Neural Vortex
  • About
  • Research
    • Dissertating
    • NGSS Innovation Configuration Map
    • Conference Presentations
    • Resources >
      • Interpreting Effect Size
      • Interpreting Correlations
  • Active Syllabi
    • Improving Classroom Communication and Workflow
    • Examples >
      • 8th Grade Science at Singapore American School by Wyatt Wilcox
  • Media
    • Social
    • Blog
    • /)(/ Favorites
  • Resources
    • For Teachers >
      • The Google Apps Educator
      • Next Generation Science Standards >
        • NGSS Modeling
        • NGSS Assessment - Investigation Skills - Meltdown Summative
      • TpT
      • Inquiry Based Learning
      • Continuing Education
    • For Students >
      • Tips for Academic Success
      • Learning with Dr. Wilcox
    • Other >
      • Some Thoughts Concerning Education
  • Contact
  • About
  • Research
    • Dissertating
    • NGSS Innovation Configuration Map
    • Conference Presentations
    • Resources >
      • Interpreting Effect Size
      • Interpreting Correlations
  • Active Syllabi
    • Improving Classroom Communication and Workflow
    • Examples >
      • 8th Grade Science at Singapore American School by Wyatt Wilcox
  • Media
    • Social
    • Blog
    • /)(/ Favorites
  • Resources
    • For Teachers >
      • The Google Apps Educator
      • Next Generation Science Standards >
        • NGSS Modeling
        • NGSS Assessment - Investigation Skills - Meltdown Summative
      • TpT
      • Inquiry Based Learning
      • Continuing Education
    • For Students >
      • Tips for Academic Success
      • Learning with Dr. Wilcox
    • Other >
      • Some Thoughts Concerning Education
  • Contact

Research Paradigms

8/27/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
In the first chapter of her book Research and evaluation in education and psychology, D.M. Mertens presents four major paradigms of educational and psychological research.  It can be appreciated that Mertens begins this section of her work with an indication as to the difficulty of trying to classify all of educational and psychological research into four distinct paradigms.   She acknowledges that there are quite a few more paradigms, and perhaps it would be impossible to clearly identify all possible paradigms.  

​Key takeaways are as follows:
Firstly, Mertens piece is one of the general nature of paradigms, and they aspects of those paradigms which we might consider.   For each of the four paradigms presented, Mertens identifies and describes the epistemological, ontological, axiological and methodological roots.  These terms represent the nature of knowledge, reality, ethics, and procedural components of the paradigms.  While he explains in some detail each of these four characteristics, I appreciate particularly the table he has provided which concisely summarizes each.  In a very generalized way, one is lead to feel that as one shifts from positivism, to constructivism, to transformative and them pragmatic, there is a gradual shift away from the paradigms and methods of what would be known as the ‘hard sciences’.   This is to say that post-positivism takes a stance more similar to that of the hard science (and Mertens alludes to this with a discussion of aristotle and others) where all of reality can be known and defined precisely, whereas transformative positions itself such that reality is mostly relativistic.  

The second takeaway from the reading was way each aspect of the paradigms were intrinsically connected.  That is to say, one could not take the ontology of postpositivism and interchange it with that of the pragmatic paradigm, for in doing so each of the other aspects epistemology, methodology, etc. would also change.    Consequently, a research is pressed to understand the paradigm through with they are pursuing their study because it will have an affect on nearly all aspects of their research.

The third key point was, specifically, the importance placed on ethical considerations in each of the research paradigms.  Though the paradigms themselves may approach the ethical considerations in slightly different ways, it’s clear that the ethical considerations have a significant impact on the research design in each of the paradigms.  Mertens describes this specifically, but also alludes to the ethical nature or implications throughout the discussion on paradigms.

0 Comments

Soaring Above the Clouds with Personalized Learning and a Growth Mindset

8/26/2017

0 Comments

 
In Soaring Above the Clouds, Delving the Ocean’s Depths: Understanding the Ecologies of Human Learning and the Challenge for Education Science (2010), Carol Lee presents the argument that the complexity of human learning and development can be described by the inter-relation of three constructs.  Those constructs are the braid of human culture and human biology, adaptation through multiple pathways, and interdependence across levels of context.  It is through these constructs that Lee proposes researchers consider the process of learning (p. 651).
The challenge to teachers (and to researchers) is to take that which is at once obvious and undeniably true - that each student is unique and brings a singularly unique experience, disposition and set of their own systems belongs into interaction - and construct a new system which honors the uniqueness of the parts, but still remains a broadly applicable system itself.   This challenge is multiplied by the general tendency of political systems to group and categories constituents, and develop top-down approaches which can be legislated in expedient manner.    

