If possible, relate
something in the Bredo chapter to something you learned elsewhere (e.g., a
class, a book, a movie, your experience). If this is completely foreign, then
write about something interesting/surprising that you learned while reading the
chapter.
9 comments:
I found this chapter to be very helpful, especially at this early stage in my doctoral studies, in providing the necessary vocabulary to talk about these theories of knowledge. I found myself adding lots of new words and definitions to my Big Important Word List, and it was good to make sense of some of the terms I have heard thrown around. I was very encouraged that Bredo asserts at the end of the chapter that each has some validity but “leads to dysfunction when exaggerated and taken independently” (p. 28). It was an excellent overview of what I need to know to be an educational researcher, and also provided space for “untangling” these epistemologies both in theory and in practice.
As I was reading, I couldn’t help thinking about a conversation I had last week with one of my more vocal 10th graders. When teaching about the Scientific Revolution, I explained the history of and difference between the geocentric and heliocentric theories and ended by saying “The heliocentric view is still the best theory we have right now for how the universe works”. Since by 10th grade the students have obviously learned (probably many times over) how the solar system is organized, my student was flabbergasted that I would leave any space for another possible theory. This led to a heated discussion about the nature of knowledge and scientific inquiry. Although we did not use any of the vocabulary from this chapter, the scientific knowledge that he has been taught could not match up with any sort of postpositivist understanding of the nature of the world and of scientific theories, not to mention internal considerations such as culture, linguistic pragmatics, or how structures and systems of power affect our beliefs about what is true. His argument was that the heliocentric theory has been “proven” and my point was that it is always possible that there may be more we can understand through further research or new ways of thinking.
I think Bredo would encourage us as educational researchers to keep that mindset, whether it be an open mind towards the theories of knowledge and underlying assumptions we apply, or towards the actual outcomes of what we study. A reasonable balance of these tangled philosophies within the complex fabric of educational study is a noble, albeit challenging, goal.
Cat here: Well, I have copious margin notes this time. These include everything from pop culture references (“Hey what if inner entities were in fact observable, like the emotions in that animated movie ‘Inside Out’?”) to outright critiques (“For such ‘diverse epistemologies’, this survey of intellectual history is awfully homogenous.”) But in general, Bredo’s “typology” of approaches to educational research is pretty impressive and teases out the nuances between some of these schools of thought. I lived through a lot of this back in the 1980s as an undergraduate, and I remember how resistant many academicians (students and teachers) were to theory at the time. It may sound like petty bickering - but there were scary undertones too.
Fast forward to the 2000s. It was in 2003, after I came to VCU, that I first encountered the work of Quine and Popper, both classified by Bredo as postpositivist. Quine was a teacher of Robert Moses, founder of the Algebra Project (loosely, a program in the U.S. connecting math literacy and human rights). Moses may have initially gotten the idea of the Algebra Project from Quine’s assertion that the language of mathematics is effectively a “regimentation of ordinary discourse” that is natural to no one. For Moses, this meant that it is open to everyone because mathematical meaning-making can and should happen through one’s own experience, per Quine’s mathematization in situ. Since that time, researchers at the Freudenthal Institute (Netherlands) have expanded on this idea of “mathematizing one’s world” in interesting ways …
It was also at VCU that I was introduced to the idea of scientific theory as something fundamentally falsifiable, per Karl Popper. In the 2007 documentary “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial”, we see that Popper’s view of what science is played a critical role in the civil hearing Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The defense was put in the awkward position of proving that Intelligent Design was, in fact, a scientific theory that had earned a place in high school science curricula. So … is it testable? Is it falsifiable? The ACLU had to demonstrate that the answer to both of these questions was “no”. Interesting!
