March 30…Pring: Ed. Research, Questions of Rigor/Quality and Action Research
Pring raises 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 sees action research as a potential way to do work that matters…discuss.
Kori Mosley
ReplyDelete3/28/2020
Pring opens this chapter by reiterating the level of complication and complexity that exists within the fluid, dynamic, and unpredictable nature of the “transactions between teachers and learners” (p. 143) - not to mention the varied and therefore problematic interpretation of ‘value/s’ that affect the degree of worth that is put on such transactions. To question whether an outsider with limited exposure to the daily goings-on in any particular classroom could possibly be able to understand, let alone quantify what is/is not working seems logical enough. By contrast, the suggestion that there is promise in action research by those ‘on the inside’ makes logical sense as well… but I am exhausted reading about the process, especially when he suggests that there is possibly “no end to this systematic reflection with a view to improving practice” (p. 156). Further, to consider what, exactly, qualifies as “research” brings us back around to a starting point - are we producing new knowledge or improving practice? Are we worried about generalizability or can we handle some flux and the responsibility of applying any insights to a particular context? Can we be objective - how objective do we need to be? And then, what is research, actually? - and why does ‘action research' often (or have to) fail to qualify as such? So am I left without a clear answer, after all this, still? True/False won’t cut it here. Am I back to my middle ground, where I’ve always been and which I have described often during this semester? Pring describes this place as a “middle way” (p. 163) when suggesting that there are commonalities to learn from in a collective manner as long as we consider the context and proceed with the necessary caution. He ends the chapter, with “Research is the servant of professional judgement, not its master” (p. 164). Ok, then…
In this chapter, Pring wobbles between needing and rejecting theory to support his aims of research. Objectivity, as a frame of reference for "good" research (implying appropriate use of theory) is caught in the shuffle sometimes. By trying to build a doorway for action research to replace the general sense of knowledge-generating "true" research, Pring has to rely upon, yet again, some contradictory claims. He starts the chapter by laying the groundwork for readers to believe that teacher-researchers are inherently more powerful and more responsive to the needs of practice than external observers, despite acknowledging that the outsider model of research does provide more objectivity.
ReplyDeleteHowever, later in the same chapter (Pring-ponging again), he seems to shift his definition of objectivity to reflect more of the researcher's intent in making a claim. In doing so, he changes the meaning from one of perspective to one of openness to critique. Now I agree that both of these things are important, but I think using the same term to describe both qualities of successful research is unnecessarily muddying the waters. A study can be designed and implemented with objectivity on the researcher's part, but still be presented with defensiveness and closed-minded principles. As Pring explained with teacher-researchers, to some extent, objectivity is not desirable if it separates the intent and context from the subject of the research. And it's also foolish to assume that dispassionate researchers are the best of us all.
I think Pring should have cautioned against false dualisms earlier in the chapter, because it seemed like a lot of the chapter was comparing and contrasting two possible, but distinct, approaches to 'research', one of which is situated inside of the classroom, and one of which is situated outside of it. The question of objectivity wasn't one that really caught me in this chapter; instead, I was focused more on the nature of research. It seems like the line is between a large-scale attempt at generalizability and the individual nature of experience as an educator, and Pring draws attention to it, but I'm not sure he resolves it.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Pring's assertion (warranted assertion?) that research "implies some sort of truth-claim." I think in a general sense that research attempts to answer a question, or make an observation. Maybe it's only more recent that researchers often conclude their findings with, "More research is needed..."
I do agree with the point Pring makes about a never-ending kind of reflection described on p. 156 (Kori noted this as well). I think it's fair in both research and practice, as two distinct domains, that there will never be some concrete stopping point where a thing is true and continues to be true regardless of changing contexts.
I think that the concept of action research has a lot of value, but I think there's also a middle-ground, as Pring eventually suggests, between generalized research and the idea of teacher-led action research. I think that process, shared understanding, and guiding principles about how research is conducted, be it for practice or knowledge gain, are more important than objectivity.