Cilliers, Garcia and Lee would likely concur that any system developed need be flexible, and take into consideration the multitude and diverse factors influencing the process of learning for each individual.  This is, at it’s core, the idea of personalized learning which - with the increasing capabilities accessible through digital platforms - is gaining increased attention.  The personalized learning movement has as one of its underlying beliefs, that every student is capable of learning, that if children’s unique dispositions are valued and encouraged, they will all attain high levels of achievement.  This growth-mindset orientation is the opposite end of the spectrum of the deficit mindset orientation.  Some argue that with the increased access to technology - which allows for greater access to a more diverse set of resources, and adaptive technologies - the dawn of a truly personalized learning experience is upon us.  Of course, in this context, the access to and student’s literacy of the digital platform becomes one more facet to consider in the understanding of intersectionality.  

Cilliers, P. (2001). Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2),135–147.

Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32-47.

Lee, C (2010). Soaring above the clouds, delving the ocean's depths: Understanding the ecologies of human learning and the challenge for education science, Educational Researcher, 39, 743- 755. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X10392139

​
0 Comments

Complexity Theory in Educational Systems

8/26/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
A - very - brief summary of Paul Cillier's article, Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems (2001), and a connection to wicked problems....
In their article, Inescapable Wickedity (2014) education researchers Jordan, Kleinsasser, and Roe might present the problems of education as, among other things, those which are difficult define and have no clear right or wrong answers.  To large extent, the challenges of wickedity are artifacts of the complex system in which educational systems operate and interact with.  These are ideas are further articulated in Cillier’s Boundaries, Hierarchies and Networks in Complex Systems (2001).   Cilliers describes how the various boundaries a which operate between systems are both ambiguous and shifting.  He questions the notion that traditional methods of examining flat hierarchies, network interactions and non-linearity as particularly conducive to developing a theory of complex organizations.

Cilliers, P. (2001). Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(2),135–147.
0 Comments

On the Complexity of Education

8/26/2017

0 Comments

 
Educational systems are complex. The ‘Wicked Problems’ nature of the challenges in educational systems are largely due to the heavily intertwined systems of structure and hierarchy.  Systems and organizational theorists refer to the degrees of connectedness within the systems as ‘loose’ or ‘tight’ coupling.  These various degrees of coupling between federal and state level bureaucracies, administrators, teachers, and other education groups such as teachers unions, parent organizations, etc. create conflict or cohesiveness depending up on the particular motivations of each group and the degree to which one’s vision aligns with another.   
Picture
Adding to the complexity of educational systems created by the degrees of coupling within organizations and structure is the inherently human-centered and social nature of education.  Educators are dealing with human beings who are emotional and social creatures who often do not respond in logical or consistent fashion to stimuli. Consequently, where humans are involved, the solution to a problem in one scenario may very well prove to be inconsequential or even detrimental in another.

There really are no true boundaries to the educational system.  As with anything, the further one moves from the nucleus of activity, the less direct the influence on the activity itself.  In the case of educational systems, one might consider the nucleus of activity as the classroom.  Yet, the classroom activity is influenced by building level, district, state and federal level actors.  As well, the general trends of society and cultures, events of the world, and technology affect what happens in the classroom as well.  
0 Comments

Intersectionality

8/26/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
In Intersectionality as a Framework for Transformative Research, (Garcia 2013) the author presents an argument that the role of cultural and socioeconomic diversity (Discourses, as Gee might state it) existent in special education research have not been adequately addressed. He defines intersectionality as the refusal to accept unitary definitions and categorizations, and instead examine issues such as race, class, and gender as they are inherently intertwined and inseparable.  It looks at their interplay.  ​
It is in the point of this article, precisely, that the muddiest point - and indeed, the whole challenge of education, itself - exists.   Education is a complex problem, at both individual and social in nature, at times more so and at others less so.   Methods to study education, to be useful, must take into account not only a great number of variables, but must also take into consideration the interplay of those variables themselves.  The authors quote Artiles et. all (2005) in stating that within each category of individuals to studied, there are subcategories of individuals, and within those categories, more subcategories.   Ultimately, each individual student is unique.  

Further complicating matters, Garcia recognizes that traditional categories used to study differences rely on markers that are often times not static.  That is to say a sort of marker - such as English Language Learner - used to identify an individual or group of individuals in one instance, may ultimately shift or change.   The markers upon which researchers use to categories groups are not static.   Consequently, the changing nature of the markers must be considered in addition to the continual interplay between them.  

And finally, it is not just that individuals may fall into multiple categories or that the markers used to define those categories are fluid, but the categories and markers themselves, frequently hold unstated power or status connotations which also must be considered in their research.  

All of these factors suggest that the study of educational problems in general (and in the case of the authors’ point - special education issues in particular) extremely challenging.   As educational researchers Jordan, Kleinsasser, and Roe might say, the wicked problems of education seem to have become even more wicked.  

And muddy.

