If possible, relate
something in the Paul reading to something you learned elsewhere (e.g., a
class, a book, a movie, your experience). If this is completely foreign, then
write about something interesting/surprising that you learned while reading Paul.
As stated in the reading, “Acting on mere opinion or belief (no matter how heartfelt), or acting on the basis of an incompetent inquiry, is not good enough.” This statement stood out to me for many reasons. The main one being that in order to create change, one must provide reasoning with credible research. I have always been fascinated with change theory. I think it is mostly because of how difficult it can be. Afterall, I believe human behavior to be one of the more difficult qualities to change. In my job this is a common hurdle that must be overcome. When exploring education, one will often come across various ways to achieve the same result. For example, student-centered exploratory learning versus teacher-centered lecture style learning. They may both arrive at the same result (achievement level), however, according to some one way be better than the other and depending on who you ask the more effective style may change. When you take a school of educators who practice lecture style instruction and attempt to change them into teachers who use a more exploratory approach, you will most certainly get pushback. Although that resistance may still be present, I do believe that there are ways to alleviate some of it. One of the best ways to do that is to be credible and knowledgeable with your reason for the change. Is this your opinion or is backed by credible research? The answer to that question matters. As explained in the reading, when you speak on something or try to alter something based on pure opinion, belief or incompetent inquiry, you are affected more than yourself. This is especially true in a school. Not only are you affecting the teachers, but you are affecting students as well. I believe the quote above to be true. I would also add that whenever making powerful, influential decisions or partaking in research, it is always wise to consult those around you. I find it to be good practice to not act in your own silo, but to seek out support from others. You never know what other questions, observations, research, or inquiry will arise.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, John Dewey insisted on the primary role of consequences in establishing knowledge. This remind me of how you learn from triumphs and failures (often, more from failures). In life, and in research, I find it to be imperative to learn from the mistakes and successes of others, not only yourself. We would be doing our field of study a disservice if we solely relied on our own knowledge. Much like I mentioned above, it is beneficial to work alongside others and not strictly independently. Again, that will be very beneficial when you are working for an institution where others are affected by every step you take. If you consistently steer people astray or don’t include them in your thought process, your credibility will quickly be called into question.
When I initially read Paul’s presentation of nine perspectives used to guide researchers and their work, I was drawn to the familiarity of Race, Ethnicity and Gender. In social work, race, ethnicity and gender are some of the social categories discussed when oppression of marginalized groups is debated. This perspective directly confronts irrational beliefs about racial and gender superiority coinciding with beliefs that what was true for the dominant ethnic group was true for all (p. 73). This perspective of Race, Ethnicity and Gender presented the idea of multiple consciousness which expands on DuBois’ double consciousness. It is this recognition of the complexities encompassing people who are not of the majority which makes it necessary to explore the concept of a “triple quandary” where merging African traditions with the experience of oppression in the new world with the cultural norms of the dominant society.
ReplyDeleteI am familiar with critical theory, but it was interesting to think about this perspective through the lens of researcher and scholar. It strikes me as a bold theory that may not be popular with those who believe in and support (consciously or unconsciously) the idea of power differentials. Many points resonate with me, such as working against oppression by revealing and critiquing it and critiquing ideas that give way to injustice of a people. I agree that critique must be balanced with attempts to make the world a better place. This position of Critical Theory necessitates “awareness, political strategy and emancipation (p.78).” I believe that these points are essential to framing much needed social and educational reforms.
I believe the perspectives of critical theory and race, ethnicity and gender are closely aligned. Both perspectives believe that reality and knowledge are constructed. They both address the idea of power as one seeks to challenge the unconscious belief and the other seeks to reveal it. It seems that both perspectives challenge the researchers themselves as they seek to explore and enlighten others. They also call for some level of insight and reflection and confidence to go against the majority with respect to societal values.
