Labaree's explanation of the nature of educational knowledge and the graphic depiction are familiar to me from our discussion in this class, as well as the ideas from Dewey and William James. In the end, though, I wasn't quite sure what the goal of the article is. What is it supposed to DO? Is it meant to be simply a discussion of the issues of SBR with some softly proposed alternatives, or do you really want to make a strong statement in favor of more democratic research methods? It seemed to me that there is a lot of qualifying and hedging your remarks, such that by the end of the article the strength of the argument was somewhat diluted. I do think the logic is sound, but the conclusions could be more clearly articulated.
I think Dana's idea of some teacher input is brilliant, and would certainly underscore your point while giving an example of what that kind of "humility" looks like.
How cool to see what we’re learning in class translated into a publishable paper! I second Andrea in sending our thanks to you and Briona for sharing your work in progress and giving us an opportunity to not only experience what academic writing process is like, but practice giving feedback. It is always encouraging to see our professors walking the (academic life) talk!
Overall I enjoyed reading your paper advancing Deweyan democratic approach in education research. Your critique of SBR was strong and respectful. I noted your plan to include a little bit more on the value of SBR which would probably strengthen your argument overall. Your effort and care to continually place the teacher as dynamic expert and creator of research were evident throughout the paper. Including the Labaree four quadrants was helpful as a visual and conceptual grounding for the other arguments. I am interested to hear more in your results section about the context surrounding inexperienced teachers’ role in SBR. Your language was evocative, especially when discussing teachers as ‘robots’. I could see where there might be some backlash on that one! I noted you didn’t include qualitative research as a way to hear teacher’s voices and capture their experience/art/science; I’m curious what your thinking was on leaving that out. The headings were catchy and helpful in moving through the paper. I enjoyed the Freudian joke to illustrate your point! I wonder too if more context such as overall research directions (favoring STEM which is quadrant 1 in educational research) and funding considerations (favoring SBR) have a place in this article as part of our democratic process.
Thanks again for letting us practice. Looking forward to discussing more as a group later today!
Rachel
Andrea Moreau here, I have a nice little head cold so please bear with me if some of this doesn’t make sense. I found the critique of SBR in this article to be fair and argument to be easy to understand. There is a one glaring downside of SBR research in education that being the ‘disempowering and deprofessionalizing teachers’. Science-based research takes the autonomy and power out of the hands of teachers and makes them into information managers. I understand that this type of research wants to control all variables but I just don’t know how you can control for external variables AND teachers. It just seems like too many moving parts to solely use SBR as the tool to improve education in this country. I just don’t see how education research can completely move to quadrant I of the nature of educational knowledge. I think researchers forget that every school, classroom, and student is made up of living beings that all have different ways of interpreting and processing the world.
I apologize for the late posting but you know, c'est la vie. Thank you for sharing this work in progress and it is wonderful to see the concepts that we are reading and studying this semester connect in an environment such as this paper. The SBR to PAR highlights the usefulness of of SBR while acknowledging the sometimes forgotten practice of application. The X/Y diagram helps readers (like we did in class) understand the hard-soft / applied-pure duality and how it's clear to use SBR in the hard/pure side of things but the marshy/murky terrain of soft/applied is not as simple. The suggestion that a more practical use is to combine research with practice in a symbiotic feedback loop that is a on-going process rather than a robotic application really tugs at the heartstrings of the applied practitioner.
Hi This is Preeti.
Thank you for sharing this draft of article with us.
It is so fascinating to see a bunch of concepts that we have learned through this course have been reshaped in a better form of a research article.
As far as my critique is concerned, here it is: Though the analysis that you put forward is through, I would like to second Andrea Woodward in saying that I am not sure what the goal or purpose of the article is and that by the end of this article the strength of your arguments seems to be somewhat diluted. It will be better to have some clarity in that sense.
Post a Comment