Why not just treat each individual as… individual? Increasingly, research is demonstrating that the multitude of factors which influence learning requires students to be treated as individuals.

As the author states, “...an intersectionality framework engages researchers in a multi-layered analysis that seeks to uncover the processes by which the experiences of subgroups within a larger identity category are marginalized, through understanding the cultural construction of identities within and across individuals, and uncovering how social, institutional, and political structures shape and reinforce identify formation, and influence identity salience across contexts.” (Garcia, p37)  The intersectionality framework, then, encourages both the educational researcher and the educational practitioner with several questions to consider as they engage their topic of study or their students.   Among these are, “What are my perceptions, assumptions, and views of difference? Is my (our) cultural understanding sufficient to conduct culturally responsible research that will contribute to more equitable and accessible educational outcomes for all groups of learners?” (p37).  

The educational researcher has an easier time dealing with these issues.  They are not faced with making the minute by minute decisions that the educational practitioner is, and at the end of the day, the educational researcher can incorporate an escape hatch into their conclusion of their research, “..further research is warranted.”  The classroom teacher, the practitioner, however is not afforded such novelties.  To do her job well, the practitioner must consider the intersectionality in their decision making, and at the end of the day, their decisions have real consequences on real people.  When the practitioner makes a misjudgement about the interplay between the various attributes of an individual and the interplay of those attributes and the attributes of another, or how the culture or context interplay (or, in Garcia’s terms - intersect), there are real people who lose out on the best learning experience possible.  


References:

Jordan, M. E., Kleinsasser, R. C., & Roe, M. F. (2014). Wicked problems: inescapable wickedity.
Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(4), 415-430


Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32-47.
0 Comments

The Purpose of Learning

8/22/2017

0 Comments

 
Learning is an accumulation of knowledge, feelings, and processes and assimilation thereof into pre-existing cognitive frameworks.  It occurs at all times, all times of consciousness.  In any moment the brain receives stimuli, it is processing the stimuli - or the effect of them - by incorporating them into short or long term memory.  Increasingly, brain researchers such as John Medina and others are recognizing that stimuli such as environmental surroundings, those that trigger emotional responses, and other stimuli not traditionally associated with ‘learning’ are, in fact, quite significant in the processes of learning.   

From a purely evolutionary and naturalistic perspective, one might argue that learning provides an evolutionary advantage to an organism.  In this case, an organism which is more able to identify dangers in its surroundings, or develop an ability to manipulate objects, remember locations of food sources, etc.  is more well adapted - and thus more able to survive - than those that cannot.  If one is, instead, of the inclination to believe in a higher power - a being who created the universe, presumably for some purpose of its own - learning may be argued to be a path to realizations of one’s own place in that creation.  The former makes learning seem a necessary survival tool in the ruthlessness of national selection, the latter gives learning a more noble tone.  I fall more inline with the latter.  

0 Comments

On Qualitative and Quantitative Research Processes

8/20/2017

1 Comment

 
Picture
Quantitative and qualitative processes are named as such primarily due to the type of data they chiefly collect.  In the quantitative research process, the researcher is paramountly concerned with the collection of information which is more objectively quantified.  That is to say, quantitative data is data which can be measured using objective, uniform, and universal units.   Those sciences known as ‘hard’ sciences are chiefly concerned with such measurements.   Traits such as height, length, time, etc. - which can be measured using recognized units - are good examples of quantitative data.  In contrast, qualitative data is that which is less easily - or at least less objectively - assigned a numerical value.   Emotional responses, attitudes, and values, for example cannot be described using a numerical value system alone; any numerical value system utilized to describe or measure such things, must be carefully described by the user and applied in highly contextual circumstances.   To a large extent the ‘soft’ sciences are so called because they are heavily dependent on this sort of data collection.  
​Creswell describes quantitative data collection processes to be more close-ended (p. 19).  That is to say, there are pre-defined outcomes (values) to responses.  In the case of the ‘hard’ sciences, such pre-defined outcomes may be recognized frequently as the measurements of units, themselves.  However, when quantitative methods are applied to ‘soft’ sciences, these pre-determined outcomes take on the form of categories which have been defined by the researcher.  Qualitative research, in contrast,  is open ended.  The research concerns themselves chiefly with information that is difficult to apply numerical values to, or - as is frequently the case - is even able to predict potential outcomes.  Consequently, the researcher is  relegated to post-facto interpretation of results.  

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (pp. 146-166). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
1 Comment

    Archives

    May 2022
    October 2018
    March 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    June 2015


    Categories

    All
    Academics
    #ASUEdd
    Character
    Growth Mindset
    Leadership
    Learning
    Middle School
    Policy
    Research
    Reviews
    Strengths
    Tips
    Wicked Problems In Education

    RSS Feed

/)eural (/ortex