In full transparency, the Paul reading was a bit heavy for me; so, I might be far off in my thinking, but something that I had not previously considered were the ways in which constructivism, pragmatism, and critical theory build on and overlap with one another.
ReplyDeleteTo borrow language directly from this week's reading, constructivism attends to the meaning-making activities of human beings; we come to know what we know through experience and that knowledge is conditional/ subjective. It seems as if constructivism is primarily rooted in individual experiences whereas pragmatism examines the ways in which individual experiences contribute to the norms and values of cultures. Critical theory then takes those norms and values, critiques them through a specific lens, and examines the ways in which they either contribute to or detract from power structures.
As I was reading, I thought a lot about Freire’s work and how he reminded people that education is political, that it is heavily influenced by a dominant culture, and that it serves as a mechanism to perpetuate the dominant culture’s values. He prompts researchers and policy makers to consider the ways in which education can be reimagined from a top-down model to a shared, co-constructed process. This week’s readings also made me think a lot about social mobility and status attainment (including, but not limited to, the works of Durkheim, Blau, and Duncan) and thinking of the ways in which traditional schooling can block both phenomenon by stratifying, sorting, and sieving students. Discussions around creating equitable learning spaces and school reform are not likely to fizzle any time soon. I think researchers and theorists have made significant strides in incorporating more critical perspectives in their research, but I think a lot more of the critical work is going to have to come from intersectional perspectives.
I have to agree with Kendra’s opening comment from above. This reading was challenging for me as well. While I was able to follow the various perspectives of educational research, the idea of knowledge acquisition is tough to think about. When that knowledge acquisition is related to educational research and ultimately the outcomes associated with student learning, one really has to be careful with how they go about their quest for understanding. As someone who has been engrossed in the natural and physical sciences for over 15 years, thinking “philosophically” rather than “scientifically” is something I struggle with. I would contend that the two can overlap, but in many instances the two tend to be fairly different.
ReplyDeleteThe difference, I believe, surrounds the discussion initiated by Phillips in his pages on postpositivism and what “science” really is. Phillips writes that “it follows that science cannot be be claimed to establish ‘absolute truths,’ for we have no way of determining whether the things that today we think are true will be judged to be true tomorrow.” In the case of scientific inquiry, I believe that we tend to be much closer to “truth” than in inquiries made through the lens of social science. For example, going back several hundred years we will encounter a very different model of the atom from what we understand today. However, the construction of our knowledge of the atom has progressed logically and with advancements in technology. In other words, atomic theory is rooted in progress oriented research consistent with the times in which we live. Educational research also aims to advance our understanding, but many times similar studies present vastly different findings making theorizing difficult.
In sociological research, various methods have, over the course of time yielded findings that are vastly different from one another. In other words, how humans acted in one experiment may be very different in another even when both set out to explore the same thing. Such is the nature of the social sciences. Phillips mentioned that our understandings of the world would look very different had “the balls that Galileo rolled down his inclined plane actually had behaved differently.” They did not, and they will never behave differently (unless of course something really weird starts to happen on earth). In the social sciences, however, people do behave differently over time. As educational researchers, we have a responsibility to remember this and take it into consideration when assessing dated studies and designing new ones. We have learned in other classes that replication is a hallmark of social science research. The dynamic and fluid nature of our field calls for constant inquiry and re-evaluation of findings.
When thinking about educational research and that, in almost all cases, its outcomes have direct impact on teachers and students, I tend to lean toward pragmatism. The questions listed at the end of page 58 and onto page 59, I believe are important ones to ask when conducting any type of research. In particular, those questions will help with the challenges that I have described above.
The above post is for Matt Togna
DeleteWhat do these perspectives mean to education research? That we all have this inherent bias from one of these perspectives which shows up in the research that we review and eventually complete? These were my initial thoughts after this reading, what does this mean for us?
