week+1b+discussion

calendar

=week introduction=

The concept of the difficulty of doing generally applied educational research against a backdrop of different social contexts is a major theme in both the Berliner and Schoenfeld articles.

Berliner states "Humans in school are embedded in complex and changing networks of social interaction... limiting the generalizability of educational research findings." Schoenfeld presents "social systems" as a theme for theoretical educational research opportunity, defining this as to "develop understandings and build models of complex social systems." Ahlberg also makes reference to this concept on p.13, "The social aspect of human activity means that all human activity happens in some social and cultural context."

Readings:

 * [|wk 1 - Ahlberg Meaningful Learni.pdf]
 * [|wk 1 - Berliner-Science.pdf]
 * [|wk 1 - Schoenfeld.pdf]

Discussion for this topic will begin on Monday at 8:00 AM and last until Friday at 6 PM.

Note: You are also free to participate in and initiate other discussions on the Main and Notes message boards at any time during this course.

Discussion for the week of October 25:

The concept of the difficulty of doing generally applied educational research against a backdrop of different social contexts is a major theme in both the Berliner and Schoenfeld articles.

Berliner states "Humans in school are embedded in complex and changing networks of social interaction... limiting the generalizability of educational research findings." Schoenfeld presents "social systems" as a theme for theoretical educational research opportunity, defining this as to "develop understandings and build models of complex social systems." Ahlberg also makes reference to this concept on p.13, "The social aspect of human activity means that all human activity happens in some social and cultural context."


 * Question 1: Is "educational" research really different from "scientific" research? Are there any educational research topics that could be studied that would be independent of social context? What about Ahlberg's research? [This will be thread 1 on Monday]

Is educational research different from scientific research? If you had asked me this question a year or two ago, I probably would have said no. Research is research--right? The topic doesn't make a difference. However, after reading the articles for this week, I've begun to see the error in my thinking. David Berliner states that education research is "unreliable, and imprecise to rely on as a basis for pratice in the same way that other science are involved..." Scientific research is different because science is based upon fairly solid laws and principles. Educational research doesn't follow along that same line. Schoenfeld says "problems in education resist the clean formulation of mathematical problems." There are so many factors that you need to consider when conducting education research. Many of those factors are things over which we have no control.
 * Michele's answer**

 Ahlberg's research is a different type of education research. The focus of his research is what constitues a good concept map. He doesn't contend with the "changing networks of social interaction." (Berliner)

As a math teacher and instructor for many years, I find this question to be most intriguing. According to Berliner's article, he quotes Richard Feynman's (1999) definition of science as "the belief in the ignorance of authority." (p. 1) Schoenfield notes that "to build something to see if it will work....you have to study the hell out of it." (p. 12) Ahlberg states "Knowledge is always embodied in a person; created, augmented, or improved by a person; applied by a person; taught and passed on by a person."
 * my answer**

 From these statements, research for any subject can't differ from a philosophical perspective. We must be able to question, study the heck out of something, and share our results. The outcomes attempt to do the same thing, develop theories that work. Ultimately any theory attempts to predict similar results for any other scientist or educator to replicate, making it an accepted theory. Researching a topic allows for the inquirer to apply past accepted theories and develop new ones. Berliner rightly points out the difference between science results and educational results, using the terminology of decade of findings interactions. His point is that society evolves through social interactions in time, where the hard sciences of nature remains relatively more stagnant, allowing for theories to hold the test of time, at least until the next enhancement of said theory. This means education research must occur more often, allowing for more discourse than other subjects. In addition, research must be regional and as local as possible to the applied education population. In the case of Schoenfeld, he uses the word 'synergy' in order to dynamically link theory and practice, which advocates research and application in education. Ahlberg's paper is about one specific learning tool, concept maps and other graphic representatives, that can apply directly to learning better. "In Ausubel, Novak and Hanesian (1978, 61-62)...'we both perceive verbal messages and cognitively learn their meaning as a result of interpreting them in the light of existing knowledge.'" This immediately makes me think about learning how the brain operates from a neurological perspective.

