Consider Biesta’s vision of democratic
research. What, if anything, about it seems novel or unusual? From what
you’ve learned thus far, what sort of place do you see for this kind of work in
the world of educational research?
I do agree with Biesta’s argument, he describes the importance of democracy to inform policy and practice and that the use of evidence-based lack the democratic input. His idea may look unrealistic and difficult to achieve, but it makes a lot of sense to me. For example, how he explained the difference between medical field and education by using a student and patient scenario, the use of causality in education may not apply the same way it is done in the medical field. The condition of being a student is quite different from that of being a patient- being a student is not an illness just as teaching is not a cure he provides several other examples to establish his claim on how educational research should not be based on evidence-based. His idea is noble to me and it could be used to provide evidence on the existing criticism of educational research.
I agree with this Beatrice! I think it was a super innovative example of applying a "hard science" concept to a "softer science" of education. However, despite what we may feel at times, being a student is not a condition or equation where you can solve for "x". There are many differences in which practices work in certain settings and with certain students. I love the line that you bring up that being a student is not and illness and teaching is not a cure. That perfectly summarizes the difference between evidence based medical research and educational research.
This quote from Beista really resonated with me "..that it is meaningless to talk about effective teaching or effective schooling; the question that always needs to be asked is, effective for what?" I think evidence based practices are important and useful. However, there needs to be a consensus on what/who they are being used for and who they are effective on. Evidence based practices help establish the "normative" dimensions of education. There are students who are not going to fall into what is normative using evidence based practices. Those students are just as important and trying to develop casual explanations in education can marginalize students who do not respond well to evidence based practices.
I think that Biesta brought up some very excellent points related to the limits of "evidence-based practices" in educational research, specifically the ideas of causality. In evidence-based medical research, we can more confidently see the direction of causality with medications or surgeries, etc. It's also possible to do an experiment. Education has so many different variables involved, that it is just ignorant and possibly dangerous to express causality and give best practices for all of society.
"...Being a student is not an illness - just as being a teacher is not a cure..."
Hannah, I also found his limits to evidence-based practices interesting. Specifically, his assertion that research can and should play both a technical an cultural role whereas EBP only plays a technical role. He hones in on this point, since EBP is so removed, it poses a threat to democracy itself. I was unsure at first what he meant by this, but in the conclusion he wrote that research should not be only finding the most effect way to do things, but to "also addresses questions about the desirability of the ends themselves." p. 78. I think this also related back to the quote Autumn presented, that more people should question the intentions of EBR... Especially when politics are involved...
I agree that is was interesting to see the comparison between medical research and educational research. Medical research many times is able to get to the root of the problem and there is often a cause that can be deduced. However, educational research resides in a realm that is far more ambiguous when it comes to causation.
I also that is was interesting how Biesta described how some have attempted to conduct educational research as basically being "double transformation". Hargreaves called for "a transformation of educational research so that educational practice could be transformed into an evidence-based practice"
I agree with Biesta that in education there needs to be an opportunity for teachers to not have to follow directives from above but allow them to be "sensitive to and relevant for their own contextualized settings."
The idea of evidence-based practices is interesting. I think having a basis for what we do the education is important; however, I agree that we don't focus on the context of where the "evidenced-based" information is coming from. There are many confounding variables. It can seem convenient to pull these practices from articles to legitimize our work, find funding, etc, but I think there is something missing to bridge the gap between what we are doing with the information and the context in which it was researched. I think that we need a combination of practitioners and researchers to build that bridge.
I do agree with Biesta’s argument, he describes the importance of democracy to inform policy and practice and that the use of evidence-based lack the democratic input. His idea may look unrealistic and difficult to achieve, but it makes a lot of sense to me. For example, how he explained the difference between medical field and education by using a student and patient scenario, the use of causality in education may not apply the same way it is done in the medical field. The condition of being a student is quite different from that of being a patient- being a student is not an illness just as teaching is not a cure he provides several other examples to establish his claim on how educational research should not be based on evidence-based. His idea is noble to me and it could be used to provide evidence on the existing criticism of educational research.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this Beatrice! I think it was a super innovative example of applying a "hard science" concept to a "softer science" of education. However, despite what we may feel at times, being a student is not a condition or equation where you can solve for "x". There are many differences in which practices work in certain settings and with certain students. I love the line that you bring up that being a student is not and illness and teaching is not a cure. That perfectly summarizes the difference between evidence based medical research and educational research.
DeleteThis quote from Beista really resonated with me "..that it is meaningless to talk about effective teaching or effective
ReplyDeleteschooling; the question that always needs to be asked is, effective for what?" I think evidence based practices are important and useful. However, there needs to be a consensus on what/who they are being used for and who they are effective on. Evidence based practices help establish the "normative" dimensions of education. There are students who are not going to fall into what is normative using evidence based practices. Those students are just as important and trying to develop casual explanations in education can marginalize students who do not respond well to evidence based practices.
I think that Biesta brought up some very excellent points related to the limits of "evidence-based practices" in educational research, specifically the ideas of causality. In evidence-based medical research, we can more confidently see the direction of causality with medications or surgeries, etc. It's also possible to do an experiment. Education has so many different variables involved, that it is just ignorant and possibly dangerous to express causality and give best practices for all of society.
ReplyDelete"...Being a student is not an illness - just as being a teacher is not a cure..."
Hannah, I also found his limits to evidence-based practices interesting. Specifically, his assertion that research can and should play both a technical an cultural role whereas EBP only plays a technical role. He hones in on this point, since EBP is so removed, it poses a threat to democracy itself. I was unsure at first what he meant by this, but in the conclusion he wrote that research should not be only finding the most effect way to do things, but to "also addresses questions about the desirability of the ends themselves." p. 78. I think this also related back to the quote Autumn presented, that more people should question the intentions of EBR... Especially when politics are involved...
DeleteI agree that is was interesting to see the comparison between medical research and educational research. Medical research many times is able to get to the root of the problem and there is often a cause that can be deduced. However, educational research resides in a realm that is far more ambiguous when it comes to causation.
ReplyDeleteI also that is was interesting how Biesta described how some have attempted to conduct educational research as basically being "double transformation". Hargreaves called for "a transformation of educational research so that educational practice could be transformed into an evidence-based practice"
I agree with Biesta that in education there needs to be an opportunity for teachers to not have to follow directives from above but allow them to be "sensitive to and relevant for their own contextualized settings."
The idea of evidence-based practices is interesting. I think having a basis for what we do the education is important; however, I agree that we don't focus on the context of where the "evidenced-based" information is coming from. There are many confounding variables. It can seem convenient to pull these practices from articles to legitimize our work, find funding, etc, but I think there is something missing to bridge the gap between what we are doing with the information and the context in which it was researched. I think that we need a combination of practitioners and researchers to build that bridge.
ReplyDelete