The Fabric of Community- The Key to Transforming Education

I have been thinking a lot about how to manage the needed change process in education. Looks like a lot of folks have been playing with that idea as well. ISTE released their new NETS for ADMIN framing it as having the potential for -

Transforming Education- Administrators play a pivotal role in determining how well technology is used in our schools. The NETS for Administrators enable us to define what administrators need to know and be able to do in order to discharge their responsibility as leaders in the effective use of technology in our schools.

And take a look they are NOT too shabby when thinking about the characteristics leaders need to reform education in today's fast changing world.

The rub for me comes in when I try and look at these and other efforts to "transform" education and wonder if we aren't really just talking about reform- small principled changes that look at change as we always have - through the lens of problem solving.

In Phillip Schlechty's new book, Leading for Learning: How to Transform Schools into Learning Organizations  (great read btw) he distinguishes between reforming and transforming a school.

REFORM usually means changing procedures, processes, and technologies with the intent of improving the performance for exisiting operating systems. The aim is to make existing systems more effective at doing what they have been always been intended to do.

TRANSFORMATION is intended to make it possible to do things that have never been done by the organization undergoing the transformation. It involves metamorphosis: changing from one form to another form entirely. In organizational terms, transformation almost always involves repositioning and reorienting action by putting the organization into a new business or adopting a radically different means of doing the work it has traditionally done. Transformation by necessity includes altering the beliefs, values, and meanings- the culture- in which programs are embedded, as well as changing the current system of rules, roles, and relationships- social structure- so that the innovations needed will be supported.

REFORM in contrast, means only installing innovations that will work within the context of the existing structure and culture of schools. 

During a recent PLP Bootcamp I posed the following question to the attendees.

So as you develop your vision for leading in the 21st Century how do you see it- should you be a reformer or a transformer and why? Make a case for using one or the other as a change strategy.

I was really surprised at the passion in the responses supporting reform. Here is a sample-

Transforming, without careful consideration of a vision and steps required to achieve the vision, can lead to chaos and be counter productive. I recognize that change can and will emerge from chaos. However, I am cautious in placing students and staff into situations, without some insightful thinking and an understanding of an explicit goal(s), because the implications of change without thoughtfulness and explicitness, even in the short term can be detrimental. Change requires careful and responsible thinking to inform action.

And another-

I think for my school and the circumstances I find there, I am more a reformer than a transformer. The school has an ingrained culture that is sort of self-satisfied. But I think there is a desire by many to improve the existing system, and that includes the uses of these technological tools.

Interestingly enough not one educational leader in attendance spoke out for transformation. Probably because transformation is so risky. Whenever leaders tinker with values, technique and skills things get messy. But is reformation of our schools enough? Will 21st Century reform bring schools to where they need to be to meet the needs of the 21st Century citizen and learner?

Peter Block in his new book, Community- the Structure of Belonging
suggests that transformation is the only way we will create a future distinct from the past. Peter suggests that the current context supports the belief that the future will be improved with new policies, more oversight, and stronger leadership. However, creating a future is different from defining a future.

PROBLEM SOLVERS
As reformist we typically ID a problem we want to address, fix, or improve. Next, we study and analyze the need by gathering data and making a compelling case for change. Then, we search for solutions, looking for examples of how others have addressed this issue. We bring in experts, consultants, academics to offer advice. Once that is done we establish goals and initiate a pilot project to validate our strategy. We bring others on board creating buy-in and the launch the program. Next, we measure and hold people accountable for results and showing outcomes. Finally, we loop back. We take what we learn about what's not working and adjust, starting the problem solving process a new.

Block feels that these classic problem solving steps are fueled by the belief that "to make a difference in the world is to define problems and needs and then recommend actions to solve those needs." This resonates with me as I think back to my days as a district administrator and remember a culture that demanded that each meeting I attended (and they were seemingly endless) had to end with an action plan type "to-do" list. We wanted measurable outcomes that somehow justified the time we spent solving problems. We believed that only if we had better or more leadership, programs, funding, expertise, studies, training, and master plans then we could reform education in ways that prepare this next generation- digital citizens of a global economy fueled by connections and collaboration- for the world that awaits them. But is anything really changing?  For all our conversation and sharing and meetings and action plans are we seeing a significant shift?  We keep trying harder at the very things that just gives us more of what we already have. These are the steps to improvement but not transformation.

