Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id iBFMRPU09915; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:27:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:27:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <003c01c4e2f4$96a09360$62d7c043@ReflectionPool> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king@verizon.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1814] Re: research and pd X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 7019 Lines: 156 Hello Eileen and David: Eileen, I appreciate greatly the substance of your note-- because you agreed with me, though you missed my point in the beginning. The point is to keep scientific method for the human sciences and for education, but to recognize how it must be adapted to the nuances of the data. And that does not mean to rely merely on statistics either. It means more about what David is talking about. For much of the human sciences and for education, the laboratory is the classroom, the data is conscious and historical, and the teacher is both the scientist and the person who applies the theories and the <wisdom> to conscious, individual and changing students (historical). David says: "I am interested, therefore, in our capturing and refining our professional wisdom, and helping teachers to use it to make decisions, and to provide the basis hypotheses for further research." That's pretty critical, in my view. And this is how good theory (science) is developed, tested, returned to, refined, re-cast, crafted, etc. (see Kuhn and others on this). Further, theory (science) is not merely natural or statistical. We don't lose theory by doing what David is purporting to do. Rather we are involved in a dynamic project with scientific (theoretical) elements and aims. The problem is that in the current "air" we already <are> wrongly defining such methods as a departure from science-- and they are not a departure--IF we understand science as theory formation and if we understand the great differences in the data (between natural and human) and what it takes to move through human data and develop wisdom in a critical and evolving way (again, as David has suggested). But if the meaning of science (defined by its methods OR its data or as merely statistical) is changing in the natural sciences, as you have suggested in your note, we are calling it into question for education also--it's a critical method that has a theoretical component and is applied differently to vastly different data. However, the spate of e-mails about trusted information in "scientific" clearing houses (I and others have suggested) is aimed at eliminating or denigrating research that is undertaken and interpreted under a much broader set of notions and is, again, applied to the nuances of human data. Also, there are several important and distinct differences between natural and human data. In a way, the conflict that you (Eileen) talk about in your note between the complex- systems scientists and the "dinosaurs" is important because it points up the differences <within> a scientific community--between people who, despite their disagreements, still consider themselves scientists. So I agree with you that "we (can) cast (the argument) in terms of the experimental dinosaurs vs. the evolving complex systems thinkers." There are many similarities. Certainly, some scientists are finally understanding the complexity of their own data--a departure from the dinosaurs, as well as the ethical, political and even spiritual dimensions of our involvement in the universe-- a science of responsibility is inferred in this dialogue. My guess is, however, that some are being called "unscientific" for their more comprehensive view. And there's the rub. The movement may be between one kind of thinker vs another kind of thinker; but in our educational camp, it is also a movement to reduce our notions of science to an identity with natural data and its expectations, and all that implies; and-or to merely statistical considerations; and in your example, to reduce science further to someone's desiccated view of even the natural world. Again, I agree that connections between PD and students' education is important, are already manifest in all teaching situations, and can be enhanced by our further understanding and directives--just because that's how education works. However, the danger is that, first, like with the dinosaurs above, we think we must wait for the statistical "evidence" BEFORE we can take action, as if wisdom can only come from statistics, and as if our Inaction has no effect on us or others in historical situations. Second, we end up justifying all PD only in terms of prescribed, reduced, and misinterpreted student outcome. And third, we use ill-informed and reduced data for punitive means--as is happening in many cases in K-12 with the "No Child Left Behind" act. Catherine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:17 PM Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1812] research and pd >I hope this will be a quick note on some of the discussion about evidence >for the effectiveness of professional development. > > Catherine talked about the nature of methods in the natural sciences vs. > social sciences (or research involving conscious, changing human beings). > I don't think that discussion in terms of a split between the natural and > social sciences is the most productive or effective. Even in the natural > sciences, where experimental research has reigned supreme, there is > growing awareness of the nature of complex systems and the need to go > beyond, or move away from, or extend the boundaries of accepted research > methods, to recognize the interactivity of systems and their parts. You > can see this, for example, in the global warming debate. The strict > experimentalists (I think I just made up that word) would say that we > don't have enough data, or controlled experiments, to establish a causal > link between human activity, greenhouse gas production, and global warming > (and therefore we shouldn't take action, just do more research). The more > complex-systems-oriented would say something like, "Given the number of > variables, their interactions, and our inability to hold all other things > constant while we study one variable, we are not going to establish a > causal relationship using controlled experiments. We're in a complex > system; we need research that describes the relationships and interactions > of the parts--in other words, how the whole system works--and we need to > take action now." > > In my opinion, we should not cast our debate in terms of natural vs. > social or human sciences, we should cast it in terms of the experimental > dinosaurs vs. the evolving complex systems thinkers. In terms of this > discussion, we shouldn't stop doing pd until we've established a causal > link between pd and student outcomes through controlled experiments, > although controlled experiments may contribute to our understanding, the > dinosaur part is in thinking the are the only acceptable method. We should > be looking at how, what kinds, and to what extent pd affects teaching and > student learning, and we should use what we learn to improve pd and to > improve the research. It's a complex system too. OK, I wanted this to be > quick, so I'll stop there. > > Eileen > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:01 EST