ReplyDeleteThe perspective of race, gender and ethnicity was something that I reflected on most after the reading because each piece helps to create our identity. It made me reflect on the intersectionality of our identities and how students recognize the groups or subgroups to which they belong and how each of those groups influences their experiences, feelings, beliefs, perceptions, etc. Our social and cultural interactions can influence research because of the varying experiences and differences that we have all had. We have to consider all aspects of our identity and what that means for educational research and implications of research.
As the postpositivist perspective stated, "we want to act on the basis of the findings of our inquiries," meaning that we want the research that is conducted to help us research our goals. If we want to improve our work or help our students, we want to ensure that we can foster the inquiry to help achieve those outcomes. This was a concept that stood out to me because in a lot of ways I want their to be practicality in research, that it will help inform or guide future practice. I don't know if that can always be the case but it is something that I think can be applicable but also foreign to educational and social science research. The scientific practice of research has to be adapted to fit the needs of educational research.
Even after reflecting on the reading, I am still at a bit of a loss in determining what this really means for our work. I wonder if these perspectives can easily be identified in the future work that we will encounter.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Paul, I found the breakdown of perspectives in Table 3-1 to be incredibly useful and I referred back to this resource as I read each following section. The section I found most illuminating was in “Perspective 6: Race, Ethnicity, and Gender,” when Harry talks about her own “journey toward the recognition of the importance of race, ethnicity, and gender” (75).
Harry speaks of feeling that she was “at that liminal point where I was “other” to two opposing extremes. But I was centered by privilege. I would say that the rest of my life has been a repositioning of myself, a process of altering and revising perspectives” (75). Harry’s self-reflection is so poignant and fits with the ontology of this perspective (race, ethnicity, and gender) as her reality, by her own description, has been constructed by social and cultural interactions throughout her life. Harry’s liminality is shaped by the pull between two seemingly polarizing forces, the “folk culture” of Jamaica and the knowledge of her British masters that she believed would bring her “power.”
Harry’s narrative reminded me strongly of pieces of Michelle Obama’s memoir Becoming, in which Obama describes her sometime sometimes conflicting and/or competing consciousnesses. For example, she seems always keenly aware of being “watched” and “criticized” in her role as the first “black first lady of the United States.” She expresses a desire to perform the role of FLOTUS with grace, but having been raised in a working-class family on the south side of Chicago, she feels simultaneously called to tell her own story and create programs that will benefit youth that she sees as similar to herself.
Obama endeavors over the course of many years, not always to her own satisfaction, to reconcile these identities by speaking her own truth. “In sharing my story, I hope to help create space for other stories and other voices, to widen the pathway for who belongs and why.”
Both Harry and Obama speak to value of autobiography and the inability to separate knowledge from the knower.
The Paul reading was packed with -isms. It took me a bit to separate and think about the web of -isms that inform knowledge and theory in education. I could appreciate the graphic, as it allowed me to draw connections to experiences and practices of my own. The reading highlights academics who have formulated opinions on the various frameworks in philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThe examples reminded me of a book tilted “Aims of Education” by Alfred North Whitehead. In this text, Whitehead opens with the notion of our education existence being related to culture and knowledge (from a specific perspective) that is informed by our own nuanced identities. It connects the ideas of perspectivism, constructivism and race, ethnicity and gender. It further asks the reader to think about the construction of education knowledge in relation to what is true and realistic. Both pieces force a critical lens on how we gather information and inform our outlook. In our work, the critical theory is most salient as we determine the relationship of power with other elements of our existence and practice. I don’t believe we can discuss the value of education, how we define it or share it without the lens of critical theory. It speaks to the historical and institutional systems at play that directly impact the outcomes.
Overall this piece is critical to the social foundations of education. It helps to organize the theories and describes the relationships of each. It suggests that how we understand knowledge development is a multi-theoretical approach and is necessary to developing a critical lens of understanding.