So I am curious- what do you think? Should we be focusing on a different conversation than the one we are having? Should we be reinvisioning education in ways that are radically different? And if so- How do we move from talking to doing? Or is that important?

Personally, I believe that the secret to change lies in developing the social fabric, capacity and connectedness found in communities of practice and learning networks. I believe that by focusing on a strengths-based model of education, looking at possibilities rather than problems, by using inquiry to ask the kinds of questions that reveal the gifts each of us bring to the table, by realizing that "none of us is as good as all of us" and somehow leveraging all of that to shift the conversations toward building a new future- one that focuses on the gifts each teacher, student, parent and leader has, that we have all we need to create an alternative future for schools. One that focuses on the well-being of the whole and uses diversity as a means to innovation.

What do you believe?

Comments

[demetri]

Such an important distinction to understand "reform vs. transform," especially as we see transform get widely used in technology plan mission statements, with little true buy-in to the idea of changing school mission.

And so interesting that principals side with reforming. As you say, transforming implies much more risk, but also much more opportunity for truly improving our approach to ed, instead of piling on more. [Someone wiser than me once said that for every educational initiative you add, you need to ask yourself, what am I willing to take away (stop doing) in order to have the resources (time) to make this new initiative work.]

Your point about the social fabric of school culture being the key to truly being able to change is well-taken, as we know that top-down initiatives, while they may get due lip service, rarely evoke true change. It's exciting to see the new social media greatly expanding the possibilities for supporting this social fabric.

great post!

[Steve Ransom]

Great post.
I think to many folks down the institutional "food chain" see any type of change as something done TO them. They are not stakeholders in most types of change. This runs deep in the fabric of schooling, right down to the students themselves.
On top of that, most school culture does not support any type of risk-taking that true innovation requires, including the support of failure - an essential part of innovation. We seem to support litigation in the face of failure. Hence, only relatively "safe" practices get the stamp of approval.

Transformation is far from "safe".

[Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach]

Demetri,

It was superintendents as well who sided with reforming!

I agree with your view on lip service-- Peter Block (this book I am reading) says- "Nothing kills democracy or transformation faster than lip service. The future does not die from opposition; it disappears in the face of lip service."

Thanks for stopping by.

[Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach]

Steve,
Interesting you should say that about "something done to them" as someone in the cohort Will and I kicked off in Australia alluded to the same thing in reverse. He said PLP didn't feel like one more educational reform being done to them, rather it felt like something where they had authentic control.

Does your school system use learning communities and teacher leadership as a PD strategy?

[Candee Basford]

Love the post! Transformation eh? What does it take to illicit transformation? For me, it took a eye-opening life experience to step on the path of transformation. My status quo beliefs, prejudices and attitudes began to surface only after my daughter was diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Only then, I became part of a new conversation with people willing to get under their assumptions, challenge tradition and act upon their new learning. Only then, did I begin to slowly develop a new vision of community, education, and human possibility. Only then did I understand the power of relationships. I worked for my daughter's inclusion in public school. And, she did amazingly well in her small rural school. I watched her learn in relationship with her friends and classmates. But, the day I attended her high school graduation, I realized that in spite of all her learning and mine her school had not changed in any essential way. Her graduation looked exactly like mine had 25 years earlier. Same kids held up as examples of valued citizens, same key theme in the same old speeches, same rules for achievement, same old song and dance. However, now because of my transformation I 'act' differently. I bring my transformed self to the college classroom shaping everything I do. Which brings me to the question - can an organization transform? Or people? And, how does one illicit transformation?

So, YES - we need to focus on different conversations. I think it was Margaret Wheatley who said - "to change a conversation all you have to add new people." So, the first step to a new conversation about education is to add new people. And,as my daughter taught me,to reinvision education we must reinvision who we (humans) really are and how we want to BE together.

Finally, in a recent interview, Margaret Wheatley spoke to implications of reform or transformation. She said,"

"If we think that everything can be fine again just as it was – then what we need to do is just fix or repair existing systems, fix public education systems, fix health care systems. What that implies is that these systems are basically okay. By that I mean, their basic assumptions, their ways of operation, their beliefs about people –all of those assumptions are fine and its just our task to repair them.

