Note something from this article
with which you disagree (note: I assume that reading this paper was a different
experience for those with P-12 experience and those without. That said, he made a sufficient number of
bold claims so I’m sure everyone can disagree with something he said). Why do
you disagree with it? Did Labaree give
words to any tensions that you feel as you head down the road of the
educational researcher? If so, explain.
Also, feel free to weigh I on what, if anything, Mutter and Bryk relate to
Labaree.
Not sure it's entirely necessary, but just to preface my response, I taught 8th grade English for 4 years.
ReplyDeleteI didn't read the blog post prompt before reading the article, but the topic is pretty serendipitous because I wrote "Disagree" in the margins of this article quite a few times. I think my biggest disagreement is with Labaree's claim that "the object of a particular foray into research, as a piece of scholarship, is not to fix a problem of educational practice but to understand more fully the nature of this problem" (p. 17). If the researcher in question is conducting qualitative, descriptive, or correlational research, then sure, I'll give Labaree this point. But what about intervention research? Fixing a problem is entirely the point of research that implements an intervention. For sure, intervention research draws on qualitative, descriptive, and correlational research to design an intervention that is most likely to yield the desired changes in students, but it most certainly attempts to fix a problem of educational practice. I have trouble seeing the value of educational research if its end goal is simply to describe problems ad infinitum and never try to fix them.
But who knows, maybe this viewpoint is simply my inner practitioner shining through?
I read this not as discounting the value of intervention research entirely, but as arguing that such research will only be effective after preliminary research which provides necessary context. It's natural (and laudable!) to want to fix problems observed in the classroom, but attempting interventions without understanding the full range of factors at play could do more harm than good or lead to faulty, invalid conclusions. Once a nuanced understanding of those factors has been developed--through descriptive and correlational research--then there is a firm foundation upon which to do more quasi-experimental/intervention-based research that is more likely to have meaningful, generalizable results.
DeleteTo take an example from the medical field: lobotomies were used for a time as a "cure" for certain psychological disorders and intellectual disabilities. Lobotomies are no longer used for these disorders because they weren't actually effective fixes, and caused a host of other problems. If there had been sufficient exploratory research into the function of the prefrontal lobe, it would likely have prevented the decades-long misuse of the lobotomy.
Right -- I totally agree with your point about needing to do the legwork to understand what consequences might arise from an intervention before trying it out (and I think the lobotomy example is a good one). But given the stuff earlier in the article about education research being soft/built on a constantly shifting foundation/etc as well as the quote I pulled, I got the feeling that Labaree isn't a big believer in intervention research. But maybe I oversimplified his position in my initial response.
DeleteStephanie - As I was reading the article, I found myself disagreeing with many of the author’s initial assertions. However, as I continued reading, it seemed as though he often “toned down” the claims. One claim that seemed more consistent was, “Making the transition from teacher to researcher, therefore, calls for a potentially drastic change in the way students look at education and at the work as educationists” (p. 16). He makes several claims about the difficulty of finding common ground because of the significant differences in the type of work teachers and researchers do. As I reflected on my views on this topic, I tried to determine if the nature of what I do and my area of interest affected my perspective or if I was just using my “experience as a trump card” (p. 21). Maybe it is a combination of both, but I don’t think that I have difficulty with the idea of engaging in research that most scholars would consider meaningful – and I have worked in K-12 schools for 20 years. I also agree with Eric that research can, and should, be conducted for the purpose of fixing a problem. While all research does not have to be designed to fix a problem, I don’t think that research with that in mind is any less meaningful.
ReplyDeleteI will add my disclaimer to the end: I am currently a math coach in a middle school and have taught all grades from Kindergarten through 8th grade, as well as Algebra and Geometry.
I have worked in public preschool through high school settings for 16 years, but not consecutively. In addition to my P-12 experience as an itinerant Occupational Therapist (OT) I also worked in home based Early Intervention working with families and home based Home Health working with families. Both the itinerant aspect of my P-12 work and the unique family systems theory of my outside work allowed me a unique perspective to identify with the roles of both teacher, who values relationships and individual student growth, and researcher, who values theory and generalized application of that theory.
