Note something from this article with which you disagree (note: I assume that reading this paper was a different experience for those with P-12 experience and those without. That said, he made a sufficient number of bold claims so I’m sure everyone can disagree with something he said). Why do you disagree with it? Did Labaree give words to any tensions that you feel as you head down the road of the educational researcher? If so, explain.
"...teachers are in the business of instilling behaviors and skills and knowledge in students who do not ask for this intervention in their lives and who are considered too young to make that kind of choice anyway" "The moral implications are clear: If you are going to restrict student liberty, it has to be for very good reasons; you had better be able to show that the student ultimately benefits and that these benefits are large enough to justify coercive means used to produce them"
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, even though I believe that as educators we have a moral responsibility with our "clients" I truly hope every professional feels the same way not just educators. I believe these statements assume that kids 1) do not want to learn and 2) are ALWAYS (from 5-18 yo) unable to make the decision that learning and being part of a school is good for them. I know that some kids feel that way, but I also know that most kids love learning, love belonging to a school community and love to know that people, other than their parents or family members care for them.
Second, I do not think that when teachers embark in this adventure, they think they are using "coercive means". Whether kids must go to school or not is not the teachers call and I am sure a lot of them will be OK if kids that do not want to be there are not forced to attend. Give teachers the opportunity to change their building policy...and I believe we will get less and less "coercive".
Finally, the whole discussion takes parents completely out of the equation. It is the parents moral responsibility to make the right decisions for their kids when they are unable to do so for themselves. If education has become "coercive" it's probable because it's the way to force parents to make the right decision, not kids.
Where I grew up, public education is (or at least was) really bad and only targeted for kids in very low SES. If you were in the "upper-low SES", middle class or high SES you would go to private schools and your parents had to pay for it. That fact changes the entire dynamic. You attend school, still because your parents have decided you to do it, but you also make efforts, get good or at least decent grades, and do not get in a lot of trouble because you owe that to them...to your parents. They make a monthly financial effort to give you a good education and you learn to appreciate that. At the same time teachers are appreciated and respected by their "clients" and their "client's parents".
Teachers do have a great role but the moral responsibility for educating kids should be shared with the parents.
Patricia
As I read Labaree's article, I found myself nodding my head a lot in agreement at some of his experiences and proposals, and yet my annotations weren't so much about the elements I agreed with as they were about a fundamental disagreement I have. (For the sake of full disclosure, I ought to say here that I'm not sure whether the disagreement is with Labaree or with an integral element of the study of education or possibly with the university system as a whole, but I think those three are not entirely inseparable, so I'll blame it all on Labaree for now.)
ReplyDeleteThe article is devoted to differences between teachers and researchers, and their fundamentally contrasting views on the purposes of doctoral education and the value of research versus classroom experience. He lays out a fine argument about how teachers and researchers look at everything through their own lenses, teachers perhaps a little near-sighted and researchers maybe too far-sighted. And yet Labaree, somewhat myopically, presents what looks a bit like a false dichotomy. The researchers are professors, and professors are in fact teachers. Perhaps not k-12 teachers, but teachers nonetheless. They, like their doctoral students, should be (would ideally be?) reflective of teaching, for so much of good teaching is transferable: what works with guiding college freshmen to think critically, tinkered with a little, can fit perfectly in a third grade classroom. Engaging 12-year-olds is not entirely different from engaging 18-year-olds. When we think about pedagogy and what works, it seems that those researchers, teachers of university students themselves, are not (or shouldn't be) as detached from the experience of being in charge of a class as Lebaree suggests (or assumes).
Again, I recognize that partly this has to do with university culture in the United States, where professors are supposed to be both researchers--well-published ones at that--and instructors--ideally decent ones--a system that not all countries use, and that may not ultimately serve students very well. In my fantasy world, schools of education would be progressive enough places to propose or propel that paradigm shift.