The reason I go to the spiritual warrior or pioneers is if you don’t think things are repairable and that these systems are in a state of necessary collapse – then the question becomes “What’s my work?” If I’m not going to go in there and fix things then what’s my work?"

[Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach]

Candee,

What an amazing story and I too have had experiences that forced me out of the box. Everything I believed fell like a stack of cards -- nothing lined up with the way I had always made sense of the world. The result- transformation.

How do you illicit transformation from inside a closed system? I believe it is through small teams (groups) of people who make a commitment to each other to improve over time. Asking each other-- given the giftings and talents we bring to the table-- what can we create that will leave the world a better place.

Thanks so much for posting. I look forward to many more new conversations with you.

Going to listen to the Margaret Wheatley interview from your blog now. Love your art. Is it for sale? If so can I purchase online?

[dougpete]

What I find interesting in the online culture in which so many of us learn is the fact that we're OK with the concept of "Beta". We're OK with riding a horse as far as we can and then changing horses when a better one comes along and we take that for a ride. I've often described myself as a fickle computer user as I'm constantly in search of something better to take me where I want to be.

Schools, however, are locked into particular exit requirements for student graduation. As Candee notes above, so much about schools remains static over the years. The higher that you look in education, the clingier "the ivy" gets. I taught at a Faculty of Education this past year and I know that there was a disconnect between my aspirations for my class and their perceived needs. While I wanted to push them to try new things, they felt the need to conform during their practice teaching placements in their goal of getting a job and fitting into an existing structure.

I would suggest that transformation is very uncomfortable for large educational systems. The status quo is so easy because we know what it looks like. Principals and supervisors can support us because they know what it looks like too. Even the most creative ultimately have to have deliverables that pass the test.

It's easy for me to learn online. I have the social fabric and friends and we're learning at outrageous speeds and in random directions and feel absolutely great about it. The definition of success is internal and going to sleep knowing that I learned something worthwhile today.

To that end, I totally understand your summary, Sheryl. To implement it, you'd have to be Queen of the World. The reality is that any transformation is going to have to come from successful classrooms working with one eye on new tools and energy, all the while keeping the other eye on the target.

[Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach]

Doug,

Thanks for your thought filled post. I agree about higher education and have found the same things at both institutions where I taught- Valdosta State University and William and Mary (with two very different kinds of students). And at W&M I even observed that this kind of low expectation seems to be more prevalent in education students rather than campus wide. Which makes me question does the culture of education draw those in with lower expectations? Puzzling for sure.

In response to your last paragraph, this book I am reading by Block has really challenged me in that he feels that the fragmented pockets of innovation are part of the problem. And that anytime I start to point out problems rather than possibilities I am not taking ownership of the very problem I want to solve- which undermines my commitment to seeing it changed. That the first step to transformation has to come in MY classroom being successful and my seeing that I am part of the reason other classrooms are not. Once I admit that I then set myself up to join other like minded folks and evoke change.

I'd be interested in other thoughts on that concept?

[Ken Allan]

Kia ora e Sheryl!

If transformation is so risky, why pursue it? Is risk a necessary criterion for success in education? I think it is necessary in education research.

Risk carries a directly related degree of probability. That probability is associated with success or failure. I’m not saying that taking a risk isn’t a useful tool in education research, but it’s foolishness to administer transformation throughout the land without research.

Would we be so keen to take the same sort of risk in administering medicine or surgery throughout the land without careful consideration of possible and likely failure? How about transformation in building aircraft? Would we be so keen to take a flight in an aircraft built through drastic transformations made in aircraft design, to say little of aerodynamics, without sufficient testing?

I suggest the best way to perform transformation is following adequate research, not through reform. But the emphasis must be placed heavily on research – pedagogy if you like – before we poison the already ailing education systems or nosedive into oblivion.

Catchya later

[Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach]

Hi Ken!

You had me until you gave this example--

Would we be so keen to take the same sort of risk in administering medicine or surgery throughout the land without careful consideration of possible and likely failure? How about transformation in building aircraft? Would we be so keen to take a flight in an aircraft built through drastic transformations made in aircraft design, to say little of aerodynamics, without sufficient testing?

The answer is yes, in fact that is exactly how we transformed education and travel. Risks were taken and people died as various interventions/inventions were tried. I recently watched a documentary on mental health and the risks that were taken in an effort to transform something we knew little about were tragic.

