As a classroom teacher, the learning which one experiences on a regular basis is largely composed of information one knows will ultimately be dumped. A teacher is primarily tasked with retaining knowledge of students that may aid in personalizing their learning experience. It is a challenging thing to develop a relationship with one student such that a teacher might understand the student’s strengths and weaknesses, the motivators which will drive the student, and the methods through which to assist the student in their learning; it is monumental to do it with more than one hundred students simultaneously. |
0 Comments
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243.
On the Chasm that Divides: Why Education Researcher and Education Practitioner Don't Get Along.9/2/2017 A few choice nuggets from Jay Lemke's 2000 article, Across the Scales of Time: Artifacts, Activities, and Social Meanings in Ecological Systems:
“We might say that it is a semiotic articulation of a person’s evaluative stance toward interactions.” (p. 283) “Our ontogeny recapitulates their phylogeny, up to a point. But only up to a point, and less so as developmental pathways come to be guided more by social interaction and culture-specific semiotic information supplied after birth.” (p. 284) ← Lemke probably won a bet with this one, “I’ll bet you can’t sneak ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’ into a peer reviewed journal article.” “...even take a reflective perspective in the activity and see our own role in it; that is, we can frame a separated “me” from the viewpoint of this new dynamical “I.” Reflexivity is itself an instance of heterochrony.” (p. 285) “Traditional macrosociology has resorted, after the manner of Latour’s “centers of calculation,” to assembling statistical data and to recognizing that it does so in a positioned way.” (p. 288). Should anyone still be ignorant as to the reason of the perpetual divide between educational researcher and education practitioner? I’d be hard pressed to find a single classroom teacher that would make it through the first two pages. Consequently, I’ll summarize the entire piece for the layman before proceeding: The human experience exists of multiple and intertwined systems which interact over differing timescales. Done. And, you're welcome. The idea to consider time scales across ecosocial systems is an extension - or variation on the work of Karl Weick presented in his piece, Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled systems, published in 1979. Lemke, however, approaches the loose coupling of systems from a chronological perspective rather than from an organizational one. The end result is the same: Education is complex and there is no way - seemingly - to be able to anticipate or account for all interactions. Lemke (2010) states, “We cannot study such a system from more than a few of the many viewpoints within it, and we honestly do not expect all these viewpoints to fit consistently together.” (p. 288) whereas Weick asserts, “Loosely coupled worlds do not look as if they would provide an individual many resources for sense making…” (p. 13) which is to say that indirect parts of a system are extremely challenging to understand. The adiabatic principle and heterochrony are fancy ways of communicating something that most educators who have been in the classroom for any significant period of time understand instinctively: Sometimes the things we do in the short term have little to no consequence on the long term (adiabatic principle), and sometimes long-time established (or large scale) issues have immediate impact on the short-term (heterochrony). An example to the former would be an explanation or instruction given by a teacher which - for whatever reason - does not result in consequential learning by a student, and in the former a large system reform which requires changes in pedagogy. The application to the educator is that one must seek awareness of both the small and short scale events as well as the large and longer term events and consider their impact on the learning of an individual. Simultaneously, the educator must also consider how these events act in systems - both as parts of smaller systems themselves, but also as parts of larger systems. In the case of the classroom teacher, the chief concerns are the events and systems operating most directly on the student. With my own PoP, the aforementioned example of heterochrony is apt. The NGSS is a large scale reform, expected to have both far-reaching and long-term consequences. The standards, themselves, though are such that adherence to the intent of the NGSS has immediate consequence for pedagogy (heterochrony). Which is the entire reason why it is a problem in the first place: while most educators have no problem with the long-scale shift towards inquiry based teaching, more concept-based and skills-based learning and assessment, in the short-term, they are faced with significant challenges to what they are already doing in the classroom. Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meaning in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273-290. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative science quarterly, 1-19.
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 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.
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.
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. 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. |