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.
Pring's quick dismissal of outside researchers ("it is difficult to see how the 'outside' researcher, from brief acquaintance or periodic visit, can understand [the classroom]," p. 144) bothered me, and his argument as to why teachers are the only ones with "access to the data crucial for an understanding of the classroom" (p. 144) felt pretty flimsy as well. His argument seems to be based on banal generalities (e.g. the classroom is a really complex place) that betray a lack of understanding about both research methods and people's behavior. I agree with Pring that a researcher can't walk into a classroom, give a survey/conduct an observation, and completely understand all of its nuance. But such understanding is irrelevant. Most people in most situations don't make decisions based on nuanced understandings of all of the available data; rather, we employ pretty crude heuristics based upon a tiny fraction of the available data (see e.g. Tversky & Kahneman, 1975). And we do this in just about every area, from drafting baseball players to investing money to diagnosing diseases. We don't need to understand everything to inform decisions; we need to understand what matters.
ReplyDeleteAmy-- Pring discusses the necessity for objectivity in teacher research (p. 157). He claims that “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”. When you consider teacher as researcher, it seems that it would be difficult for bias or subjective interpretations to be disregarded. In my opinion, it is the teacher’s knowledge and perceptions of their students (subjective) that allow them to tailor their approach according to student needs.
ReplyDeletePring also mentions the importance of openness to criticism. I do agree that this would more likely occur among a group of teachers rather than between teacher and researcher.
I agree with Pring’s statement that teacher as researcher and the growth of professional knowledge “is a refreshing counterbalance to those who, in treating ‘educational practice’ as an object of science, necessarily fail to understand it” (p. 163). There are too many people who have never been educators that, for some reason, feel comfortable dictating what good teaching looks like. Administrators, principals, and school board members are often “outsiders” as are the politicians who often write the education policy that get enacted on a local, state, and national level. Having said that, it is curious to me that Pring advocates so much for an increased presence of teacher-researchers in educational research while also clinging to the standard of objectivity. It is unrealistic to assume that a teacher could eliminate their bias or subjectivity while researching and reporting on their own classroom or school. Why can’t their subjective, contextual contributions to educational research be considered valuable? Work done by an outsider is also subjective and contextual. That is why researchers need to be upfront about their positionality and the limitations of their research. Instead of focusing on problematic standards of objectivity, Pring should be discussing structures that need to be in place to ensure that teacher-researchers can be thorough and uncompromised in their research methods and attention to theory. Teacher-researchers need to have a community of practitioners with whom they can share their research and receive feedback (to be fair, Pring does touch on this briefly). They should be allowed the time and flexibility to pursue their data collection and writing while being compensated for their contributions to educational research. Without advocating to secure these terms, teacher-researchers will be expected to do more with less, maintaining their regular teaching workload while doing research and trying to get their work out in isolation with no extra incentive.
ReplyDeleteTom here--Pring makes a strong argument for teachers as researchers. I think he's right when he says "it is difficult to see how the ‘outside’ researcher, from brief acquaintance or periodic visit, can understand it." (p. 143) Kim makes great points about ways we could change educational culture and promote communities of teacher-researchers. At the same time, his argument seems very narrow. Are teachers/educators really the only ones capable of conducting quality research? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. There is a balance. We need both. Again, it is that communication and relationship that needs to be formed between the research institutions and the classrooms. Community-based research - where collaboration between the local school and the university research centers work together -is crticical. -Paige
DeleteI would really like to talk about this idea more in class-Paige's "collaboration between the local school and university research centers" seems like an important topic to talk through.
DeleteI have been feeling this unique dichotomy between classroom teachers and university researchers. In the related services and allied health fields there feels like there is less distance between research and practice. I'm wondering if community-based educational research will close this gap?
DeleteStephanie - I found these two chapters to be two of the most interesting so far. Although I felt that his statements about ‘outside’ researchers not being able to understand classrooms were too extreme, I do agree that teachers are removed from the process too often. Pring seems to be trying to objectively list the pros and cons of action research and of teachers as researchers. While he seems to have some doubts about how objective teachers can be as researchers and how well-received this research would be, he seems to see a great deal of value in teacher research. However, he cautions that “it is not enough, in defending teacher research, to claim that practice had improved. It is necessary for there to be knowledge of why it improved” (p. 160). Once again, he asserts the need to criticize theories and research rather than trying to validate the research because a theory can never truly be “proven”. He also discusses the need for making the research public so that it can be scrutinized and improved.
ReplyDeletePring contrasted action research and theoretical research in a way that I had not previously seen. He stated, “Such action research is to be contrasted with theoretical research, as outlined above. It aims not to produce new knowledge but to improve practice, namely, in this case, the ‘educational practice’ which teachers are engaged in” (p. 153). While he seems to find this to be a clear distinction, he also seems to find value in both aspects of research. I also think that both are important to improve the practice of education.