-Micol
(Katie)
ReplyDeleteLabaree said some things that really hit home, specifically about the highly personal and moral responsibility that many teachers experience. I must admit that like the teacher/graduate students he describes in the article, I have found myself resistant to research that seems too “coldly distant and unconscionably unconcerned with about student outcomes” (p. 18). I particularly liked the explanation that to many teachers-turned- doc students, “All of this may seem to these students like so much intellectual fiddling while the classroom burns” (18). Perhaps he is right about that; as teachers we want the answers now to the problems our students face; we don’t want to take the time to step back and study the problem from various angles because by the time the information comes, it will be too late for the student(s) we have in mind. In that sense I found it useful to read this article, to see the value of time and objectivity and theory that sometimes comes only from good research.
One perspective that I found missing here was that of the teacher/student who inhabits both worlds simultaneously. Labareee seems to speak primarily about teachers who have gone back to graduate school to become researchers. He notes the “luxury (afforded by doctoral study) of being the observer for once rather than the person in charge” (p. 19). While there may truth in this, I think it speaks to only a fraction of doctoral students in education. As we learned in Golde and Walker’s article last week, most doctoral students in education are part-time, so many of us are transitioning back-and-forth between these two roles on a daily, sometimes hourly, basis. Most of us are teachers by day and researchers by night, and those two roles cannot help but to overlap and intertwine. While Labaree strives to acknowledge the value of the skills and beliefs that teachers can bring to the field of research, the emphasis seems to be on how teachers need to change to become researchers. He never poses the challenge to researchers to step outside their context as well. Wouldn’t there also be value in educational researchers stepping back into classrooms, for as the article notes, the context of education is always shifting. Maybe this is where the emerging field of action research comes in, for while mentioned here only in passing, it does seem to bring the two “worlds” together.
My other concern is that teachers are often unaware of the research that is taking place. Whether it is because many do not have the time, resources, or even desire to keep up with the latest findings, I think it is important that educators at all levels find ways to communicate and share ideas. Often by the time research findings make their way into school systems and classrooms as practices, they have been modified/watered down due to budget or politics. And teachers are sometimes resistant to ideas that challenge their own practices, especially when the information comes to them from administrators or politicians rather than from educators or educational researchers.
My journey from teacher to reasearch is just beginning. I don't feel tension, but I feel weird walking between the two worlds. I work in a classroom with extraordinary students with extraordinary special needs. The world of research seems to marginilize this group of students. They don't seem to be part of the more generalized studies, and most of the literature uses single case studies that examine extremely specific questions. Precise studies are helpful, but they don't reflect a more dynamic classroom reality, and it would be difficult for research to unpack the classroom repleate multiple, simultaneous problems; however, I think research is useful. I do conceede that it is difficult to analyse the daily issues that a teacher experiences; but I am not “comically optimistic, ” that research is a panacea.
ReplyDeleteResearch has significant limitations. First, it is pretty rare for a teacher to have access to research. When a teacher has access to research, they have to be careful to match the research has to be matched to the correct problem. The research idea has to fit in the jumble of activity that takes place on a daily basis, and the research has to be valid.
Sometimes research is bogus. The “Facilitated Communication” movement that Janelle mentioned in the last class is a perfect example. Facilitated communication was developed as an alternative communcation method where a facilitator would interprete physical movements from individuals with significant communication needs. Some of the initial research claims stated that individuals with significant cognitive disabilities were writing term papers with the process, but of course a more detailed analysis demonstrated that the research was a sham.