 Mathematics is the one subject where disliking the subject is not only advocated by society, but by other educators. Taking math anxiety into account, I believe that anyone can learn math, but they have to believe. The quote I've carried is, if you believe you can, you will. If you believe you can't, you won't. Learning how to convince learners to believe they can do math leads to my interest in psychology and neuroscience. Upon certain conversations with my psychology instructor, she denied I could find a correlation between education, psychology, and neuroscience. Psychology is based on nothing concrete, where their science is only theory. Neuroscience, on the other hand, is based on the pure hard science. With advances with the functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), understanding psychological theories in the context of physiological changes allows for educational research to apply the scientific research.

 I do believe that there are educational research topics that can be studied independent of the social context, though the strictness for eliminating influencing factors becomes more critical. Ahlberg's research regarding the effects of connecting knowledge through graphic representation focuses on how human's interact with knowledge, isolating the means of delivery, or transfer. Mathematics is a pure science, as emphasized by Schoenfeld. From my experience, a small portion are satisfied with viewing math as pure, where the larger portion of the students want to know why they need to know what they are learning. This begins the road to applying the math to the interests of students. Researching mathematics education then needs to ask about the delivery and isolating factors in order to theorize successful techniques for teaching math. The emphasis on using the phrase of on-line learning, we are eliminating one of Berliner's interactions, the teacher and the school, but then adding the interaction of technology. There is a research topic isolating the delivery, with a follow up giving credit to success and failure, then enhancing the delivery in order to generate a means that has increasing success.

 Though I am not a professional researcher, I have success with the experiences I've accumulated and the theories I've applied. Having taught in several states and a province, I've also had the opportunity to experience the regional differences formed from the social context. From one theory, I do journal writing in math, making it personal, eliminating the regional difference. Countering this point, I have gone out of the way to understand regional experiences in order to relate to the learner uniquely.

Chris,
 * Michele's comment to my comment**

You mention that research doesn’t differ from a philosophical perspective. I would agree. The basic idea behind research is to propose a problem, study that problem through research and/or observations and then submit the findings to bring about some type of change. The application of the outcome then becomes the difference between the two types of research. Berliner states that “In Education, broad theories and ecological generalizations often fail….” He goes on to discuss the school reform efforts of Edison Schools and the failure to replicate effects from site to site. Each school district is different. Students come from varied backgrounds, and are subject to various social and economic factors. The educational reforms that work in one school district may not work in another.

You bring up another good point when you state that “education research must occur more often.” Education is in a constant state of change. Even now, our state Content Expectations that we’ve worked with over the past five years are giving way to new national curriculum standards. Once again, the education community will need to conduct research to see if the goals are being met.

"worked with over the past five years are giving way to new national curriculum standards"
 * Bill's comment**

 Michigan has pretty much been on a 5-7 year revision cycle with its "curriculum" since the 80's. There is generally not enough money to do these revisions well. Money for quality research to evaluate the curriculum seems almost a stretch. I agree that research needs to be done. I am just not sure "research" fits into the political expediency equation.

What I was thinking was that we need to evaluate the practices we use to teach the standards, not the curriculum.
 * Michele's comment **

 Desired outcomes for research is the clarification necessary. In science research is solving a problem, searching for a pattern, trying to patent a product, etc. In education research determines standards, provides teachers, administrators, and parents with ideas for curriculum approaches, directs textbook publishers, etc.
 * My comment**

As I contemplate the outcomes, science must be rigid with how research is applied. In the medical field, the outcomes of research are life and death. A faulty product from a manufacturer is lost revenue. On the other hand, how should research from education be applied? Yes, replicating successful reform efforts have not worked. Why? Studying the multitude of school philosophies, there are a unifying perspectives. Student-centered learning is consistent, but how do can it work in different places? A school is a community. Each community has its traits. How can national standards address regional traits? Can they? Textbook manufacturers are nationwide based. They want the cookie-cutter curriculum so they can sell more books. Our desired outcomes need to be evaluated. Intelligent, critical, and independent learners is what I desire, but with recent government policies we have to inquire about the outcomes we accept.