“However, such conditions for objectivity rarely obtain, even where teacher research is claimed to be encouraged. In many respects, such openness to criticism goes against the grain. We tend to defend our point of view rather than seek criticism; to treat the beliefs that we hold with confidence, if not certainty, rather than with the systematic doubt which motivates the researcher.” (p. 157)
ReplyDeleteIn the culture in schools today, teachers have little time or freedom to engage in practices of their own choosing. They seem bound to “research based” initiatives that have been imposed upon their classrooms. Any practice in which they engage with autonomy becomes almost sacred, resulting in a strong need to defend any practice they have managed to squeeze between the mandates. This creates a culture where teachers hide their practices and fiercely defend them if they are caught practicing outside of the mandates. This “research-based” or “evidence-based” practice is often mandated and then not tested. Teachers often do not see the progress that they know they could see if they were allowed to modify and truly test the practices. Teachers truly want to use objectivity (data collected from all the ways Pring lists, including peer review) to modify their teaching but are constrained by mandates.
Pring (p.148) talks about the importance of testing practices, such as teaching style, so that it can be examined in light of the context. Before this can happen, classroom teachers are asked to try new initiatives again and again. No time for evaluating effectiveness. This reminds me of what Dr. Bryk talked about at the symposium last fall… “initiative fatigue.”
In the current culture "action research" cannot occur. Without a focus on improving practice in the context of schools, how will schools truly know "what works?" The very initiatives meant to bring school improvement seem to prevent it.
Paige
Yes!
DeleteI would love for Jesse Senechal to weigh in on this conversation, as the work he does with Action Research is, in my book, extremely compelling and empowering. I sat in on a few sessions where teachers engaged in dialogue regarding their research projects and the ownership they took of the research process-from determining variables and metrics-to the analysis of their findings was refreshingly relevant and contextual. I understand, and mostly agree with, my peers’ feelings towards Pring’s overgeneralization of outside researchers’ inability to understand the classroom. However, if I think back to when I was in the classroom, I seem to remember harboring that exact feeling. Perhaps action research, conducted by teachers, may serve as a bridge to validate some of the work coming out of big, objective research projects? Rather than dismissing either, I feel that both are extremely valuable forms of inquiry.
ReplyDeleteThe crux of many of the problems in ed research is stated on page 147: "It was as though those who prescribed the curriculum (e.g. the government), distant from the transactions within each classroom, knew best and that the translation of those prescriptions into practice was relatively unproblematic. The gap between intention and reality was rarely explored."
ReplyDeleteAs Paige mentions above, there could be many reasons why a curriculum is not implemented as intended, and students, teachers, and the government would be much better served by conducting evaluations of implementation fidelity rather than chucking out the curriculum every four/eight years when there's a new president, as the problems may be with the implementation rather than the curriculum (or with the implementability OF the curriculum)... but there's no way to know without such an evaluation. This constant cycling results in initiative fatigue for teachers (as Paige notes) and frustration with teachers and ed researchers on the part of policymakers who don't understand why 'nothing works.'
In terms of the value of action research, I agree that teachers should be one of primary movers behind educational studies, as no other group can have the same awareness of classroom/learning issues. There's still a place for ed researchers in a world where practitioners provide research impetus, however: as Pring emphasizes, it is important to subject research to criticism in order to improve it, and as both he and other commenters on this post have noted, opening one's practices to public criticism does not come naturally to most. Ed researchers can bring an outside perspective and an openness to criticism. Additionally, ed researchers (because of their increased familiarity with the literature) may be more aware of problems on a national/systemic level than practitioners, and have a better arsenal of research methodologies and statistical analyses. i.e., We're (to quote a recent campaign) stronger together.
Kendra- Throughout Chapters 8 and 9 Pring puts forward some very interesting propositions. First, as many here have already discussed, the notion that "…it is difficult to see how the ‘outside’ researcher, from brief acquaintance or periodic visit, can understand it" (p. 144); it being the complexities of classroom education. This proposition seems befitting of most rebuttals I have heard from teachers with regard to their stance on educational research. Although not a teacher myself, it is curious that individuals who have not experienced the field in this way, would then be empowered to create policy to shape it. I don’t mean to imply that under no circumstances should someone outside of the classroom have input. Rather, what I am proposing is that a greater connection be cultivated between researchers and teachers, leaving room for teacher-researchers, teachers and researchers individually to explore the field more holistically.
ReplyDeleteI think this is where the work intersects with qualifications for quality research. Pring states, “First and foremost quality refers to the extent to which an activity relates to its purpose” (p. 170). Within the field of educational research, it would be difficult to claim research as quality, if it has not considered and included those being used as research subjects. I think Pring’s argument in this instance is pretty strong. “Objectivity lies in the systematic and open attempt to check the interpretation of what happens against the evidence…in checking with other people as to whether those interpretations are the most appropriate ones in light of the data” (p. 157).
Bring believes that teachers are able to make very strong researchers in the field of education. They after all have first hand experience with what goes on in the educational setting. The thought of "outside researchers" brings about some caveats from the chapters. Outside researchers can have a more objective take on research, but that doesn't mean that teachers also be objective as well. From page 166,"the biggest rewards often follow the flashiest work, not the best. . . . I have published in the big brands, including papers that won me a Nobel Prize. But no longer. Just as Wall Street needs to break the hold of bonus culture, so science must break the tyranny of the luxury journals." Some of the best researchers come from very unknown settings, and usually those settings can be in a traditional university setting, or inside the every day classroom. Action research is closely tied with student interventions as outcomes as the implementation can be immediate and the outcome can be seen regularly. Whereas written articles have a longer delay in the process and may or may not even be seen by teachers. That also isn't to say that outside research does not matter, but in the day to day operation in education, action research has a stronger footing in what affects students.
