Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #1
Development and Evaluation of a Group Test of Integrated Processes
Kenneth G. Tobin and William Capie
The abstract of the article states, “Since the items measure performance on objectives that can be readily translated into classroom activity, the test has direct applicability to classroom based research, and evaluation of instruction." Such a statement takes for granted the range of differences inherent as one moves from school to school, classroom to classroom, and teacher to teacher. The suggested generalizability or applicability of its findings needs to be balanced by a sober understanding of the fact that true replication is not something that can be guaranteed when considered within the context of the variable nature of human interaction.
The Test of Integrated Science Processes (TISP) was developed based on twelve predetermined objectives that were considered the objectives one must employ when planning and conducting an investigation. The designers (Tobin and Capie) chose to specify objectives hierarchically so as to display the progression in intellectual skill sets. The 24 questions that they chose for the TISP were based on the twelve objectives.
What this design does not address is the possibility that some students employ the use of objectives other than the twelve that they predetermined. The constrictive nature of the instrument does not allow room for discovery. Further, it fails to take into account that the rationale of individuals might not proceed in the hierarchical fashion that Fig. 1 suggests.
The study involved two sample groups. While the middle school sample was heterogeneous, the college sample was not (109 female college students). This further limits the generalizability of the results.
Finally, the TISP results determined that “students with higher levels of formal reasoning ability tended to achieve at a higher level on the TISP” but does not go the important step further and offer insight into what contributed to their varying degrees of formal reasoning ability.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #2
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism
D.C. Phillips
In this piece, Phillips argues that there are too many schools of thought that all exist under the umbrella term of constructivist. He stresses that there are three main axes along which different scholars, theorists, and authors agree or disagree. The first axis has at one extreme a focus on the cognitive development of the individual learner. The other end focuses entirely on the development of “public” subject matter domains. While some scholars are clearly at one pole or the other, some occupy a point somewhere between these two extremes.
The second axis along which some constructivist thinkers are scattered is the most significant to Phillips because to be at one end, “nature the instructor”, would deem one a minimal constructivist, if a constructivist at all. In this view, nature is “imposing” knowledge on the learner. The other end of this axis is more closely associated with radical constructivists. At this end, “humans the creators”, knowledge is only what one comes to know through experience. Knowledge is constructed, not transferred.
The third axis considers that learning is the result of activity. One end addresses the activity of the individual. The other focuses on social/political factors and the effect that such factors may have on activity and thus knowledge production.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #3
Questions and Answers about Radical Constructivism
Ernst von Glasersfeld
Summary: Though there may be a reality with a capital “R” and a truth with a capital “T”, one cannot assume that he or she knows what that is. Constructivism questions what knowledge is and where it comes from, which makes it an exercise in epistemology. It does not deny the existence of an outside world. However, it purports that the only world anyone can know is the world of his own experience. This connects to the philosophical (Socratic) notion of dokei moi or “as it appears to me” (Arendt, 1990, p. 434). This suggests that everyone comes to know the world through his or her own experience or sense of it. Therefore there is truth in everyone’s opinion, because interpretations are based on personal interaction with the world. Even abstractions are derived from the initial sensory-motor experience.
Viability versus truth: We have developed ways of knowing that support our daily existence. However, this does not suggest we know anything more about the workings of the “real world” or realitat. We have merely developed ways of knowing that best fit with our reality, a reality that has been created by our actions. This is viability not truth. Constructivism is concerned with the viability of only those things which are within the experiential field. This connects to the point raised in the Tobin article on difference and rising up in educational research. The quest should not be for generalizability but for replication, understanding that the exact experience or factors can never be recreated and that different subjects will experience events differently. If S resulted in R, then S’ (something similar to S) should hopefully result in R’ (an outcome similar to R).
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #4
On Meditation
(Cultural Historical Activity Theory)
Wolff-Michael Roth and Mike Cole
In On Mediation, Roth and Cole explicate the ways in which tools can mediate between actions and goals. They offer a brief history of activity theory/cultural historical activity theory. They discuss the Hegelian view that practical activity is the mediator between the subject and the object. Activity is the “…middle term, an intermediary, that is, an instrument, agency, method, or tool employed to realize a motive or goal” (Roth & Lee, p.7). In this view the mediator overcomes or transcends the subject and the object, which exist in a dialectical relationship.