From Berliner, "It is also hard to take seriously the government's avowed desire for solid scientific evidence when it ignores the solid scientific evidence about the long-term positive effects on student learning of high-quality early childhood education, small class size, and teacher in-service education...or suffer a narrowed curriculum because of high-stakes testing."

So the next question, when will education research be taken seriously, especially when we know it works?

 In regards to standards, we need to voice our concerns at the state and national level. High stake testing is destroying inquisitiveness and the joy of learning. Because of my disagreement, I feel charter schools are our best "out" in that they are allow for creativity in education. If I am interested in research, I don't want to be bound by standards and assessment from the beginning. I want students to want to learn first and foremost. I want to teach without a book and focus on techniques that work. From my experiences in public schools, I'm given a book and supposed to teach the way the author intended. This sets me up where I can't use techniques I know work.
 * My comment**

Thank you for starting discussion off so well. The points made are both pertinent and enlightening. I wish to add just a bit of clarification by setting a context that should help as we build on our reading through the next several weeks.
 * Bill's wrap up comment to question 1**

The Schoenfeld and Berliner articles are both position papers about educational research. Both were published in Educational Researcher, the premiere publication of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). While the articles were published about the same time, the Schoenfeld article was more upbeat and hopeful; the Berliner article quite angry. ESEA 2001 (you know this as NCLB) became a public education fact of life in between. Buried in the many pages of legislative jargon was a clear message to educational researchers: the only recognized and fundable educational research was to be research that closely followed the epidemiological model. That is, random assignment, controls, double blind and the like. Since the vast majority of funding for educational research comes from the federal government, this position, according to Berliner, represented a “myopic view of science in general and a misunderstanding of educational research in particular.” His hard/soft science argument follows.

The Ahlberg article is a research summary article. So it is not the report of a single research project, but rather a retrospective on the general learnings produced from the many individual projects she has been involved with over the years. Note, Ahlberg is Finnish. The funding of educational research in Finland is much more “liberal” and certainly less political, than it is currently in the U.S.


 * **Question 2: Is it worthwhile to conduct research if every student group, every teacher, every building situation has apparently unique needs as stated in Berliner? If yes, how is the transfer and application of results best accomplished? [This will be thread 2 for Wednesday AM or Tues evening]**

I do think it is worthwhile to research at the local level. If every school is unique, then learning how to conduct research is what becomes important. I've found that having concern about how oneself teaches helps them become a better teacher. We can't keep blaming students for being lazy, parents for not caring, or communities not being involved. A teacher has to be willing to look in the mirror and ask the tough questions. The results become more for the individual, and yet we are not alone in our experiences. Sharing successes with others in the education community allow others ideas to attempt in their own region. Some will work and some will not, but as long as a teacher is not pulling out a folder from 10-15 years ago about a lesson and lecturing, we'll be on a better track.
 * my comment**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> The transfer and application of results may best be accomplished through writing. As with gaining knowledge through research of others, sharing our own has validity.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;"> Education research is worthwhile at any level. But, I believe changes need to be made in the way education research is presented if it is to impact teachers. Do I want to read someone else’s research? Not necessarily. If it has a direct connection to my life, teaching, classroom, students; then it is a benefit. However, much of the education research that I’ve seen either doesn’t directly apply, or it is written at such a high level that I need an interpreter to understand the results. Ahlberg took 43 pages to explain about graphic organizers. I use graphic organizers in my instruction. I didn’t read Ahlberg’s research when I first began using them. I probably had some type of basic instruction on how to use them in my undergraduate classes. The reason that I use them is because they are a benefit to my visual learners and a good way to organize information. Worthwhile education research is the type of action-research I do to help my students be successful. I identify a problem, find an educational tool or resource to use, try it out, then reflect on its effectiveness.
 * Michele's comment**