-Meagan
ReplyDeleteIn the case of education research, I disagree with the need to be 100% objective. Having done research in my own classroom, I know, without a doubt, that outside observers would not notice the same things that I have with my students. They might notice other things that are useful, but inevitably what they notice will be different than what I do because we have different background information on the people involved. In the case of an outside observer, they may have NO potential background, which in some types of research is considered a benefit. I would argue, however, that for educational research, knowing the students is actually an asset.
In another class I am taking, we are reading a book called “Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better” by Anthony S. Bryk, Louis M. Gomez, Alicia Grunow and Paul G. LeMahieu. Chapter 4 of that book calls to attention the different types of measures that can (and should) be used for different things. Two specific types of measures mentioned are “measures for accountability” and “measures for improvement.” The type of observation and data collected when trying to hold a teacher accountable for doing their job is different than the type of observation and data collected when trying to help the teacher improve.
I would argue that it is the same with research. Depending on what you’re trying to find, there are different types of research. Research for …..? And research for improvement. I paused there and added the ellipses with the question mark because I am realizing now I don’t know why else you might do research in education, other than to improve education. Bryk et al. distinguish the two types of research as “academic research,” and “improvement research,” and states “Academic research and improvement research share common DNA in that they both develop theory and use measures to test these theories. But the kind of knowledge pursued in these two domains is quite different: they entail different kinds of theories, and so they require different types of measures” (p. 99).
I guess the idea that I wasn’t able to land above is that some educational researchers are after “the truth” - they are trying to determine universal truths about education, which I guess would work better when you are an outside observer. But other educational researchers (the group that I identify more with) are after educational improvement. In order to improve the classroom experience, the people involved in the research absolutely have to know the students, and would therefore NOT be objective. I don’t think that’s a bad thing though, that makes the researcher/teacher more able to report about when the the ideas they are finding might be more generalizable….
-Chelsea
Artis Gordon
ReplyDeleteI share in Stenhouse’s thoughts that teachers can be considered researchers by trade. They have direct access to the essential data that can lead to research that can further the growth of practice. They also test (findings) and compare results. I do believe that classrooms can be viewed as “laboratories” as mentioned by Pring. In time, the data gained, analyzed and put into practice through lesson plans/curriculum could be considered viable educational research, albeit just for the sample size of that classroom of learners. If you were to take this sample of data and test the curriculum(results) in another classroom, different conclusions may arise, which can result into new learning. I believe that creating a community of constant research, teaching and learning will serve to enhance the growth and reputation of educational research. It also provides a sense of accountability and an inspection on objectivity. Teachers and educational researchers should work together on research that is conducted on the premise to be used in practice.
I have been studying the concept of Organizational Development and it often begins with a thorough assessment of an organizations’ culture by a consultant from outside of the organization. The assessment often contains a combination of interviews, observations and critique of processes, both successful and unsuccessful. This examination also includes some sort of learning and reflection through action research. Activities of critical inquiry serve as the means to keep an organization accountable, transparent and gives the ability to test logic. This same concept can be used to integrate the work/research of the teacher practitioner and educational researcher.
I appreciate your thoughts Artis, and hope you and your loved ones are doing well. I think the problem with our current educational system is that we don't view them as laboratories, and we fail to see the system or individual classrooms as communities of constant research. Educational transactions are altered by the environments they are exchanged in - internal and external. The sooner we realize that education is a personal transaction, then perhaps, we can start looking at ALL the individuals that make up the system and work to meet their needs instead of holding them accountable to meet the needs of the system.
DeleteI agree, and I think that the underlying cause of our disinterest in crediting teachers as researchers stems from what we've been discussing all along about the credibility and reputation of education. I've also been reading a lot about the field of education as its own "practice" (for the discipline paper), and there are a lot of similar themes regarding how teachers have been enmeshed within the ruling body that governs education. If those in charge at a given time (whether it's the church, the government, or the community) don't make teacher research a priority, then they're unlikely to recognize when it's happening.