Now, I am not suggesting we sacrifice our kid's education in the name of transforming school into something new and better suited for the 21st Century. The transformation should be birthed/influenced from the current research-base. However, research takes years and years from intervention to publication and in the spiral world of change we are encountering now--I am not sure we can afford it. Too many kids will be thrown by the wayside.

Although action research done by dedicated educators who are trying to find out which innovations work seems well suited to the change we need today.

[Ken Allan]

Kia ora e Sheryl

Action research is a reflective process that classically is not transferable among individuals or groups. In fact it is not really like research at all except for the fact that it does indeed apply (and may only apply) to the person (or group) who is actioning it. What works for one group of people will not necessarily work for another group.

It is a postmodern invention (or cycle) which works well for the individual (or individual group) and that's what it's intended for. In teaching, the teachers practising action research create their own reality, for their distinct personality and their personal traits, practices and relationships are unique to them.

I have no problem with using action research - I practise it myself. BUT that's exactly where action research stops - with the person or group who is actioning it. What works for me in my action research in teaching will not necessarily work at all for another teacher, and likewise for groups.

To try to apply action research results and use them to formulate a transferable practice is not only unscientific, it is also unfair, both to the teachers who are expected to follow the practice and the poor students who suffer in consequence.

So I'd caution against any idea that action research results and formulated practices can be applied across the board the way you are suggesting here.

Catchya later

[Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach]

Thanks for engaging in the conversation Ken. I am learning a lot. I appreciate your input and ideas.

However, your view of action research is definitely from a positivistic perspective. Quantitatively maybe it isn't generalizable because of the sample however, Lincoln and Guba (2000) found that there were several issues with generalizability.

I suggest you take a look at Pine's book page 89 to see what I mean. More recent research on action research shows that indeed it is transferable and indeed is scientific.

Click here to see Pine's commentary

[Ken Allan]

Kia ora e Sheryl!

I am surprised and impressed that you've referred to a book. :-)

Yes, I know the work of G J Pine. Take care over the context of action research and how it is applied. Though action research may not be generalised due to quantitative considerations, it's the qualitative aspect of the research that I'd be more concerned about.

Pine's right. Action research can be applied the way described. But it's the method associated with the action research that's important for transferability here, not what's found out by any particular group doing it's own action research.

I can well understand the use of action research as a method of finding what works best for any particular situation/context. I've no problem with that at all. Indeed, the same general cycle of reflective practice can be applied across the board, and even across disciplines.

Action research can (and often does) become part of pedagogy. It is optimisation of a method or approach - what works best for a particular mode of practice.

From the scientific point of view it is highly variable-dependent. That is to say, in different situations, the same attempted practices can be optimised towards different situational routines, and that is entirely to be expected.

So incorporating action research as a means of refining or optimising the practice of individuals, individual groups or individual schools would indeed make a difference. It would certainly be an improvement on the way some try to force a method to work, perhaps unsuccessfully, without any attempt at adjustment.

However, I think it would be presumptuous to say that the universal use of action research would constitutes a transformation in education.

Catchya

[Candee Basford]

Back to another Peter Block book - The Answer to How is Yes, Acting on What Matters (my favorite). The title alone is enough to shake up the usual way of doing things. Block writes,"we often avoid the question of whether something is worth doing by going straight to the question "How do we do it?" Too often when a discussion is dominated by questions of how? we risk overvaluing what is practical and doable and postpone the questions of larger purpose and collective will."

[Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach]

Ken,

Two reactions-
You write- I am surprised and impressed that you've referred to a book. :-)

What the heck? The post to which you responded referred and quoted the authors of two books in one post. I am in the dissertation phase of my PhD and have taught on the university level for 10 years (Valdosta State University and the College of William and Mary). I actually prefer books to the Web and catch flack for it all the time. Not sure what you are inferring here teasing or not. "Many a truth was spoken in jest."

You said- However, I think it would be presumptuous to say that the universal use of action research would constitutes a transformation in education.

Ummm-- I never suggested it did. Rather the point I was making was in relation to the snail's pace at which academic research occurred and how maybe there was some hope in action research to keep up with the pace of change at least until our traditional peer review method of research could be fast tracked to keep up with the pace of change. (For example I have done three years worth of research with a colleague at W&M that when published was already out of date). If you thought I was suggesting action research was somehow transformational in and of itself then I did a lousy job of communicating and the problem lies in my writing ability not the idea.