Chris, I agree with you that a teacher needs to be willing to look at themselves and ask questions about what they teach. But the questions I ask will center round how I can help each one of my students learn. My research will be more personal than global. I believe that successes should be shared with the greater education community. I find great value in attending science conferences and belonging to education organizations. I learn from what teachers have done in their classroom.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">I agree the way research and instructional ideas are presented needs to be critiqued. On the other hand, knowing how to decipher research papers becomes a common thread for what our students will encounter as they explore science for themselves.
 * my comment**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Science for all has the implication for citizens to understand science to the point there is social and political discourse based on difficult science. Genetic engineering, stem cell research, nanotechnology, computer malware, etc. has being an informed citizen that much more complex.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> The education research we understand, accept, and use must fit with us.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> A tool I learned this summer from a course assists with testing theories in your own class. It's more or less an observation table, but the considerations help stir the applications for how to further assist individual students. Though I found the discussion to be based on young readers, I can see how it can be implemented in any class. I save the document here if your interested: http://ed5750-wood.wikispaces.com/file/view/Overview%20of%20HT%20process.pdf

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">I’m afraid you have caught me showing my bias, and I guess that I do deserve the slam I’m not a big of a fan of education research because I do find much of it difficult to understand. This isn’t an easy thing for me to admit. I am never going to get up to the level that you demand. I try—I read articles several times trying to understand their intension. However, quotes like, “My bias was that theories of competence would render such statistical artifacts superfluous…” (Schoenfeld) throw me for a loop. Does it make me a bad educator because I won’t every read true education research papers except for this course (or my thesis)?
 * Michele's comment**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> I do believe there are different levels of education research and that we are not speaking about the same thing. You are thinking of education research in the more global sense, I’m thinking of it in a more personal way.


 * **Question 3: Where should educators go with educational research, especially given the dictates of NCLB? [This will be thread 3 for Thursday]**

Please carefully cite the readings when bringing up your thoughts!

national teaching associations

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">I am not sure of the question asked. No Child Left Behind is a document that is destroying education. Educational research is meant to help teachers assist each other. I believe research helps the individual even more. Testing teaching theories keeps the educational setting exciting and new. Where to go with educational research? There are plenty of organizations and associations. I've started a list: http://ed5740.wikispaces.com/national+teaching+associations In addition, there are many journals to subscribe and contribute, as with the Jouranl of Research in Science Teaching, where many of our readings come from. Is there something specific this question is supposed to generate, relating educational research and the constraints of NCLB?
 * my comments**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> ...I really contemplate NCLB and its intentions. This was the one of the first legislation passed by Bush, a man with less than normal intelligence. This man set our country back in an enormous way, beginning with NCLB. I believe this act deserves to be repealed. This has little to do with success I strive in my classroom.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> 1449 pages: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">The need for education research will need to continue in the future, especially given the dictates of NCLB. One of the goals of NCLB is to provide greater flexibility for states, school districts, and schools. The flexibility provisions allow for funding of education technology and innovative programs. Knowing which innovative programs work and how to use technology effectively in the classroom will be of great importance to teachers.
 * Michele's comments**

The week's discussion began with questioning the differences between scientific research and educational research, along with any topics in education research that could be addressed without a social context interfering. I took the side that research is similar in philosophy and that we can study certain techniques are without social context, though the social context is difficult to escape. Michele took the words from Berliner reiterating that “In Education, broad theories and ecological generalizations often fail….” and noting that attempting to replicate successful school reforms were not successful. Though the Ahlberg article provided a technique that ignores social context, we both didn't provide examples where this can occur. In my own experiences, I am always using social context. The discussion continued with the next question involving whether educational research is worth it if each scenario is unique. We both agreed that research is worth it to the individual teacher where asking whether our teaching practices are working is worth asking and sharing. In conclusion, we were asked about where to go with educational research given the dictates of NCLB. My comments were directed negatively towards standards based education believing this is eroding educational practices, ignoring regional realities. I also provided places educational research can be submitted. Michele, on the other hand, believes that NCLB provides more flexibility for local districts.
 * Summary of week 1 discussion**

