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.
As previously discussed in class, I find it very difficult to fully conceptualize for research purposes all the transactional pieces of education, the classroom and the overall learning experience. It was nice to read Pring's take & see he also shares to some degree these concerns about the teacher as a researcher & what value there is to having teachers be a part of the research experience. Certainly I understand dynamics at play regarding objectivity/validity and the "privileged position" of the teacher and how these factors impact/impede the science of teaching however the curriculum examples ("experiment") did a nice job of addressing these concerns and laying out a solid take on how to conceptually address some of the questions that appear to surface when considering teachers as researchers. I've often thought action research makes a bit more sense in education however I much appreciated the point Pring provides regarding production of knowledge as well as improvement of practice and yet another reference to false dualisms. The somewhat dramatic wrap up for Chp. 8 ("research is the servant of professional judgement, not its master") made me chuckle. Chapter 9 and the section for quality reinforces for me there is a place for both action research and more traditional forms of research in the field of education. I continue to believe (& this is somewhat supported by the text) any attempt to disregard the merits or pitfalls of either type of inquiry is to overlook a large chunk of information that could possibly improve the overall field as a science - & as such serves to overlook how the activity of research "relates to it's purpose". - P.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteObjectivity in research is always an issue. It is almost impossible to be entirely objective. Teachers as researchers can present some problems as we have discussed but there is also very few individuals so well positioned to research the topic of education. I think much like quantitative and qualitative research, whether to conduct action research or more traditional types of research largely depends on the timing and situation. Like the previous post, I also believe there is a place for both.
ReplyDeleteObjectivity leads to the continuity of a dialogue of what matters and the notion of false dualism. Pring talks about action research as being inclusive of the components that matter or are important in structuring research to inform practice in education. He points out the importance of not using teachers as research objects by the outsider but, teachers be the researchers themselves. But then teachers cannot stand alone as research entities. These should be done in light of teachers reviewing their practices through evidence and critical judgement of others.
ReplyDeletePring does a good job of opening chapter 8 discussing the difficulties in educational research due to unforeseen circumstances and "too many interacting elements" for the "outside" researcher to understand what's going on. I like the idea of teachers being the researchers, but the closeness to the research subject/matter could become problematic (impact of test scores for example).
ReplyDeleteI do think that researchers need to involve teachers more in creating and completing studies. Action research seems like a good way to focus on the "particulars" but we would need to alter the way that as a country we fund and use research (push for generalizability, one size fits all approaches).
To be honest, I'm struggling with Pring's idea of teacher as researcher. Like he mentions, that could potentially be stretching the definition of researcher too thinly. What he describes is what I would hope happens in classrooms--that teachers are constantly questioning and evaluating the way in which they teach and how the students are receiving the information in hopes to improve that process. Now I'm sure that there are several constraints on curriculum due to political/policy influences, which warrants it's own debate. It also left me with many questions about action research. Is the curriculum that is being researched and improved on "done" at the end of the year, or does it continue? How does the influence of the new dynamics of the next class change the curriculum? Would there thus be a different curriculum in each class? Who and how with teachers be taught to do research well? I'm also not impressed with his way of critiquing the research to avoid objectivity. I don't know everyone, I think I need more help understand his points.
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea of a teacher as a researcher is an important way to view how changes are made to the educational system. However, adapting to the teacher-student "transactions" does not necessarily mean that a teacher is a researcher. I do believe that if research was a larger part of teacher preparation, it would limit the number of "large-scale" studies done by people outside of the classroom. I do agree with my colleagues that objectivity is an important part of research. Yet, I also think that there is something to be said for being able to tailor practices to the needs of the students in context instead of aiming for an objective "one size fits all" answer.
ReplyDeleteI am curious if objectivity is real. I tried to brainstorm some ways in which that is possible and I didn't come up with anything. We are all influenced by the lens that we wear. The question is whether or not it is helpful or hurtful to the research and everything that falls between those two things.... but that is subjective also.
ReplyDeleteThese questions go hand in hand with the teacher as a researcher. I think that context and intent are two possible factors in figuring out where this subject falls on the spectrum from helpful to hurtful.