[Christopher D. Sessums]

Sheryl & Ken,

A fascinating debate seems to be raging here on the tranferability of action research as a means for transforming teaching and learning.

Ken, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are insinuating about action research? Are you saying AR is purely qualitative?

Also, I'm not sure what you're inferring regarding the "method associated with the action research that's important for transferability." Can you be more explicit?

If we take a situationalist approach and assume AR findings only apply to a particular context, haven't we then provided evidence of the effectiveness/non-effectiveness of a particular intervention/strategy?

Perhaps if I were teaching a particular subject for a particular grade level wherein I found an action research study that closely matched my setting/context and applied the findings to my own situation, could I not say there was transferability?

What Sheryl seems to be suggesting is that transformation (as opposed to reform) is rethinking what we're doing in classrooms as opposed to simply improving strategies. Context is indeed critical. However, if we begin to examine hundreds of AR studies, we might then begin to see patterns of change that could be adopted on wider scales. Can we call this generalizability? Is such generalizability possible?

Methodologically speaking, you say toe-mato I say tah-mato. AR can be quite scalable. Quantitative studies can be limited in scope and poorly produced and thus serve us no better than simply winging it. Again, purpose and context are key.

I don't think anyone here disagrees that action research in and of itself is merely a methodology. Perhaps what could make AR valuable, dare I say transformational, is the stance associated with inquiring into one's work in a systemic and intentional manner. Ultimately I believe transformation will be possible in schooling as an institution when administrators hire those that assume an inquiry stance who can then model and engage such behavior in their students (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1996). Colleges of education are partially to blame for the stagnation and lack of innovative/creative thinking being instilled in teachers as well.

Finally, I'm glad you recognize the high variable dependency of social sciences. To think a solution to the crises both perceived and documented in education can be isolated in petri dishes is absurd. Schools are living laboratories and if handled and planned properly could become some of the greatest resources the earth has ever known.

Ultimately, the question I see Sheryl asking is really one that requires us to ask: do we want schools to change in an evolutionary fashion or do we want them to change in a revolutionary fashion?

Personally, I am tired of watching kids suffer in the current conditions of most schools. We cannot wait another 5, 10, 30, 50, 100 years to get this situation "fixed." I also have a hard time believing schools can fix themselves. I don't believe the schooling industry polices itself well. Perhaps private enterprise can speed a well planned and researched solution. The bottom line is that all the research and plannining doesn't amount to squat unless people are taking thoughtful action, no?

[Don Watkins]

When I was at NECC2009 recently a similar question was posed about whether "brick & mortar" or not. Gary Stager spoke eloquently about why not and I couldn't have agreed more with him. The "brick & mortar" folks are okay with "reform" because reform almost certainly guarantees no change. Transformation is ideal. I'm not sure that we live in an ideal world. As long as present structures of administration exist in most schools very little transformation will occur. That's really too bad for students and teachers who want to be transformers. I'd love to start/found a charter school that promoted the use of technology and highlighted new thinking.

[Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach]

Don,

Me too-- let's start one. But I want to highlight learning and reward thinking differently - using the technology simply for connecting and collaborating.

[Wendy Drexler]

I was following along quite nicely with the debate this morning until Ken lost some credibility with his surprise over the book reference (huh?). In any case, I took a break and spent some time reflecting on my own experience as a classroom teacher using action research. It has been an invaluable tool in my teaching and a lot of students benefit directly from that systematic approach to practical research. Of course, that is not the only form of research conducted in the interest of transformation or reform. I think Ken probably knows that. Perhaps his objective here is more to stir the pot As to whether transformation is necessary, there is plenty of research (quantitative and qualitative) to suggest that the educational system is in need of change. Some of that conversation has taken place earlier on this blog and others, as well as in various forms of education research. Sheryl asks, "Should we be focusing on a different conversation than the one we are having?" As a teacher turned researcher, I believe that we should be having all of these conversations. It may be that we need the reform to help with wide spread transformation. In the meantime, transformation takes place in pockets within existing schools and in schools with special charters. In many cases, those schools are being researched extensively. Yes, it takes time to conduct and digest the results of this research. That doesn't mean that we rest on our laurels in the meantime. Action research gives us a structured approach for documenting results and responsibly experimenting in the classroom setting in the meantime. It can also inform the direction of other research methodologies.