Vygotsky takes a developmental approach to sign use and sign production. Signs do not function as signs automatically. A sign gains significance as a representation for something else through some developmental/social process. Alexei N. Leont’ ev, a student of Vygotsky’s, expressed a difference between activity (conscious motives), action (conscious goals that realize motives), and operation (directly depend on the conditions for attaining concrete goals).
A key point of On Mediation is the distinction between immediate/unmediated relationships versus mediated relationships. Immediate/unmediated relationships do not imply the absence of a tool or sign. On the contrary the sign has disappeared out of the conscious use of the subject. This disappearance is considered optimal functionality, where the tool and the subject become one in completing an activity. In this instance, one moves from engaging in an activity to engaging in an operation. The individual is freed from having to think about the handling or application of the tool and focus entirely on the goal of the activity for which the tool or sign is being used.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #5
On Hermeneutics: Over and Above Our Wanting and Doing
David Jardine
On Hermeneutics: Over and Above Our Wanting and Doing is Jardine’s attempt to demonstrate the applicability of hermeneutics as a research method in the field of education. He suggests that one chooses research methodologies that are in concert with one’s views on how knowledge and understanding are constructed. In short, one’s ontological view presupposes his/her methodological stance.
Hermeneutics is a methodology (?) that allows things (actions, occurrences, thoughts) to present themselves to us. It is “the experience of being drawn out of our subjectivity and into a teeming world of relations that live ‘beyond our wanting and doing’” (Jardine, 2006, p.271). The questions present themselves to us. The challenge is for us to be in a position to perceive that which is presenting itself and to believe that it is a valid aspect of the human experience rather than an aberration or an error.
Hermeneutics has at its core an interest in bringing to light occurrences and ideas that were at one time concealed. By virtue of the fact that it is concerned with how experience can pave the path to receptiveness of new, varied, and even contradictory experiences, hermeneutic studies do not result in amassed bodies of knowledge. This would be contradictory to the essence of hermeneutics in that it would seem to establish a “Right” and a “Truth”. As Jardine states, “Amassed verified knowledge makes us less and less interested in what the new case might have to say. We become, not ‘experienced’ but ‘experts’ whose cynicism and condescension increases as that mass increases…As experts we become less and less susceptible to the difference that the new case might bring” (Jardine, 2006, p. 286).
Judy Touzin
Logic of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #6
Generalizing from Qualitative Inquiry
Margaret Eisenhart
Eisenhart is staunchly opposed to claims that generalizations based on qualitative inquiry are not appropriate. She argues that there are indeed effective ways to make generalizations from qualitative inquiry and that doing so is quite crucial to the advancement of educational research.
According to Eisenhart, there are several different types of generalizations that can be made. Probabilistic or statistical generalizations are “general claims made about a population from a sample, based on statistical probabilities” (p.3). Eisenhart argues that many opponents of generalizations from qualitative inquiry seem to limit generalizations to this very quantitative definition. She then discusses nomological generalization, a view of generalization held by Yvonne Lincoln and Ego Guba. These types of generalizations are atemporal and decontextualized. To Lincoln and Guba no such thing exists. Instead they advocate transferability of findings based on the degree or similarity between the ‘sending’ and ‘receiving’ contexts. This notion of transferability, according to Eisenhart, is a form of generalization.
Of key significance are theoretical generalizations. From this perspective findings are seen as generalizable not to a larger population but to the theoretical discourse that the particular study is grounded in. Theoretical generalizations help to distill, rebut, or confirm current theoretical arguments. Eisenhart provides several examples of studies where the actual findings or observed occurrences may not be generalizable. Nevertheless, the theoretical understandings that help to explain the occurrences may be generalizable.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #7
Building Enacted Science Curricula on the Capital of Learners
Kenneth Tobin
This article examines how culturally responsive teaching can mediate the learning that occurs in a classroom setting. Specifically, it analyzes the exchanges between tenth grade students and their science teacher during a five week chemistry unit of study. The teacher “…was raised in a working class home and experienced life in ways that were similar to most of her students” (Tobin, 200?, p. 8).
One of the key points of the article was the notion that culture is enacted and that the boundaries between one’s various cultures are weak. For example, though street or home enactments may be different from school enactments, the thinness of the boundaries may allow home enactments to manifest in the field of school and vice versa. However, capital can only be transferred in this way if the environment is conducive to such transference. In many instances, the home culture (capital) of learners is devalued or considered inappropriate for school. In schools where this is the case, students are often subject to frequent shutdowns.