ReplyDeleteAs I read Labaree’s article I found myself agreeing all major points. I wonder if this has more to do with the fact that as an OT I am trained to bring all I do practically back to theory, so the leap from practitioner to researcher seems more natural and less in conflict for me personally. The itinerant flavor of my daily work puts me in contact with multiple teachers in many diverse environments, which helps me better see how general strategies or trends work or don’t work compared to the individual classroom teacher that has no peer models or comparison but bases their views solely on their own personal experience.
I'm going to sleep on this and re-read in the morning to see if there is anything I strongly disagree with... Please, no hard feelings teachers, I know you are passionate about your students and strong in your personal teaching strategies and techniques.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI do think that there is variation in the approach of teachers. Strong teachers are not only strong in "personal teaching strategies and techniques" but also knowledgeable in evidence-based practices and apply them with fidelity. I think that much is lost in translation between research and practice. Teachers have to work very hard to find these practices and you are correct, often have no one to model or coach them to fidelity.
DeleteI had the same experience as Stephanie reading the Labaree article. Almost every time I thought I had picked out something to critique, Labaree walked back the debatable content substantially within the next few paragraphs. As a result, the structure of the whole article felt frustrating to me. He sets up artificial binaries in order to argue problematic differences between teacher practitioners and educational researchers only to state at the end that we are all not so different after all. I understand that creating binaries like he did can help clear space to make a theoretical argument, but it seems to me that he ended up not really believing his own arguments in the end. There were, however, a few points that he seemed to stick with in problematizing the teacher-turned-researcher that I found disagreeable. For example, on page 20, Labaree bemoans the teacher-doctoral student’s impetus to stay at arm’s length from theory, arguing that these students use their own experiences as “trump cards” to explain away even the most robust and rigorous theory. I would argue instead that it is the job of the educational researcher to test theory. When teacher doctoral students bring their own experience to the doctoral classroom to suggest that a theory could be wrong in some contexts, that should be a jump off point for further inquiry: Why did the theory not hold up in that situation? Can we identify a limit of the theory from this anecdote? Labaree makes it seem like he is critical of the low status placed upon the teaching profession at the beginning of the article, but by the end I was concerned that he is contributing to the public perception that teaching is a “lesser profession.”
ReplyDeleteKendra- I found this article to be particularly frustrating for many of the reasons others have stated. Larabee seems to talk in circles and contradict himself throughout the entire piece. As someone without a P-12 background, I worked hard to explore how some of his assertions might apply to the contexts I have worked in. That proved to be more difficult than I anticipated. While there were many points that caused me to pause and reflect, the notion that maturity makes the transition easier seemed to me, faulty at best.
ReplyDeleteAs a millennial, I resented the notion that I had less to add to the doctoral experience or research more broadly simply due to what is perceived as a lack of professional experience or an inability to apply theory to practice. Like many of my more seasoned counterparts, I am also unwilling to be treated like a child. I am pursuing doctoral study with a plan in mind and a flexibility and willingness to allowing that plan to shift and unfold as time progresses. Larabee seemed to suggest that younger researchers and practitioners might be lost in this experience. In fact, I know exactly where I am. I did not come to the program looking for it to shape me and I don’t believe that the majority of folks have. Larabee’s argument implies gross generalizations that individuals coming directly out of undergraduate or masters level study are ill-equipped for the journey, simply by virtue of not having had as much professional experience or not having “lived a life” (p. 16). In some ways this assertion discounts the value of education as a standalone entity, not accompanied by practice. Is it less valuable?