DeleteWhen Pring dives deeper into the Action Research section, there is a quote that includes the following statement "Teaching was viewed as a form of educational research, and the latter as a form of teaching." Chelsea speaks to some of my beliefs in her post, about outside researchers not knowing the students the same way that the teachers do. If teachers took what "research has shown" and used what that research concludes in their classroom without making adjustments in regards to their learner population, than they could fail to engage, and help students learn, which defeats my understanding of what the purpose of teaching is. While I understand the need for research to be objective, a teacher shouldn't have to wait for an outsider to tell them that they are not teaching effectively due to test scores in order to change the way they are teaching. If a teacher thinks that a different way of conducting their classroom may enhance their students learning, that comes from a subjective place, but shouldn't dismiss validity.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's possible that standards have been set for educational research based on other forms of research, that will never be met, and should not be forced to. Pring uses the term 'privileged position' while talking about teachers when it comes to educational research(pg 144), but I feel like that goes against the tone of how the role of a teacher in education has been presented this far. If teacher-researchers are so privileged because they understand their classroom and their students, than validity shouldn't come into question as long as they aren't presenting their findings as generalizable, and instead presenting them as they are for others to adopt/think about. If teachers are conducting research based on what the climate of their classroom is, and are putting it out there for the public to read, without saying "hey this is generalizable to every classroom in the nation" but instead says "hey this is what I thought would work in my classroom, and here are the results" then that opens their research up for both criticism, as well as for other teachers to copy ideas. That to me doesn't lack validity, because it is sound in their environment.
Educational research is tricky, there are so many variables, SO MANY VARIABLES, that i've got a headache just thinking about them all. The chapter opening up discussing the fluidity, speaks greatly to what is going on right now in our country.
Maggie Brocklebank
"The notion of a teacher as a researcher" resonated with me throughout the chapter (p. 163). While theory is important, it is the "gap between intention and reality" that needs to be explored more (p.147). Pedagogy offers the art of education. The curriculum is the tool used to help students learn and retain certain knowledge, but the unique space between the teachers and each student is where individual research studies reside. Research is often interested in better understanding the masses, but in that classroom, yes, there is a collective group that is important, it is the individuals who make up the collective that must be reached to move the learning from the individual to the collective. The teacher, student relationship is not an objective relationship, because the teacher (hopefully) knows and understands the student too well to maintain objectivity. It is the relationship between the teacher and the student that helps the teacher as a researcher to see things that another research may miss. Learning is an experience and interaction that is not black and white, and while a theoretical lens is important in the classroom, applying this lens is difficult due to the individual characteristics of the class. I guess from this unique space; action research is born, driven by the need to improve educational practice. Action research vs. theoretical research, my question to Pring (I know this is bigger than him) is why do we have to name it? Why do we have to put education research in a box or try to define it one way or another? Perhaps, if we spent more time trying to meet the needs of those educating or being educated, we would have a more reliable education system (for all) and not merely a deeper understanding of its flaws.
ReplyDeletePring begins the chapter describing the teacher's role as a researcher and asserting that "the tentative beliefs or conclusions drawn by the teacher become 'hypotheses' to be put to the test in the classrooms" (144). I love the idea of the teacher as a researcher, conducting experiments in class everyday, testing hypotheses and constantly adapting and evolving. But I think that teachers are far from objective in their classrooms - they know their students, deeply, they're invested in their students' outcomes. One of the issues with the validity of the idea of teacher as researcher is that it doesn't lend itself to a "science of teaching, a definitive and proven account of how each and every teacher should teach" (145). But honestly, I don't think that I agree that every teacher should teach the same way... apart from varying student needs, teachers need to be their authentic selves in order to be effective and not every teaching style or approach is going to produce the same results. As Maggie said, there are just so many variables. As a former teacher and a soon-to-be-returning one, maybe it's my personal hangups with this idea that I struggle with - maybe I don't want to accept that teaching and learning is not a form of scientific experimentation or research...