In this study, the teacher Ms. Horton sought to create a space where the home culture of her students was valued and used as the platform on which to build more knowledge, in this case understandings of chemistry.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #8
The Impossible Dream?
How Can the Research Community Collaborate to Advance the Arts as General Education?
AERA Symposium,
One of the many sessions held at the AERA 2008 conference this past week was a panel discussion that addressed the ways that arts research(ers) can advance the cause of the arts as an integral part of any education program. The panel was composed of renowned researchers and education consultants such as Howard Gardner, Deborah Meier, Carmen Farina, and arts philosopher Maxine Greene.
As the discussion unfolded, two rather vocal participants, which I will refer to as speaker A and speaker B demonstrated an axiological point of tension. Speaker A argued that it was not enough to do research for research’s sake. She contended that it was the moral obligation of the researcher to advance the field and advocate for those who cannot advocate for themselves. To conclude, she stated that she longed for the day when academics would stand up to those who threaten the sustainability of arts programs in schools and say “No, we will not stand by and watch you do this!” Speaker B immediately responded, warning that it was dangerous to be confused about “which hats we wear”. He clearly articulated that he wore the hat of the researcher and that he did not desire or intend to don the hat of the activist. In fact, though much of his research has been taken up in the educational field, he argues he did not have education in mind when he engaged in the studies.
Until more researchers view advocacy as a function of their role as researcher, it will be difficult for studies in any field to assist those within the field that stand to benefit from the findings but are unable to advocate for themselves.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #9
Ethics and Politics: The Twin Failures of Positivist Science
Guba & Lincoln
In this chapter of Fourth generation Evaluation, Guba and Lincoln argue that “…various ethical and political issues (that) arise from different paradigm allegiances” (p.118). They assert that positivism as an approach or paradigm has certain fundamental flaws that a constructivist approach to inquiry can work to alleviate. Further, they state that no paradigm is free from problems and address several of the flaws of constructivism.
One of the main flaws of positivism is the notion that research can be objective and without values. From a constructivist viewpoint a researcher is her values; it is virtually impossible to separate the two. At best, a researcher can work to be conscious of her positionality in the world and how that has worked to shape and inform her perspective. Doing so will help her to be on guard concerning how she is framing research questions and analyzing data.
Another major concern is the vagueness of the regulations established to ensure the ethical nature of research studies. Words like “harm”, “deception”, and “privacy” fail to be adequately defined, leaving ample room for less than ethical practices to be carried out. Further, science is a political act. Positivistic approaches, with the focus on one truth, one answer, lead to findings that are monophonic and therefore monosemic. This results in the maintenance and reifying of the status quo. Perspectives that fall outside of the ‘norm’ are conceived as error.
Though constructivism inherently works to address the above issues, it presents its own set of difficulties. Maintaining confidentiality, trust issues, and the need to openly negotiate to derive shared meaning are some examples.
Judy Touzin
Logics of Inquiry
Professor Tobin
Memorandum #10
Participatory Activist Research (TEAMS)/ Action Research
Gregory Martin, lisahunter, and Peter McLaren
Action research is an axiological method or methodology that works in concert with the notion of doing justice for the participants that often do not benefit from research that employs other methods. PAR(T)/AR is based on thoughtful action, or praxis as the foundation for constructed knowledge. Groups come together to address real problems or concerns. PAR(T)/AR is not neutral. On the contrary it has a very deliberate agenda: it hopes to increase human agency and promote social change. It is “…socially enabled by a commitment to shared participation in problem identification, problem solving processes, and social change” (Martin et al, 2006, p. 177).
Historically speaking, the term action research has had different interpretations, from the Jewish social psychologist Kurt Lewin who viewed action research as a means to diminish prejudices and strengthen interactions between individuals across groups to the outwardly political stance in regards to action research taken up by those of the
Methodologically speaking, action research is cyclical in nature. The keys stages of the cycle are plan, act, observe, and reflect. Imbedded within these stages are critical questions such as, “who’s plan?”, “who will observe what is happening?”, and “who will interpret the data?”
There are limitations to PAR(T)/AR. One must work to ensure that he or she is not imposing his view on the participants. This would be a pseudo-liberatory practice. Further, the researchers must work to stay grounded in the work of addressing the initial question even though new questions may arise.
No comments:
Post a Comment