How did Pring’s Ch. 1-3 and the Eisenhart
and Towne article leave you feeling about the possibility of educational
research to be scientific? What obstacles do you see to realizing the vision of
a scientifically-based ed. research and are they insurmountable?
Tom here--After reading Pring Ch. 3 and the Eisenhart and Towne article, I still believe that educational research can be scientific. However, I see another continuum similar to the soft/hard and pure/applied discussion. The continuum in my mind is scientific/relevant. Maybe this is just a restatement of the pure/applied dichotomy--I'm not sure.
ReplyDeletePring hints in a few places that good teaching is all about relationships. He seems like a strong contextualist. He also seems dissatisfied with the current state of education and research. I hope at some point he will offer an example of expertly conducted research that is meaningful, relevant, and scientific. But my guess is he doesn't believe it's possible.
Pring spends much of chapter 3 discussing what it means to be educated, what it means to learn, and what it means to teach. These discussions build to the point that there is no single definition of education, learning, or teaching that everyone can agree upon, and that the definition of each that a person chooses to adopt depends to some extent upon his/her values. This spotlights the ethical nature of education and, further, or educational research.
ReplyDeletePring seems to suggest, because there is so much variability in the meanings of "education," "learning," and "teaching" (among others), that it's difficult to do educational research. This hearkens back to the idea of "how can we research education if we don't agree on what education means?" I kinda get this argument, but I'm also not completely sold on how much it matters. The world of literary criticism offers a decent analogy here, I think. In the late 1960s, Roland Barthes wrote his essay "The Death of the Author," which argues that author's intentions and their own personal biographies/contexts are essentially irrelevant when readers interpret a text. This led to a long-standing debate in the world of literary criticism, with some scholars (primarily poststructuralists) siding with Barthes and others arguing against him. What it didn't do, though, was stop people from writing novels. Regardless of whether the author was dead or alive or on life-support or whatever, people still read and wrote novels.
So, I think educational researchers can argue over what education and learning and teaching mean, and we'll likely never come to a consensus, but kids are going to keep attending school in the meantime. Given this, I think it makes sense to use the definitions of education/teaching/learning/whatever we think are most appropriate in our own research (and adapt them as necessary to each context).
Either “scientifically-based research” needs to be broadly defined (allowing for research that is postmodern, critical, in-depth, creative, participatory, etc.) or we need to advocate for educational research to be defined by other terms. Flyvbjerg, for example, discusses the potential for the social sciences to realize Aristotle’s third type of knowledge, phronesis (a kind of practical wisdom that is born from ethical and moral considerations and oriented toward action). This conversation over terminology has a lot to do with what Pring describes at the end of Chapter 3 in regards to the language of business that has overtaken educational discourse. “Scientifically-based” is essentially a stand-in for “data driven.” I tend to think that unless we can take back the language of educational discourse and bring it back into the conversations of morality and ethics and action that Flyvbjerg and Pring promote, we will be holding back our ability to do valuable educational research and, more consequentially, our ability to educate students. For example, what Eisenhart and Towne discussed as the improvements overtime to the government policy definition of “scientifically-based research” are still very much entrenched in the language of business that has permeated our educational institutions described at the end of Pring’s 3rd chapter.
ReplyDeleteTo Erik’s comment: “So, I think educational researchers can argue over what education and learning and teaching mean, and we'll likely never come to a consensus, but kids are going to keep attending school in the meantime. Given this, I think it makes sense to use the definitions of education/teaching/learning/whatever we think are most appropriate in our own research (and adapt them as necessary to each context.” While I agree that there will (and should) always be debate over what education, teaching, and learning mean, I think these conversations are still valuable in terms of determining who gets to frame the debate. If we (primarily referring to education researchers and practitioners here) continue to let policy-makers and outsiders frame the language of educational research, our work will always be beholden to their political or economic interests. If we, however, are able to find ways to promote our own preferred language in their circles and define our own educational space then we might succeed in reframing the conversations that happen around education according to our own values as educational researchers and practitioners. Theorizing our work in education is essential for keeping the big picture in mind as we plan out the practical steps we would like to take.
There appears to be a lot of time and energy devoted to definitions in the field of educational research. I’m wondering if this is a productive use of time given the unlikelihood of agreement on one definition for any of the terms discussed. The readings we have covered thus far paint a bleak picture of the field of educational research. Where are the examples of educational research that is deemed impactful? There must be some examples.
ReplyDeleteI like Tom’s continuum regarding the classification of research based on relevance and impact. At the end of the day, if the majority agrees on an intervention as successful, definitions becomes less important. Maybe focusing on clearly defined goals would be a good replacement. However, it may also be difficult to get all parties involved to agree upon goals.