I get what Labaree is saying, that education practicioners often look at research skeptically, but I don't think having a critical sensistivity to research findings is an attempt to “trump” research findings. I think practicitioners are trying to get the research to apply to the classroom setting. It is a practictioners way of answering the questions Labaree advocates, “Who cares?, What's new? Who says? What's the point?” I guess I am saying, the education practicioner is trying to point out that the outliers are important enough to merit acknowledgement. (Andy)
I agreed with much of Labaree’s description of the cultural conflicts between education researchers and teachers, and appreciated his articulation of the tension. I disagree that these differences are necessarily negative, but rather see an opportunity for healthy checks and balances in the field. We need excellent practitioners focused on the personal, particular and experiential needs of students in diverse classrooms. We need analytical researchers. We also need effective liaisons between the two. Of course, “to develop programs that are more nearly bi-cultural, where the teacher perspective is respected and reinforced and where the research perspective is offered as an additional way to understand education rather than as a preferred substitute” is ideal if by bi-cultural, one means truly including, respecting, valuing and protecting both aspects of the field. While Labaree acknowledged the advantages of training experienced teachers to be practitioners (maturity, experience and dedication to the field), he suggested that successful completion of a quality education doctoral program requires a change in allegiance. Setting up an either/or, us/them mentality at the doctoral level limits the opportunity for programs to train research liaisons who could facilitate more effective collaboration.
ReplyDelete--Amber
Serra:
ReplyDeleteI feel that to an extent Labaree assumes that teachers who come to doctoral studies are resistant to changing their worldviews (although perhaps this is dependent upon the quality of their doctoral programs) but personally I completely expect doctoral studies to change my worldview. I think the “potentially conflicting worldviews between teacher and researcher” (p.15) are the reason why I am here. I have the teacher perspective; I pursue a PhD to move beyond that. I do not plan to return to my elementary school teaching job after earning this degree.
At the same time, despite knowing since my undergraduate studies that I’d tackle a PhD one day, it was very important to me personally to get what I deemed to be sufficient years of practical experience as a teacher under my belt before I even considered being ready to take the doctoral plunge. I vividly remember my master’s degree program where young doctoral students taught some of my classes as well as older professors who were far removed from the classroom. I recall thinking, how is it that those with little experience or experience that is from so many years ago can tell me how it really is in a classroom and give me all of the knowledge I need to succeed as a teacher? As a teacher education student, I did not want to hear about theory; I wanted to learn the nuts and bolts of how to positively impact students with learning difficulties and frankly how to survive as a teacher. Thus, I resolved to bring with me years of experience in a variety of settings, with students with a variety of characteristics to my future career goal of being a teacher educator.
A little over one semester in and I am learning how to grasp the researcher worldview. The Labaree article actually helped clarify that for me. I admit I have used my personal experience to “trump” some things I have read. I also fully admit to feeling that the business of teaching through preparing future educators is more important to me than conducting research. But I am also here to discover what else makes up the person with a PhD in education. We are not all teachers by trade, nor are we all here to become educational researchers and professors. Labaree should not assume as much.
Larabee seems to paint a picture of two strictly divided camps. I disagree with his blanket portrayal of K-12 teachers. While I do agree that practicing teachers do deal in the here and now, I disagree with his view that K-12 teachers shy away from theory. Particularly, Larabee discusses how teachers’ own experiences mold who they are as teachers. These experiences, he continues, also serve to keep theoretical and empirical literature “at arm’s length” (p.20). He goes even further to claim that teachers overlook data in favor of their personal experience. I do not think he gives enough credit to practicing teachers. While experience can color how one learns, it does not have to impede learning. As I encounter new perspectives, theories, and issues, I do draw on my classroom experience as I try to make sense of the new learning. I do not feel that I exclude or reject new learning just because it may contradict my experience. Instead, I find myself questioning both sides and trying to make sense of it all as I reconcile the theory with my practical experience. I understand his point that there is a shift in thinking that accompanies research. Many K12 educators do care about research but just do not have the tools (or time) to integrate their practical knowledge with theory. Also, from a teacher’s perspective, true research seems far removed from K12 schools and accessing research is harder that it would seem for a teacher. By the time research is shared from higher up in a school district, the research is out of date, watered down, or changed into something slightly removed from the original intent of the study. It is more a lack of informed access than a desire to understand that separates teachers from researchers.
