/)eural (/ortex Blog

Education's Problem with Chronology

9/1/2017

The time scales involved in education reform are a stubborn and persistent complicating matter. The real benefit of any large scale reform can only truly be seen after a significant time period has passed. Take for example, a curriculum change that is implemented across multiple grade levels; perhaps a school’s adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards. It is possible - and it is frequently done - to examine student test scores pre- and post- adoption of the standard, and these may very well be completed within a short time frame of one year or two years. Yet whether the curriculum change itself has had an impact on the student learning is left in doubt. Surely, when a school adopts a new curriculum, there is myriad other affects things at play; teachers may undergo immediate professional development activities which create renewed focus and attention to teaching practices, administrators may begin intensive observations of classrooms, outside stakeholders (such as state boards, etc.) may have some influence, etc.

Consequently, any change seen in student performance data over the course of one year may very well be the result of cultural, attitude, or other shifts within the environment, not necessary a direct result of a curricular change. To gauge the overall value of a curricular change, one would have examine students pre- and post- k-12 schooling - a period of at least 12 years - and would also need to have a control group of ‘old curriculum’ students assessed in the same time period.

Sadly - as many teachers would be quick to tell you - educational reforms tend, themselves, to have a lifespan shorter than 12 years. Those ideas which were at once seen to be the next greatest idea in improving standards, personalizing learning, incorporating technology, and increasing academic achievement are quickly replaced by the next best idea. To the educator, it seems as though a few basic ideas have been recirculated and regurgitated with new vocabulary every so many years, as the next generation of doctorates and educational researchers find their voice.

This vicious cycle stemming from the mismatch of the 12 or 13 year education span of k-12 students, and the successions of repackaged and regurgitated education reforms, speaks at once to both the challenges of chronology in education as well as the systems nature of education. Indeed, education an endeavor which must consider both the time spans upon which it exists, and also the multitude of systems in which it is intertwined.

Research Paradigms

8/27/2017

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.

Soaring Above the Clouds with Personalized Learning and a Growth Mindset

8/26/2017

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

Complexity Theory in Educational Systems

8/26/2017

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.

On the Complexity of Education

8/26/2017

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.

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.

Intersectionality

8/26/2017

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.

The Purpose of Learning

8/22/2017

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.

On Qualitative and Quantitative Research Processes

8/20/2017

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.

On Learning Styles on Change Leadership

5/26/2017

There is a trend to identify individual character traits through surveys, then assume the survey results will bestow one with game-changing insight about their ability to lead. Businesses have been built on this idea. Far too much credit has been given to it.

In considering the impact of an individual’s learning style on their ability to lead change, it’s important to remember that each of the styles indicated in this survey - Pragmatist, Activist, Reflector, and Theorist - is a spectrum, and one’s tendency towards one does not exclude tendencies in another; it is entirely possible that an individual is both a pragmatist and reflector, or a theorist and an activist, or some combination of all three, or all four. In his book, End of Average (2016) Harvard’s Todd Rose describes these sorts of character classifications as largely situational. For example, where an individual might be outgoing with colleagues in a work environment, they may be introverts in other social settings. While not identical, the learning styles described by Honey and Mumford (1992) are similar; an individual may be more reflective in one situation and more pragmatic in others.

The spectral and situational natures of learning styles and personalities aligns well with the principles described by Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull (1969) in their work, the Peter Principle. Peter and Hull describe how the selection of candidates for promotion is based on their abilities in a particular role, and those selecting assume that those characteristics will transfer into new and higher roles. However, as situations and responsibilities change, an individual’s approach to those situations often changes as well. Consequently, individuals often are promoted until they reach a level at which they are incompetent.

This is a scary thought. Attributes which made one successful in a particular scenario may make one less successful in another.

In trying to lead change in education, one must consider their own style in approaching problems. Are we pragmatic, are an activist, a theorist, or reflective? To what extent, and in what situations, and in which situations will tendencies be useful?

An activist, for example may be particularly adept at leading a charge, getting a project started, and able to garnering enthusiasm. They may be willing to move forward in the midst of great diversity and great uncertainty. Consequently, a leader who is an activist may be very successful in adverse situations, where obstacles seem insurmountable, and where building consensus around an idea is key. Activists contrast theorists who tend to like well organized strategies. Theorists want to examine an issue thoroughly before proceeding. As a result, theorists may find more success in situations where time is less of an issue, and where consequences of small mistakes are high. Pragmatists - people who like to get on with what works and are keen to solve problems - may be particularly adept leaders in situations where incremental changes are preferable to monumental initiatives.

But if one’s tendencies towards these styles is situational, then perhaps a tendency towards the last of the four - reflector - is most important. A reflector prefers to observe and think prior to acting. They consider their own experiences and the experiences of others, and caution is important. The tendency towards reflection, allows leaders to gauge not only the skills and validity of others in approaching a problem, but - importantly - their own.

An individual seeking to be a change leader in education should rightly consider the ways and extent to which they are an activist, theorist, or pragmatist. But we should all be seeking to strengthen our leadership as reflectors, as ones who carefully consider data, enjoy learning from observing others, and seeing the big picture. In being a reflector, one might be more inclined to recognize in oneself the spectral and situational nature of their own styles and avoid assuming their competence to tackle a problem based on their success in tackling a previous one. A reflector, then, may also be more inclined to let others take the lead when it is most appropriate for them to do so. In a break with the Peter Principle, a leader who is a reflector may remain in a position of competence - rather than being promoted to a level of incompetence - because they rightly recognize the personal traits which made them successful in one position may not translate well into another.

References:
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles, 3rd. Maidenhead: Peter Honey.
Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How to succeed in a world that values sameness. Penguin UK.
Peter, L. J., & Hull, R. (1969). The peter principle (No. Book). London: Souvenir Press.

Seven Tools to Scale Up Excellence

4/7/2017

“…scaling requires leaders to find or develop pockets of excellence, connect people and teams, and ensure that excellence continues to flow through those ties” (p. 215), and requires skill in locating, developing, linking, connecting, bridging, and cascading networks of excellence; behaviors which might also be thought of as strategies for building the social capital necessary to spread worthwhile ideas through an organization effectively. Seven tools for “making nets work” (p. 198). Seven tools to help leaders scale up excellence in their organization are described by researchers Robert Sutton and Huggy Rao in their book, Scaling Up Excellence:

The Top-Down Approach: Use hierarchical structures to “create a domino chain reaction” (p. 199) to spread excellence, ideas and/or change.
Broadcast Your Message Out to One and All: Develop thorough communication processes and sharing of ideas.
Surround Them: Have the Many Teach the Few: Embed new employees among established team members who already embrace the desired behaviors and attitudes so as to spread the mindset through mentoring.
One-on-One, and The Power of Pairs: Use embedded, strategic pairs to spread excellence.
From the Few to the Many: Use a group of determined people to spread change.
Broker: Bridging Disconnected Islands: Use people and groups to serve as connectors to otherwise disconnected people or groups.
Create Crossroads Where People Connect: Use social gatherings or communal opportunities to connect people.

Reference:
Sutton, R.I. and Rao, H. (2014). Scaling up excellence: Getting to more without settling for less. London, UK: Penguin Random House.