Amy
Kendra- Amy, I think your observation is spot on here. Critics seem to go round and round debating all things they've deemed inadequate in educational research. While I find some of the arguments valid and worth exploring, I also wonder if they are really addressing the goals of educational research. I find it hard to believe that for this many years people have been engaging in research that is on the whole considered to be worthless and lacking. We've discussed the impact of research on teaching philosophies and development that have emerged as a result of the interdisciplinary nature of education. For me this where things get tricky. I said this last week, and I think there is something to be said about the nuanced nature of education as a structure and educating as an action. It cannot be defined singularly because its essence is pluralistic. Elements of psychology, sociology, business and other fields all play active roles in the conceptualization and manifestation of teaching and learning in these environments. Perhaps education is scientific, but not in the more pragmatically clean cut way. Education is comprised of multiple computations, put to the test in various ways, in various spaces and moments in time. I am tempted to resist the box it seems critics want for educational research. As field of inherent evolution, I don't know that educational research will ever represent what critics are looking for.
DeleteEisenhart and Towne made me feel better about scientific educational research than Pring does. They show how definition and standards have become more inclusive and broad for what can be considered scientific educational research. Whereas, Pring seems to spend most of his time trying to layout definitions of learning, teaching, and education; which I find often oversimplified and problematic as he ignores systems and who gets to determine the standards he/the field is measuring against. The strongest piece from Pring, in my opinion, is his continuous cry to having research based in theory. This will keep the work grounded and focused, even as research validates or debunks theories.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I agree with Amy that we can spend so much time trying to define that we get nowhere. By no means am I advocating for the elimination of standards or definitions but if we get stuck in the weeds do not land somewhere we miss the greater good and need for Ed research. I believe education is its own biggest enemy. There are so many moving parts and has such a connection to so many in society that it will forever be scrutinized and seen as the beholder knows best. As I finish my external processing I am left contemplating this question and continues to go back and forth on how to answer it: Can research ever really be non-scientific?
Educational research, although criticized for being small scale, non-cumulative, ideologically driven, methodologically flawed, and inaccessible, has great potential to be scientific. Based on the definitions, principles, and standards in the Castle Bill, NCLB, and ESRA, educational research can be scientific. Specifically, due to the nature of educational research to understand both causal and cause/effect relationships. Educational research is grounded in both qualitative and quantitative methods. Most of the critique of educational research seems to be borne out of the criticisms of research, however education research had a goal of understanding philosophy, theory, and practice. Educational research is also contested within the field and by other disciplines. I am not sure if the obstacles are insurmountable, more so than, as Pring mentions, one must understand the philosophy of the the field and the research generated - Evandra
ReplyDeleteStephanie - I found the Eisenhart and Towne article to be more optimistic than Pring – a thought that was expressed by several others. However, the extended debate about what counts as educational research seems to be distracting from rather than adding to the value of educational research. Amy’s and Kendra’s post expressed many of the thoughts that I had about the debates about definitions, philosophies, and goals in education. It reminded me of a time when I was in a leadership meeting and more than 3 hours was spent debating the theme/goal for the school year. Most people agreed on what was important, but couldn’t agree on the order of importance or the specifics of the wording. While some discussion was important, the debate persisted to the point where it was no longer productive and didn’t improve the theme/goal. I agree that the discussions have value, but at some point, I wonder if the debate continues to be productive. Fortunately, the Eisenhart and Towne article did show that the discussions are starting to improve the definitions of educational research. However, the shift seems to be slow and Pring does not seem to share as much optimism.
ReplyDeleteStephanie, you bring up a very important point about the endless debate that often occurs with discussions like these. Chatter that exceeds the point of what is productive, brings me right back to the practical questions. What is the goal? Who will benefit from this research? Is it connected to student learning? If not, then we have wondered too far from our purpose. (Paige)
DeletePring's definition of education--where "there is an attempt to make sense, a process of enquiry, a questioning of solutions, an adaptation of frameworks of understanding to new challenges, a making personal the 'solutions' offered in an impersonal form. Hence education is generally understood to exclude 'indoctrination' or 'conditioning'" (25)--excludes non-Western modes of teaching. In parts of the Middle East, for example, 'questioning,' 'enquiry,' and 'making personal' would be discouraged (and students from these countries often struggle with the analysis and critical thinking expected of them upon arrival at American universities). What would educational research look like in those countries? Would it be less "complex" because learning tends to be assessed at the lower levels of Bloom's taxonomy, rather than the upper levels, where measurement becomes difficult (as Pring notes on p. 24)?
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, we're looking at educational research in the U.S. Tom's proposed scientific/relevant continuum speaks to Pring's statement in chapter 1, that research which is international in importance is likely to be least grounded in the problems in individual schools. This continuum also dovetails with the scorn Marc Lamont Hill identified for public intellectual work, because of its distance from academe and focus on the practical, and that disconnect seems like the ultimate obstacle to scientifically based ed research.