I agree Kendra. The article did seem to talk in circles as well as offer quite a bit of repetition. I was a bit confused as to the ultimate point that he was trying to make. Although there were a few points that I did agree with, there were quite a few in which I did not. I think that the transition from practitioner to researcher does require quite a shift in thinking. However, I don't know if it is as difficult as the author makes it out to be. It may depend upon the purpose of pursuing the doctoral degree. I respected the notion of the bicultural program where the practitioner's view (teacher)is respected and reinforced while the researcher's view is an additional method of understanding. This seems to me to be a great way to utilize the strengths, experience, and knowledge of both sides.
DeleteThe notion of doctoral degrees in Education being thought of as less esteemed due to its affiliation with teacher education and the fact that historically these programs allowed disadvantaged, women, and working class to receive an advanced degree was unsettling. Although true, still unsettling. I would hope that things have changed in recent years where Education as a discipline and all of the sub-disciplines therein are more respected and valued as legitimate contributors to the field.
As a school counselor, I strongly feel that my experience in the field is a great asset to me in this program. However, I am having to take on a more generalized or universal thought process where I am thinking critically and applying those thoughts to a wider audience. Also, I find myself having to become less practical and more theoretical. So I guess I agree with the author in some respect. Now, I can see how easy it is to "talk in circles".
I forgot to add my name to the reply above.....
DeleteMarsha
Marsha, I am happy to see that I am not the only one with a circular thought pattern. Each comment and post is causing me to recalculate my original assessment.
DeleteKendra, I think that each of us brings something to the table in this program, regardless of maturity and experience. As a more seasoned (old) student does allow me to view things through the lens of experience. This is not to say that experience is essential. I have friends who become very concerned when their children encounter a brand new teacher. I always viewed it is as an opportunity. The PhD program is no different. I learn from all of my colleagues and do not feel in any way superior for my experience. I simply have a different lens. A lens that can sometimes cloud my view. I do think, however, when one is teaching teachers, it is helpful to have actually been one. I do not feel the same way about pure research.
Although I have felt a bit of pressure to move from practitioner to researcher, I have found that I can develop skills as a researcher while retaining my practitioner stance. Labaree assets that this culture clash between researcher and practitioner asks PhD students to shift their cultural orientation. This assumes that teachers have a narrow view based only in their own experience. While this is true to some extent, many teachers find themselves engrossed in literature, constantly examining new ways of approaching day to day challenges. For them, this “clash of worldviews” is not as challenging to navigate.
ReplyDeleteLabaree states that scholars of education have no direct responsibility for the students in the K-12 classroom. I disagree wholeheartedly. While scholars do focus on the why and teachers focus on the how of instruction, regardless of role, it is our job to take responsibility for student learning. As researchers, our focus is different from classroom teachers, but our one directive is the same – learning.
Thankfully, I have found that the VCU environment is supportive of community-based research. The centers and partnerships on campus support the relationship between researcher and practitioner.
I can appreciate Labaree’s understanding of the different perspectives teachers and researchers possess with regards to educational improvement and I do at times feel tensions as I continue to navigate between my experience as a teacher and now as a doctoral student. However, as a “teacher-become-researcher” (p. 20), I find his problematizing of the conflicting worldviews between the two groups to be hyperbolic. While I agree that the university researcher’s context is quite different from a classroom teacher’s context, I was troubled by several of Labaree’s assertions about doctoral students who have a background in education, specifically his claims that teachers hesitate to “[embrace] the intellectual skills that they need in order to become educational scholars” (p. 19) and that they need to be sold a pitch for the benefits of an analytical stance toward education (p. 20). Labaree seems to paint a picture of practitioners as individuals skeptical of any information that does not fit within their neat bank of professional knowledge, and I would disagree with that depiction. I think that too often, value-added is seen as a one-way street- research benefits classroom practice- and although Labaree concedes that teachers’ experiences are important, I am not convinced that he thinks the two are equally valuable. Like Kim, I wonder why a teacher’s use of experience to shed light on potential theoretical limitations is viewed as a denial of research’s value rather than an opportunity for further inquiry.