ReplyDelete--Christina
Erika:
ReplyDeleteAs most people in this class know, I do not come from a K-12 background. However, as the writing prompt this week noted, I did not have difficulty finding portions of this article that I did not agree with. One had to do with the notion that students that have been teachers will let their personal experience “trump” evidence that is presented in empirical articles (p. 20). I think that it is inevitable in many cases, including outside of the realm of educational research, to bring personal experience into the picture while considering the facts. For me, this statement that the author made here was that previous experience could almost be viewed as a hindrance, rather than an asset, because (according to this article) new educational researchers are too naïve to appropriately use their past experiences. I have now spent several years working in higher education in various programs, and although I let my personal experience with programs and students enter the picture while considering research, it is often in ways that allow me to frame the information that is being provided, rather than the “trump” research findings.
Patricia noted the section regarding moral obligations of teachers, which is also a section of the article that stood out to me as well. Although Patricia noted some areas that I had not previously recognized until reading her post, the part of this section that stood out to me was the part of this paragraph that spoke about ‘restricting’ student liberty (p. 17). Although it is true that there are compulsory attendance laws for students, I still feel as though this is a long way from ‘restricting student liberty’. Patricia already made the argument that many students do actually enjoy going to school, but in many cases, students are learning skills that will make them able to active members of society.
The last thing I wanted to note was that towards the end of the article, the author almost seemed to make opposing statements in the same paragraph. In the section titled “Narrowing the Cultural Divide” (p. 21), Labaree speaks of the need to explicitly sell the researcher perspective to students. He them immediately follows to say that the gap between teacher and researcher is not actually that wide. We’ve spent most of last week in class talking about the vast criticisms in educational research. For me, the two statements above are very different. I think as a new doctoral student, I have to be aware that there is a large difference in work that I do in my former and current job, and the work that I will need to do moving forward. I will need to make changes in the way that I frame thoughts. I do not necessarily need to be ‘sold’ on the researcher perspective; however, I do note that there is a large difference in the work that will be done.
Sarah
ReplyDeleteFor the most part I agreed with Labaree's description of the tensions between researcher and teacher. I have not been a K-12 teacher, but I have been a substitute and a lot of research questions/interests I have originated through personal experience as a substitute. However, like Amber noted I do not know why all of the tensions are necessarily negative. Researchers who were previously teachers can use their experience to conduct research that is practical and applicable to the classroom. I do not believe teachers have to ignore their experiences in order to become researchers, in fact I think it can make them stronger researchers. Teachers who have entered PhD programs have the opportunity to keep ties with former colleagues and collaborate using action research. This relationship would be beneficial for the researcher, teacher, and student. The teacher turned researcher can examine problems or interests that stem from personal experience, help with research methodology, and also get a different perspective than survey or intervention research usually conducted in schools. The findings will benefit teachers and students because the research took place in their natural environment without the stigma of a “researcher” present. I think researchers who have been teachers have a better insight into what problems should be researched, and can use relationships built through teaching to promote action research.
This paper should be titled, "In Defense of Educational Research (conducted by University based educators)". I'm going to set aside my thoughts concerning his condescending attitude towards teachers (and non-university based professors in general. It's an attitude I'm well-familiar with and one that the 'kettles' should research). I'm more concerned with the idea that educational research is 'soft' and is considered so by other disciplines (which may undermine it in reference to those disciplines on campuses but the average joe sees dr. ..... and tends to be respectful). I agree with his point but would suggest that the reason behind that lies with education researched and their reliance on non-scientific qualitative research methods. I, as a former classroom teacher and someone who has conducted research, reject the notion that our field is 'resistant' to quantitative methods. As in any science, we need to measure discrete items to prove causality (even in applied settings). Surveys, interviews, narrative observations do not meet those standards. We have very discernible outcomes that can quantified in many ways. Graduation rates, GPA, Income 5-10-20 years after discontinuation of formal education...the list is endless. Teaching is a behavior and like all behaviors can be operationalized and measured. "Best practices" can be studied like farming, biology, chemistry or any other science.