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about the needed variation in teaching. As we know, all students are different, all school systems are different, and all resources and circumstances are different. As far as objectivity goes, I really don't feel that is even necessary for every type of research. Sure, collecting data needs to be objective. But the actual creation of research questions need to be informed by practice and every day happenings. This is where I think teachers provide such a needed wealth of knowledge.
DeleteI dug this chapter more than previous chapters. It could be because of social distancing, or maybe it's because he's touching on ideas that I think are a little more salient/material. Centering the classroom teacher and their situated cognition (which I think pairs nicely with the Freire's focus on lived experience) moves towards a more democratized idea of inquiry. Connecting with communities of inquirers to better shape our ideas, thinking deeply about our intentions and biases in doing the work, and looking to revise and reshape in the face of good-faith criticisms are all ways earnest ways of making research a public good. These factors are also how we work to get our arms around "objectivity" without compromising the soul of the work. As opposed to distancing ourselves from the work as a reflexes means to be above reproach, I like how action research leans into community oriented dialogue as a potential guard-rail. Reading Pring I would get the feeling that the researcher needs to hover above their work in a very solitary manner thinking very deeply about Descartes. It's nice to connectivity and community as a prerequisite to meaning inquiry in this context.
ReplyDeleteTangent: I have a hard time reading this chapter without looking at our current moment in labor relations in the US. We're coming to grips right now with what labor, and which laborers, are responsible for adding value to our society and keeping America churning. If we previously thought that the "important" or "serious" jobs were the jobs that involved corner offices and multiple degrees, this crisis has taught us how fully we depend on the grocery store clerk and truck drivers. Similarly, I feel that the underlying assumption with educational research is that it only can be "serious" if it comes from outside the classroom context. This comes up every other post for me, but I don't think we can extoll the values of Action Research in this space without very seriously talking about the constraints on the classroom teacher that prevent this work from happening.
Do we take the situated cognition of teachers seriously? Do we trust our teachers to invent, fail, tweak, and have ownership over their classrooms? Do we allow teachers the appropriate agency that need to advocate for changes? Do we take classroom teachers seriously as practitioners who can add to the knowledge base/improve practice? If so, do we provide the material means to substantiate that?
If we believe that Action Research is a way to do work that matters we need to continue to advocate for conditions that show teachers that THEIR work matters.
Pring seems to see a lot of value in teacher research while at the same time reminding us that research requires public scrutiny and criticism (163). As a teacher, I have a headful of reactions and adaptations based on my experiences that serve as resources for how to succeed. No matter how helpful they might be, they are not subjected to reflection and scrutiny outside my own experience and application.
ReplyDeleteSo, in considering Pring’s thinking, I see crucial steps that are missing. In his discussion of Foster, Pring articulates really well for me where the needs are when he says, “it is not enough, in defending teacher research, to claim that practice had improved. It is necessary for there to be knowledge of why it improved” (160).
I think of something I heard Michal Marquardt say once (Artis might remember this too), ‘We don’t learn from experience, we learn from reflecting on experience.’ Reflection allows us the time to ask why. So if we think of our classrooms as labs, where we react and adapt and record these actions, then research is in the documentation, analysis, and scrutiny of it all. This makes me think of the teacher-student relationship and the need to keep it safe, to keep the classroom safe.
- Peyton B.
My apologies for not posting earlier! Action research and social justice research are overlapping in my two classes currently.
ReplyDeleteAction research, as reviewed by Pring, has a focus on making research public. This opens the door to wide criticism and feedback, analyzing each decision. This is crucial because as researchers we defend what we don't know and what we do know. Inviting others to scrutinize makes this process more dynamic and involved, creating a broader perspective. Sometimes research feels as though we are proving a hypothesis we already know to be true. This bias is targeted through creating a larger stage for critical assessment.
I am in an advanced leadership and social justice class, where we have had reading dedicated to social justice research (SJR). SJR takes action research a step further into involving stakeholders to make a change. Research is not something that is done in isolation and then left to the internet for people to find. Instead, it is used as a way to validate and encourage change in practices. Research is used to create change. I wonder what Pring would have to say about SJR and if it is too "counselory" to contribute to the rise of education research.