[Bruce Deitrick Price]

The fascinating thing to me is how terrifyingly imprecise all this language is. Two people with opposing views could talk of transformation and the rest, and then take you to a heaven or a hell. The problem since Dewey is soft language and sophistries, served at every meal.
I would say we need to focus more on fixing the many flawed ideas introduced by earlier transformers. Then we need to focus on stating concrete goals--the kinds of knowledge that students would gain at each level.
Someone could blather on about reform and transformation all day. My only questions would be, "Fine but do students know X? How about Y. Okay, Z?...In other words, you're turning out bricks but calling it progress, is that it? We've had 100 years of that. Let's get back to education."
See #38 on my site for where this perspective goes.

[Ken Allan]

Tēnā koutou katoa!

Kia ora e Sheryl.

I was teasing, hence the emoticon :-) On your September 2008 post your video on books and text books could well have left me with the impression that you were not pro books. It didn't necessarily strike me that way. The word 'surprised' used in the context that I was surprised you were quick to recommend a book, was use by me in jest. At the same time I was 'impressed'. I love books and read as much online as I do from bound copies of texts. It's as simple as that.

Teaching and learning is seldom straightforward. One of the reasons education research seems to crawl along is that it is extremely difficult to find universal methods that apply in a straightforward way to most settings. This is due almost entirely to the situational nature of teaching and learning. Education has been regarded as a complexity system. As such it is complex - far more intricate than any complicated mechanical system. The factors which govern outcomes are so varied - age, cultural, experiential, linguistic, psychological, social, economic, mode of delivery, personality, ability - I wonder that we have made the headway that we have in education, given the diversity of situations where education practices exist.

Sure the softly softly approach is boring for some and frustrating for others - it frustrates me. Part of that inertia is the bureaucratic way that education is administered in western society. The fact that it is situational and very difficult is no reason to abandon reasoned research (by whatever philosophy one follows in that) in favour of 'fast tracking' education through transformation led by other means.

@Wendy - I think some critical thought might help here. I used two words, 'impressed' and 'surprised', both in one short sentence sporting an emoticon chosen to indicate, according to present day protocol, that I was joking. Reading a soliloquy into two words and then judging credibility from that seems a bit presumptive, don’t you agree?

@Christopher - I'm not saying that action research is purely qualitative at all though there is a qualitative component to it. However, action research is also situational.

The situational aspect can definitely outweigh any usefulness that its qualitative component may possess when transferred for use in another situation.

You said, "if I were teaching a particular subject for a particular grade level wherein I found an action research study that closely matched my setting/context and applied the findings to my own situation, could I not say there was transferability". I'd say that the probability that it is transferable to another teacher, or even for you to use in another situation so that it is effective is unlikely. It may work, but it might not be nearly as effective in that new situation as it could be. The whole point of action research is to optimise the approach, conditions, procedures used, types of resources for a particular learning situation – practice if you like.

To take Bruce’s point, by action research I’m referring to a cycle of reflective practice. A simplistic example of such a cycle is - Act – Gather – Reflect – Plan – Act – etc.

I think we have to think about why action research is being used in the first place to see the reasoning behind what I'm saying here. Action research is not a pedagogy in itself – far from it, but it can be part of pedagogy.

Action research is about best practice for a given situation. Sure you could argue that a teaching strategy that was improved and refined through action research could be used in another situation or by another teacher etc. The likelihood is that action research applied to the new situation would result in a much better practice for that new situation and one that differed from what was originally transferred.

So if you ask me if practice refined through action research is transferable, I'd say no. It can always be improved to fit the new situation through further action research in that situation.

Catchya later

[Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach]

@Bruce,
Spent some time on your blog
All I can say is wow. You and I could debate for hours and hours. But what I am more interested in is your opinion on action research and if you feel the results are generalizable?

@Wendy,

You said, "It can also inform the direction of other research methodologies." I had never consider that. So you are saying what we learn through action research could fuel and inform needed areas of positivistic and non-positivistic research?

[Sheryl Nussbaum-Beach]

@Ken,

Ok, glad you were teasing. Tough to tell when you do not really know someone, two cultures are at play and research shows emoticons really do a lousy job of expressing intent. (I like to give and get teasing btw).