week 1 reflection <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Let's start the week off by reflecting on last week's postings and summary.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">Summary of week 1 discussion - mine <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> The week's discussion began with questioning the differences between scientific research and educational research, along with any topics in education research that could be addressed, without a social context interfering. I took the side that research is similar in philosophy and that we can study certain techniques are without social context, though the social context is difficult to escape. Michele took the words from Berliner reiterating that “In Education, broad theories and ecological generalizations often fail….” and noting that attempting to replicate successful school reforms were not successful. Though the Ahlberg article provided a technique that ignores social context, we both didn't provide examples where this can occur. In my own experiences, I am always using social context. The discussion continued with the next question involving whether educational research is worth it if each scenario is unique. We both agreed that research is worth it to the individual teacher where asking whether our teaching practices are working is worth asking and sharing. In conclusion, we were asked about where to go with educational research given the dictates of NCLB. My comments were directed negatively towards standards based education believing this is eroding educational practices, ignoring regional realities. I also provided places educational research can be submitted. Michele, on the other hand, believes that NCLB provides more flexibility for local districts.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Upon reflection, I am very hard on NCLB, maybe too much. My opinions about teaching root with my first contracted teaching position. The school is a private alternative activist school, based on thematics. I feel fortunate my first experience was an experiment in learning. It is here I learned how to teach without a book, because they didn't have any textbooks. Developing thematics was a team atmosphere. As I'm critical of standards, I was the one who connected to Colorado's newly written standards. This reflection helps me realize I am not a critic of standards as much as I am with standardized tests. I vividly remember when Colorado was initializing their first standardized test. During a question and answer session, I noted that the way questions were asked, students would have difficulty. I predicted students would be blamed for failing the test instead of the test failing the students. Sure thing, headlines in both Denver papers stated 80% of students fail test. I'm sorry, if half have difficulties, it is the assessment we need to question. It is because of the interpretation of an assessment I am critical of standards, especially national standards.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;">In lieu my rambling on,

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> "quotes like, “My bias was that theories of competence <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> would render such statistical artifacts superfluous…” <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> (Schoenfeld) throw me for a loop.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> Prof. Schoenfeld does the education research community no good with that approach to communication. But, believe me, that sentence is mild with respect to some things I have read.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> So, while I am adamant that education research is important, useful for teachers, and should be read by teachers, I am also aware that the research community has some communication work to do. I am hoping that the majority of the actual research papers (we have not got to one yet) I have selected for this seminar are readable by teachers, and can be seen as insightful and useful to classroom application (or at least contemplation). <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal;"> I also hope that we learn a little bit about how to go about reading these papers (so they don't turn us off immediately), how we interpret what we read, and maybe a little insight on identification of those papers that are truly useful to science educators.

<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; clear: both; display: block; margin-bottom: 6px; padding: 6px;"> Summary of Week 1 - Michele

The first topic of discussion was Education Research vs. Science Research—is there a difference. I took the approach that there is a difference between the two. Science research is based on fairly solid laws and principles. Education research isn’t as clean. Outside social factors make it difficult to make generalizations from the results and apply them to all schools. Chris uses ideas from Berliner’s paper pointing out that “society evolves through social interactions in time, where the hard sciences of natures remains relatively more stagnant…” Chris implies that science research doesn’t change until someone disproves a currently held theory. However, education research does change and will need to be conducted more often.

The second topic of discussion was whether education research is worthwhile. Both Chris and I agreed that education research is worthwhile, but it is better if the research is conducted at the local level or helps a teacher to solve a problem in their classroom. It was at this point that things began to get ugly. After I picked up my bruised ego, I realized that I did not provide a complete explanation in my attempt to make a point. I shall try to clarify any and all statements made in the future. In my defense, I do read education research. I am more inclined to read education research in the form of a book from NSTA Press. I find them much easier to read.

The final topic of discussion was regarding the future of education research given the dictates of NCLB. Chris pointed out the negative aspects of NCLB, but did provide a list of resources for submitting education research. I was trying to point out that some parts of NCLB do provide the need for education research in the future.