Dana Brookover- I will admit that immediately after reading this chapter I thought I fit into the category of this all being completely foreign to me. The theories of knowledge and approaches to educational research already are terms I have heard mentioned at VCU and I haven’t had much of a clue what they meant, and so I am glad now to have a foundational knowledge of them (also, I love Andrea’s idea of a Big Important Word List! How neat! I am trying to do all I can to be organized from the beginning, like downloading Zotero, and I will definitely be stealing her list idea). I think it was a good idea to move the Bredo chapter up in the reading list schedule. I read the chapter and had to ruminate for about two days on what I wanted to write on the blog. I initially could not match it up to a movie or a book, but finally, I went back to something I think I am a little more knowledgeable about, which is counseling theory. It seems there are some theories and techniques that align with these philosophical theories (which seems obvious now). For instance, Positivism, which requires evidence and deems there is a truth, matches more to a counseling theory like Behavioral Therapy. Behavioral Therapy uses techniques based strictly on actions that are “predictable” in a controlled setting. If you move down the spectrum a bit to Postpositivism, counseling theory and techniques from Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy may fit a bit more. Those therapists prefer to use behavioral indicators of health and wellness, but also take cognition into account, and as the article said, see “concepts as tools, and that every way of conceptualizing things is better suited for some purposes than others.” A Humanistic perspective and practice would align with a Constructivism philosophy; each individual person creates and constructs their own truth. I still don’t feel as knowledgeable as I would like on this topic, so I want to feel more comfortable in my knowledge of these philosophical approaches to educational research so look forward to more reading and class discussion on this topic.
Yingying- This is a very introductive article of philosophy in educational research. A lot of information is new to me, but I can relate these new pieces of information with something I learned in class, in addition, develop a new philosophical perspective to evaluate my ideas.
I was a psychology major during undergraduate, B.F. Skinner is the star of lots of my classes. I remembered we spent so many time talking about his experiment with pigeons and the famous, always-on-the-final-exam “schedule of reinforcement”. His idea has a huge influence on my own learning experiences and parenting strategies with my cat.
I was shocked to read about how his behaviorism is fitted with logical positivism and the criticism of results from highly controlled experiments are unable to represent “population”. This left me thinking, in a classroom, students learning behavior/experience is also controlled. (not sure if I should make this comparison) students in schools are in some way the pigeons in the boxes, they passively receive “controlled” intensive training, reinforcements (homework, tutors, projects) are assigned in order to get a “better test outcome” (usually just the score) from them. I don’t know if I am being extremely negative about applying positivism on Skinner and on education. After all, students’ motivation, interests, all the inner events should be taking into account in education.
So... immediately, as I started reading Bredo, I thought of the comments that Prof. Reich put on my first assignment last week in TEDU-617 for a writing prompt on 'What Is Curriculum?'
About 3 pages into the paper, while discussing R.W. Tyler's "Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction" from 1949, I started to really question the idea of the paper... I shifted my writing in the middle paper and posited "In which manner does one decide what content, curriculum, or model is best practice for their own student base? The question of who is in charge or who decides curriculum content is another debatable question of authority to determine what is learned, what is taught, and what objectives are to be covered." To which, Prof. Reich responded, "Yes. You started this as a behaviorist and ended as a social constructivist." Of course, my response to this was "what the heck does this mean??"
Bredo does a great job laying out the "cacophony of diverse epistemologies" (pg. 4). (By the way, I learned two new words in that sentence after reading it.) The breakdown of terminology of from intrinsic and extrinsic viewpoints is intriguing, especially to the new doctoral education student. I have previously studied Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau along with Kant in constitutional foundations in the criminal justice field. Kantian philosophy tends to be very thought provoking in discussion of morality and mindful reasoning so it is apparent how it can be intertwined with educational philosophy. It was an eye-opening read to see how much ethics, morality and duty play such an integral role in the assessment and theory of education.