ReplyDeleteOn an unrelated note, what sours the view on education research, in my opinion, is the fact that our area of study and alleged expertise is failing miserably in most measurable categories. Were we a car, I would look for a different mechanic:)
Jenelle here...
ReplyDeleteI read this article several times, not for sheer pleasure as we all may assume (haha) but because I had to search for something I disagreed with. It was difficult to find, mainly due to the fact that I am entrenched in the private day school for autism camp on a daily basis, and I personally experience many of these “tension” feelings within my transition from speech language pathologist to Ph.D student on a daily basis. So, I found it refreshing to read something devoted to these feelings and it gave me a healthier perspective on what I can do about finding a healthy balance and how to do it. To reiterate what I wrote last week, I am not looking to replace one camp with the other. Instead, I am hoping to augment my practical knowledge with research and be able to translate and model best practices, as influenced by research, for those around me who care about students with special needs. It is this research perspective that caused me to look deeper into autism and the study of behavior in the first place, and what drove me to continue my education at VCU.
However, reading other people’s comments was quite interesting. I do agree that the article neglects the role of the parent. My daily experience in the autism world also neglects this role, mainly because oftentimes parents are voluntarily removed from the equation as my students reside in group homes or are wards of the state. Therefore, it is a rare occasion as opposed to the norm for me as a therapist to meet with parents on a regular basis.
Lastly, I also thought it was presumptuous for Labaree to make the assumption that most graduate students are going to pursue the position of professor. Personally, that is one of the last things I want to do. I do think it is possible to be a resident of both researcher and practitioner worlds, and the completion of my PhD is a stepping stone to making that my reality.
Joy
ReplyDeleteI would say that Labaree gave voice to many of my own doc student fears, so it was extremely hard to determine what I might disagree with in the article. However, while I find most of Labaree´s arguments to be sound, although difficult to hear and I do not necessarily like them, I do disagree with some of his assumptions.
1) This polarization between “hard” vs. “soft” science. Having been a part of both worlds, I have yet to figure out what the criteria are for this categorization or who established it. According to Labaree, "hard" science is primarily defined by the ability to determine causality and soft by knowledge having "great complexity, vast scale, uncertain purpose and open choice" consisting of "collective consequences" and "willful individuals making decisions...within a complex and overlapping array of social systems." I would dispute this and say that the complexity of the problem does not determine the "softness" or "hardness" of the solution. If so, this would imply that "hard" science involves only determining simplistic direct relationships, and it does not.
Not all scientists operate with the same methodologies, they are not all in the same field, nor does any good scientist approach a problem thinking that there is only one solution and it is causal. I would like to see the response to this assumption by scientists who carry out "hard" science in fields where the outcomes involve collective or emergent properties, like physics or chemistry, or systemic complex interactions, like the biological sciences.
2) Overemphasis on the difference between practice and theory is not particular to the field of education. This has been an ongoing source of debate in other fields as well – i.e. while scientists are trained to be both practitioners (experiments and field research) and theoreticians, students in the medical field (training for an M.D.) are taught only practice and most will not practice medicine with the most current research in mind, nor will they always stay up to date. (This is a criticism of practitioners in medicine and does not apply to all doctors, as it does not apply to all teachers.) However, a scientist would not be able to go into an examination room and understand or directly treat a comprehensive collection of symptoms which differ from patient to patient as doctors constantly are required to do. What I am saying is that the difference between a doctor and a scientist is very similar to the difference between a teacher and an educational researcher, but skyscrapers are being built which no one contests and no one labels the doctor practitioner’s field as a "soft" science with "marshy epistemological terrain" (pg. 14), even though using Labaree´s definition, it is.