ReplyDeleteEvandra - I agree with Pring’s notion of the teacher as researcher. Teachers are uniquely centered and positioned with data daily, from classroom observations to case studies. I believe for educational practice taking a more action approach to research than theoretical gives value to the inquiry. Based on Pring’s definition of action research, which is proposed as a form of research in which teachers review their practice in the light of evidence and of critical judgment of others, teachers can play a significant role in education research and practice. However, objectivity is also essential in educational research. “Objectivity lies in systematic and open attempt to check the interpretation of what happens against the evidence. This definition conflicts with the role of teachers due to the systematic nature of objectivity.
ReplyDeleteChapters 8 and 9 refer to a practitioner based research where the perspectives of participants (teachers) are taken into account. However in doing so, it creates the inability to provide hard science or ways of teaching that can be generalized to every teacher. Instead, using teachers within the research process resulted in “tentative prescriptions’. I believe that this is the best that we can do in regards to practitioner based research. Realizing that because each teacher, each classroom, each learning environment, each student is different, there cannot be evidence that one strategy will work with 100% certainty. Another issue with practitioner based research is how theory fits in. Pring confirms the use of theory in educational research. Teachers bring theory into their daily practice by a continuous examination of beliefs and values and their applicability to their practice. I liked the notion that by teachers participating in research, that they are creating a body of professional knowledge. The question is, how is this knowledge related to action research or is it? Pring states that action research is not new knowledge but knowledge that improves practice. In my opinion then, the two are the same. This is what happens when teachers conduct research. They are continuously finding methods that work or don’t work while taking in to account factors that may not be considered through more scientific methods. The critics would question whether this can be termed as research. This brings up the issue of objectivity. Pring suggests that objectivity is found in the process of the research; using proper procedures. Although often not, I believe that he argues, if done appropriately, that teacher research can indeed be termed research. However, there is still work that needs to be done to ensure that this research can be done in a way that can be tested and examined through a critical lens from other researchers as well as the public. Unfortunately we are not there yet, but I believe that these Chapters offer a start. Although action research and/or practitioner based research may never be considered as scientific research, it still offers the educational system valuable information in which to build its practice.
ReplyDeleteMarsha
As I am posting last much of what I found has been discussed, but very much agree that it is very hard for someone to pop in for a little bit and fully understand the context of the school or classroom. This is where I see Ethnographies and Action Research playing a crucial role in helping to solve this problem. But Action Research is not always accepted or even allowed in schools. As I tried on two different occasions to conduct research in my school, my principals (two different ones) said I couldn’t. At the same time, how many teachers know how to conduct rigorous research and eliminate as much bias as possible. Once again it seems like Action Research has many pro that could give more power to Ed research but also have many cons that can be overcome but could put Ed Research right back where it started. In the end I feel as though Action Research is an area of Ed Research that needs more focus and investment by the educational community as one of many ways to boost the ‘image’ of education practitioner and scholar.
ReplyDelete-Bryan
I really liked Pring's Chapter 8 which finally brings the teacher into the living breathing loop of research-to-practice and practice-to-research with ongoing consideration to the teacher/researcher's values, theory, and underlying conceptual framework. Pring calls this "Action Research", which he explains has a distinct purpose of improving practice over the more scientifically oriented type of research that strives to generalize its findings. I am very happy to hear him discuss the self-analysis and openness to criticism that benefits the action researcher/teacher. In my professional formation training I was taught, like the Pring describes, the importance of establishing a professional group who can help the practitioner /researcher dig deeper to further question their values, their practices, their interpretations, and their underlying perspectives that guide their research and practice. I especially identified with Pring's description of the importance of "active reflection" and "critique of the values that are intrinsic to the practice" noted throughout the practice-to-research-to practice basic in action research.
ReplyDeleteRobin-In chapter 8, Pring brings up the point that teachers should be primary researchers in educational research and not simply the object of the research. According to Pring, this only makes since because teachers are there day to day and can easily collect the data. He also states that, because they are not outside observers, they are able to more accurately interpret the actions of their students. However, Pring does question whether teachers can be objective when it comes to conducting research on their own students. In chapter 9, again, there is the question of quality research. With No Child Left Behind, there was the call for evidence-based strategies. This increased the rigor and relevance of educational research, but there are still those who doubt its relevance and significance.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to teachers being researchers, I can see this from both points of view. Teachers would be the best source for collecting data because of they do have greater access to the source. More information could be collected and because the teachers know the source of the data, they would be in a better position to interpret what the data means. However, teachers are also humans. When there is a relationship between the researcher and the source of the data, the teacher may be a difficult time remaining objective about situations and students. For example, if a teacher already has a negative relationship with a particular student, the teacher may be biased and interpret the actions of that student and being something that they really are not.