As a teacher with many years of experience, the readings for this week's class really made me think about the way (is there one?) by which new methodologies are chosen and used in the classroom. When K and S discuss the "competing methodological contexts" I thought about how often that is true where I teach. There is no vision, just a haphazard throwing out into the void. We don't really have to time to dig into the research that makes Collins, for instance, a viable option for our students. Where's the research to back up the premise of Collins? And what happens when Reading Apprenticeship comes along?
It was interesting and assuring that K and S bring up Friere in their discussion of theory and practice. That idea that there is a symbiotic relationship between the two is enlightening and positive. I think I agree with what Phelps says...that, "theory as defined by the natural sciences, cannot govern daily teaching practices, but that conceivably it might work the other way around. The practices that Alvarez explores justify that idea. She has to start with what is happening in the classroom now, then go to the thereoretical drawing board, ask the right questions, and come back to the classroom with new methodologies.
My last comment on the K and S reading comes again from Flax (I'm going to have to find some of her stuff and read it) as well. On page 325 she writes about the "paradoxes and ambiguities that multiplied as our research progressed..." She intimates that these problems had been avoided, but she promotes the idea that we have to embrace these problems, not avoid them.
Julie asked us to come up with some questions in last week's class. When I was reading L&A I couldn't stop thinking about questions. They detail modes of inquiry and really they are describing ways of exploring questions, and after reading K&S, I couldn't help thinking that you better be darn sure and damn specific in the question you want to pursue, especially if you opt, as they recommend, to do multidimensional research.
I've never done this kind of research so I appreciated the general principles of empirical research outlined in the book. I had to offer a hollow laugh, however, when L&A discuss the 400 (or more) basic dimensions of human behavior. I think it would have been beneficial to give an example of an empirical research topic and then outline a few of the behaviors that the researcher would have to monitor.
The discussion of meta-analysis on page 17 was interesting and a little formidable. Once a theory has been posed, research conducted, and ideas put into practice, how often does meta-analysis happen? Who's to say if a practice has been successful? Like Vicki, I ask that in my classroom when I try something new, but these big programs that my district buys into...it seems they don't want to spend the time or energy in reflection or analysis that would indicate whether a program is successful or not.
The narrative of Deborah Alvarez was a nice change from reading inquiry theory. Several things came to mind as I was reading it. The idea of detachment is important. If we tenaciously cling to what we love, it's hard to be objective; it's hard to clearly look at what our students need. When Pam came into Deborah's class and made the comment, "You don't like them" she was offering that detached judgment that Deborah would never have been able to see on her own. She was made to see what was obvious to someone from the outside.
I liked the chart that Alvarez provided. I think that most veteran teachers have gone through the same processes, although it was nice to see it outlined so clearly. I would have like to hear more about the ideas that Alvarez used in her classroom. There seemed to be big gaps in the information she provided in the article.
2 comments:
great point about the meta-analysis, but maybe we should blame unenthusiastic teachers as much as limited district-level plans for formal evaluation. I know even powers as low-level as our building administrators (as opposed to superintendents and intermediate units) sometimes give in to their teachers' resistance to the new plans of action by minimizing expectations for change. If teachers reject new programs, how can a district get its teachers to take on an even bigger burden by studying the effects of changes?
Districts rely too much on micro managing instead of allow us to research, inspire, and do our job. Administration is afraid that the teachers should be robots in many cases rather than think and develop as Alverez and the others are inspiring us to do.
Post a Comment