The biggest takeaway from the Bredo article, personally, was the hermeneutic model... the "hermeneutic circle" to be specific. The idea that we use a part of the whole to understand the whole of the reason, and vice-versa, the whole of the reason to understand the individual parts that make up the whole... and how the this process works "back and forth until a coherent interpretation emerges" (pg. 15). This is such a simplistic description yet so complex at the same time to define the idea of interpretation and understanding... that I see as the root of learning. Especially how we, as educators, connect to a broader audience of learners, trying to appeal to their unique senses and styles of learning, helping them piece together parts of the whole to understand the whole and then broaden their understanding of the intricate pieces through the building blocks of learning. Good stuff
Rachel Regal
I am currently reading Oliver Sack's autobiography in my spare time (well... more like time I don't have but am committing to fun activities! #selfcare). In reading through this article, I was reminded of a story Dr. Sack's told in a previous book about an older man who's sight is restored after (pretty much) a lifetime of being blind. This connected with the famous question- would a grown man, who was blind but had his sight suddenly restored, be able to recognize a square shape without holding it in his hands? According to the empirical philosophy endorsed by Locke, he would not. And fascinatingly, Dr. Sacks' describes how this gentleman was not able to identify the shape by sight. Of course, this doesn't necessarily account for the more complicated neurobiological considerations that underpin this development, but it is still an interesting look at an age-old question.
Erin Hanley
I honestly wish I were better able to grasp the concepts in this article. Some of the ideas were vaguely familiar while others were completely new. The concepts (I believe) I understood best are in the earlier parts of the article, where internalism and externalism are explained. As I am still not sure if I comprehended things correctly, the following reference may be a bit off. My apologies if so. Here goes: some parts of this article vaguely reminded me of Harry Potter and how he came to understand magic and the magical world. It is mentioned that Kant believed knowledge should not only be based on us conforming to objects (believing the world for what it is, and for objects only being able to do what they have always done) versus the objects conforming to us (using magic to move, shape, and shift objects that are otherwise “normal), which makes me think of how crazy it would be to see the combination of a wand and carefully strewn together words get an object to do something you never knew it could. Would any of this world exist if Harry did not believe in it? If he did not then experience it for himself after choosing to believe? Our thoughts influencing our actions and thus the world around us, and our inside thoughts and feelings influence outside objects and observations all made me wonder how belief and interaction really do shape our worlds and worldviews. This could possibly be identified as interactionism, as it takes both thoughts about this separate world and experiences with it for Harry to know and understand it all. Again, I am not sure if I am completely understanding these concepts; I am hoping I am at least a bit on track, as this line of thinking makes things a bit more understandable for me. (#HarryPotterForever)
Andrea Moreau
While reviewing others comments I found myself agreeing with what Erin stated at the beginning of her response. I found this article to be very out of my wheelhouse of experience. I didn’t have the easiest time finding a philosophy or theory that coincided with my higher education experience. I did find the section on pragmatism, particularly what Dewey had to say. “This emphasis on situational uniqueness implied that general laws or principles cannot be simply imposed on a situation and used to crank out answers to practical problems. Every situation is unique and requires interpretation, judgment, and possible adaption to fit its peculiarities to some more general pattern.” This statement really resonated with my student interactions and experience on campus. Every student has a unique background and comes to me with a different set of life experiences, educational strength, and self-efficacy. I have to make a conscious effort to not bring any assumptions or unconscious bias to my meetings with students.
The Author went on to state that “General patterns also need to modified in the light of present, particular experience”. What this statement says to me and my experience in higher education, is that stakeholders and policymakers need to cognoscente of students’ diversity and individual backgrounds when creating regulations and policies that affect all students.
Preeti Kamat-
I would like to agree with Andrea Moreau and Erin particularly on the point that it took efforts for me to grasp the concepts described in this article. However, on reading it further, it provided some valuable insights in the evolution of the three families of the philosophy of educational research. I found the statements from 'Pragmatism' section very interesting: "Truth" is a present judgement based on past experience about the likely future consequences of an idea." I could relate it to my teaching experience in my institute in India where I witnessed a huge transition from teaching courses in the classroom to teaching virtual (online) courses.
Post a Comment