Pring (3) talks about what it means to be a learner with respect to education and teaching and how the interaction between learner and teacher, and the interaction between theory and practice are critical for educational research to occur. I like his explanation of learning as having a "moral character" where learning is defined as the "gradual defining of identity (that) is central to the task of education" and how this is not dependent on intellect or exclusive for the "academically able". However, this very broad and inclusive view of education and "the learner" make it difficult to define the art and role of the educator, and make educational growth difficult to measure. He defines learning not as specific measurable outcomes but as a process that facilitates growth as a human being. As Pring (3) summarizes, "The interconnection between practicing and theorizing is such that to institutionalize their separation is to make the theory irrelevant to the practice and the practice impervious to theoretical considerations."
ReplyDeleteAs I read Eisenhart and Towne I felt the broad and inclusive definition of learning and educating posed by Pring slipping away, and being replaced by measurable, practical, and politically motivated measurable goals.
I believe that education is and should be an inseparable art and a science that allows practice to continuously and lean on theory. Along those lines I believe educational research should also remain true to the underlying "art" of educating and of learning. I worry that a shift in educational research to exclusively scientifically based research would forsake the individual and the whole person learning described by Pring. The definition of scientifically based research in the Eisenhart and Towne article seems to satisfy the funding sources of educational research, but without clearer connection to underlying educational theory I worry that we are measuring outcomes over the life skill process of learning.
Just my thoughts as I read these articles back-to-back... I'm open to change my mind
I believe that Pring brings about a very crucial topic in that "Education is concerned with the life of the mind, and such a life can atrophy if not carefully nurtured." That being said, I believe that educational research is more well defined in the article by Eisenhart and Browne. In a way I can see that Eisenhart is "pro-research" and Pring is "pro-practice". But, it's not as cut and clear between the two.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to really pinpoint "education" itself as a science. Yes, educational research can look at outcomes, but when it comes to science, there is always margin for error. It's challenging to find valid measurements when we think about education scientifically. But, at the same time, we focus on science-based research when it comes to initiatives like school improvement and test scores. When we take a step back though, questions need to be asked such as what is happening to student learning? Are the practices that are being done school to school what is best for individuals? Those are questions to be asked when we discuss the validity of science-based educational research in multiple contexts.
I am in agreement with many of the comments. The definition of Education itself seems to be complex and as a result, defining educational research is as well. I am more in agreement with Pring that theory and practice has to align. When thinking about the goal of educational research, should it not result in a change or advancement in the actual practice? It would be of great disservice to the field if the many forms of research were disregarded for more "scientific" methods. According to many perspectives such as critical theory, critical race, ABER, and others, the narrative, the voice, the experience is crucial to understanding. Often with scientific research, you miss out on that piece. With the varied ways people learn and come to understand material, I would surmise that you aren't able to reduce educational research into one neat experiment. You would think that multiple ways of acquiring data would be appropriate. I think the connotation that qualitative is more empirical, more valid, more reliable than quantitative is one of the underlying issues. I personally see value in both and that choice depends on the research question. To say that educational research lacks rigor is misleading and false. Are some studies better than others? Sure. Can we do a better job at defining constructs? Sure. However, I see educational research as important and valuable and should be able to stand on its own.
ReplyDeleteMarsha
After reading Pring, I felt like I should be sitting in a room with a bunch of people talking about what it means to be educated and how we should define learning. Pring made me feel like more of the work needs to be done on the back end of educational debates by clearly defining what we mean when we use educational terms. Eisenhart and Towne, on the other hand, left me feeling like we should be lobbying as researchers’ and practitioners’ on the front end of the educational conversation to ensure that our voices are heard. I would say that Eisenhart and Towne made me feel more hopeful than Kurt’s story about the value-added hearing. This being said, I don’t know if I believe that we (the collective we, although I think our class blog represents how difficult it is to come to a consensus on what educational research should look like) will ever reach a unanimous decision about what counts as valid educational research and how to address its criticisms, namely what several authors describe as a lack of relevance and quality. I think that we will continue to struggle with Tom’s scientific/relevant dualism. However, I also think that there are ways around these mutually exclusive categories, such as participatory-action research, which involves practitioners in the research process, grounding the study in application.
ReplyDeleteAs we read in Pring chapter 1, there is much criticism of educational research. Some question whether or not educational research actually benefits educational practices. I see the move towards scientifically-based educational research as a way for those outside of education to solidify educational research. Also, with the passing of No Child Left Behind, there was the call for the use of research-based practices. This provided a way to close the research to practice divide. One last thing…in chapter 2, Pring discussed defining what we mean. When using a scientifically based model, research methods are defined. This provides education with research a model to follow to assure that all research is conducted in a similar manner. This gives those outside of education the confidence that the research methods are reliable and that the results are valid.
ReplyDelete