ReplyDeleteFor much of the article, it felt as though Labaree was reading my mind. I have felt and continue to feel the tension of moving from practitioner to researcher. It was helpful to have these tensions acknowledged and explained as I can now put words to what I have been feeling. Even as I appreciate the discussion, I do not agree with everything Labaree said.
ReplyDeleteAs a whole, it felt as though Labaree placed students in a multiple binaries. It seemed as though students are either one or another and cannot be both. I believe people can be both and at various times one will be utilized more than the other. Trying to get rid of parts of experiences that have been foundational to a person can be difficult and feel like they are losing part of their identity. Instead of rebuilding or recreating it should be more of adding skills, perspectives, and beliefs to create a more holistic educational researcher.
In Labaree’s article, the first statement that stood out to me is when he stated that schools of education were producing low quality teachers. He stated that education has a history of easy access and low standards. Then Labaree goes on to compare the field of education to other fields, stating that education is less esteemed. Labaree stated that the work of the educator is elementary and that education draws from a “lower class” of candidates to include the socially disadvantages, women, and the working class.
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely absurd. First of all, educators are the ones who provide doctors, lawyers, and others in more “prestigious” fields with the fundamental education they need to become successful in these other fields. To state that somehow the working class, women, and the socially disadvantaged could not receive training and become the brightest teachers has no merit.
His words are disheartening being that P-12 education is currently under so much scrutiny. There are those who state that there should not be alternative routes to teaching and that no other professions have this. Some feel as if alternative route teachers are less qualified. According to Labaree, not only would these teachers not be qualified, but no teachers coming out of today’s institutions are qualified. As a person with 22 years in the field and a person who began with a conditional license, I disagree with both. In addition, Labaree speaks as if women and those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are born without the intelligence to become great teachers. In my opinion, it sounds as if Labaree not only has biases against certain groups, but is a little chauvinistic as well.
Sorry...don't know why my name didn't appear. It's Robin Pelt.
DeleteKendra-I found myself in the same dilemma as someone without a P-12 background. The article seemed a bit condescending to those with a P-12 background. I'm also wondering how many of our classmates with P-12 backgrounds agree with Labaree's assumptions. What do you think Labaree's opinion might be regarding those with a higher ed background?
ReplyDeleteI also recognize that one must fully understand an issue or problem to work towards remediation. However, I do not believe that the ultimate goal of research is merely to understand an issue more in depth. Research has little value if it does not contribute to a solution.
Amy
It’s interesting to read Labaree’s article since it kind of goes back and forth between different assumptions about doctoral students in education. One thing I guess I can not really agree with is the piece about doctoral students and professional experience. It’s hard to generalize doctoral students in education with a “wealth of professional expertise”. In my case for example, I am in my second year teaching and have not had much in the ways of practical teacher preparation. In a sense, I am being shaped while I find my path. In my teaching position, I am learning about the different ways I could convey mathematics better to students, whereas in my doctoral program, I am learning what my focus will be. This is on top of learning the ins and outs of being an adult as well.
ReplyDeleteBut, I do agree with the part that there is a seeming conflict between researchers and teachers. My colleagues at work always discuss that researchers often do not take into account the stuff that happens outside of school. However, I believe this could be mitigated by stronger communication between researchers and teachers about sharing a common purpose, which is to help the students.
As I was reading this article it was difficult for me to disagree with Labaree. I do not come from an education background and do find it may be difficult for teachers to transition to a research based environment. Labaree’s explanation of training in a low status institution sheds light on the challenge the profession face in comparison with other professions (ex. Medical). My thoughts based on the limited experience in education, but having a rich experience with many other professionals working in the policy field, has always wondered why teacher preparation wasn't held to a high regard as other professions. As a citizen we look for certified or licensed professionals, in almost any field that you require expertise, such as accounting or HVAC. But it's almost as if we don't expect or require individuals in the teaching profession to be experts. Also, I would agree with Labaree that the issue is multidimensional, having teachers and other education professionals transition to research based scholars and shifting from normative to analytical.
ReplyDeleteSays Evandra
Delete