In any case, I agree that we need to rethink the way that research is carried out and the way that practitioner researchers are trained, but rather than starting with an impossibly marshy foundation, we just might not be seeing where the foundation is. Maybe, the epistemology does not require one, or a traditional one (I am thinking of Venice as an example). Foundations are adaptable and cities can be built. Innovation might be the key, rather than a long history of "progress" in a linear direction.
Mandy
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I agreed with Labaree’s perspectives and claims about the tensions teachers experience as they move from the practice of teaching into the world of doctoral study. However, I would disagree with Labaree’s assertion that teachers will find “…the scholarly approach to education cold and impersonal…” and thus resist the intellectual skills necessary to become scholars. He claims that teachers act mostly out of a sense of moral responsibility to their kids, and, finding the academic’s world distant and removed from the realities of the classroom, will avoid the acquisition of intellectual skills. This implies that teachers making the shift into doctoral study are unprepared for the move away from practice and the effect that academia will have on their worldview. Contrastingly, I would think (or hope) that teachers entering doctoral study would expect and welcome the change of pace, the luxury of taking a step back from the immediacy of the classroom in order to examine education as a whole. As a practitioner who left K-12 for a full-time PhD program, I expected my experience in the classroom to inform my studies and to give me a valuable perspective when considering research methods and opportunities. I understood, however, that I was entering a research-heavy program which would require me to build new skills and broaden the limited perspective that I gained as a teacher through inquiry, immersion in the literature, and intensive coursework. I would venture to guess that most teachers who enter doctoral programs in education have these expectations and understand the more distant perspective afforded by doctoral study. Labaree generally assumes that teachers are unprepared for the research and intellectual requirements they will encounter when entering academia. This simply does not give credit to the mindset and preparation of the practitioner who chooses to leave the classroom for a PhD program.
I take a second issue with this article. Perhaps teachers are more open to broadening their view of education than Labaree assumes because they think of themselves as lifelong learners. To be an effective and caring teacher, learning has to be a priority. Additionally, teachers are skilled at examining issues and content from many perspectives, because they have to tailor their methods to individual students’ abilities and developmental levels. Teachers also have to be flexible in order to constantly deal with updated standards, assessment methods and curriculum. This flexibility and love of learning may serve a teacher well as they transition into scholarly inquiry. Teachers may enter doctoral programs with the intent to acquire research skills so that they may better understand their students, develop curriculum and interventions, and grapple with overarching issues in education. They may be motivated by continuing their own education by investigating new perspectives and integrating theory with practice. If so, they would likely be more open to gaining intellectual abilities than Labaree would assume.
I disagree with Labaree’s notion that the cultural divide is between doctoral programs and future educational researchers who were/are teachers. I think teachers’ decision to become educational researchers represents a transition to the researcher perspective. Their maturity, dedication to education, and professional experience (pages 15-16) makes them stronger because they are in a better position to understand a research problem in education with all its complexities. Scholarly work from teacher-turned researchers who study problems in education with all its variables may have given the field the distinction of being soft and applied. That programs should sell the researcher perspective as an addition to the teacher perspective is a much-need solution to ease the divide between researchers and practicing teachers/students in teacher-education programs. I think the differences Labaree points out (personal vs. intellectual, normative to analytical) are real problems for future teachers who are skeptical of research, and rightly so. They are burdened by having to make decisions for children every day, and I don’t blame them if educational research is unable to inform them with definitive answers.
ReplyDeleteI felt that Labaree emphasized on educational research as having to do with K-12 and tied to the system. I consider this a major part of education research, but I see topics of learning, teaching, child development, defining, understanding and measuring psychological constructs like test anxiety, self-efficacy, and self-regulation as an important part of educational research. So this article was a little worrisome for me because I do not have a background in teaching, and this is a tension I have been feeling, and it may have gotten a little worse after the article, but I take comfort in Labaree’s description of researchers.