So I am curious. Do you have a bias against teacher researchers (action research) performed by teachers who are not trained in qualitative methods? In a recently read research article some felt, "Teachers should learn from the results of research studies rather than do research themselves" (Shumsky, 1956). I also remember this sentiment being expressed by more than one professor. It seems they believed research should be left to the highly trained so as to remove all bias and that action research was simply a form of formative assessment and should be a part of all teacher's assessment strategies, but certainly not generalizable because of the subjectivity involved. Of course these same profs had real issues with non-positivistic methods.

That got me wondering, considering your PhD is in science do you have some of the same biases?

[Ken Allan]

Tēna koe Sheryl!

It is true that I am trained and qualified in science research. These knowledge and skills are useful to me when I embark on my own research and learning in education, and have been applicable to the classroom and other environments. It helps me with observational practice and in understanding the need for careful recording of observations that are so important and significant for educational research - of any type.

Action research as a practice benefits from some experience in qualitative research. Both action research and qualitative research hinge on making observations, collating and making suppositions from those. Though quite different disciplines, they can be complimentary, however, and it is quite reasonable to conduct one while also performing the other, even for different situational motives.

I don’t go along with Shumsky’s notion, quite frankly. Action research is probably a good base for any teacher to start doing their own research. I don’t honestly believe that it is necessary for a teacher to have formal training in quantitative research to pursue action research either. What is important is that the researcher is given sufficient guidance in such things as selecting a suitable educational partition for research, how to record significant observations and keep a log of those, and how to select suitable parameters within the vision of the research for observational trials under variable conditions.

Keeping on track with an appropriate cycle, and sticking to that, may need monitoring until such times as the teacher can sustain a cycle or cycles without further assistance.

On the other hand, learning from research studies, reports and findings takes a lot of skill and experience, and this goes against Shumsky’s idea. It is not easy interpreting and understanding how material from published research papers can be applied to situational practice. It may need some considerable experience before any usefulness can be applied to, say, a classroom environment. A fairly recent paper on online learning communities, for instance, gathers together research study and opinion from several exponents. Papers of this type are really potted motivational easy-to-follow-articles rather than the raw publications themselves, and can be useful starters for any teacher who embarks on this pursuit. The raw data, however, needs skilled interpretation and experience in reading and unraveling any practical usefulness from it. Without such a skill, a teacher may overlook useful data or completely misinterpret the application of a finding.

Catchya later

[Ken Allan]

Sorry Sheryl,

your blog seems to reinterpret my html in the link. Here's the address to the site mentioned in my comment:

http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/web-articles/Web-Article909

[Bruce Deitrick Price]

Sheryl,
Thanks for looking at my blog. Or my site.
We're both in Tidewater.
I can't answer your question. That was my point: I like language to be concrete.

[Dan Bassill]

In one section of the Tutor/Mentor Connection web site I post links to "innovation, knowledge management, creativity and collaboration sites". One link goes to a site called Theory of Inventive Problem solving. http://www.mazur.net/triz/

Problem solving is enhanced by learning how others are trying to solve similar problems. If we can teach students, educators, parents, donors, to constantly learn from on-line knowledge, and use their learning to innovate their own solutions to local problems, I think we can move to a new level of problem solving. If we're just innovating with the experiences of our own life, or what other people in the room offer, we're always going to be limited in our solutions.

[Ken Allan]

Kia ora e Dan

Read and discuss variously and wisely. This is easier said than done, but it's the same with diet.

My hunch is that today we are too ready to use quick fixes. We also go looking for them. Problem solving is hard work. Many don't really want to embark on that narrow pathway, so a possible easy remedy in a quick fix is always an acceptable option, whether it actually works or not.

Catchya later

[mike]

Hi All....hope this finds you well.

Can't do much reform or transformation with out teachers..... and our efforts need to be the cultivation of communities of proactive learners!

Seeds of Discouragement with-in communities:

1. DESTRUCTIVE RELATIONSHIPS

2. CLIMATES OF FUTILITY

3. LEARNED IRRESPONSIBILITY

4. LOSS OF PURPOSE

How healthy is your culture for the kids and the adults in your place?

Tell me how you meet the needs of your community in the following areas:

BELONGING

MASTERY

INDEPENDENCE

GENEROSITY

We must become what we wish to teach!

be well..mike