On more than one occasion while reading the Paul chapters I found myself writing in the margins Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, the title of late psychologist and educational researcher, Jerome Bruner’s, influential 1986 monograph. I haven’t read this book in many years, but certain of his tenets have remained influential to my way of thinking about how humans make meaning. A number of his ideas connect directly with research perspectives and theoretical frameworks presented in the Paul readings.
ReplyDeleteBruner considered the best approach to a study of human thought and behavior (including education) to be a focus on meanings and intentions over responses and measurable behaviors; on consciousness and subjectivity, on interpersonal, social, and cultural contexts. It is no surprise that Bruner’s ideas connect with much of the chapter on constructivism, as he himself was a constructivist. Bruner proposed theories that align with elements from Lincoln’s chapter, namely: how meaning is made, the importance of one’s subjectivity and experiences to one’s construction of reality, and the distinctions between concrete events and an individual’s “mental stances” which imbue those events with meaning.
In relation to studying psychology and education, Bruner argued against too singular a focus on the logical, systematic aspects of the human mind (what he called the “paradigmatic”). Bruner posited that it was just as valuable to study the imaginative, creative, story-telling mode (the “narrative”) in order to fully understand human behavior. The chapters on interpretive & narrative perspectives and ABER offer theories that dove tail with the importance Bruner placed on this “other side” of the human mind. (A note: While it may seem that Bruner is promoting a dualism - the imaginative “narrative” mode vs. the scientific “paradigmatic” - he argued not for a separation of one from the other but rather the integration of both to develop the clearest picture of who we are and how we construct reality.) Bruner valued storytelling and imagination as aspects of human experience that he believed were essential to understanding how humans think, act, learn, and make meaning.
Bruner supported the notion that we construct our realities based on our experiences, receptions, and self-formed identities, a notion resonant with the Race, Ethnicity, & Gender, Critical Theory, Ethics, and Constructivist perspectives. Bruner argued against the notion of a “fixed factuality” in education, similar to the reaction against absolute certainty offered in the Post-positivist and Pragmatic chapters.) Instead, Bruner supported dialogue and shared intentionality, ideas similar to those promoted in the chapters on Interpretative & Narrative and Ethic, Methodology, and Democracy.
A philosophy from Bruner’s book that has stayed with me is the idea that human imagination “undergirds human science, literature, and philosophy, as well as everyday thinking and even our sense of self.” This belief supports the notion of multiple epistemologies, the dynamic and multifaceted nature of meaning, and the idea that reality is a construct and, as such, must be studied with approaches that are as multifaceted as the humans who use them. The areas where Paul’s chapters intersect with Bruner’s philosophies provide a guiding light when it comes to developing my own hybridized research framework, a nascent process that is in need of an armature upon which I can one day build.
The multiple "perspectives" that are offered in this chapter seem paralyzing as a set of responsibilities for a classroom educator. I'm taking a lot of theory and philosophy this semester, and one of the things I'm focused on keeping in mind is that ultimately, it has to do something to improve social conditions. In many instances, particularly critical theory and post-structuralism, said methodology, excuse me, perspective, is actually about better explaining social conditions in order to deepen understanding and further the educational mission. I just think it's important to note that there are several steps, at least, between these short articles and classroom application.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of relating this work to something I learned elsewhere, one of the most meaningful experiences of my past year was watching the comedian Hannah Gadsby's show Nanette, which is available on Netflix. It starts as a comic routine with an LGBTQ bent, but quickly evolves into an amazingly powerful discussion of I would say postpositivism in comedy intersecting with a gendered epistemology that was then applied to art history and a discussion of why Picasso is a terrible artist to revere and why dismissing Van Gogh's mental health as part of the historical discussion of his paintings is also bad through a lens of constructivism, maybe even with some of Dewey's pragmatism as well. Gadsby's performance shows how to layer the various perspectives introduced here into a way that is truly meaningful and paradigm-breaking. Now I think the responsibility for educators is to find the same way to apply meaningful pedagogies to our own work. - CM
I absolutely agree with Kendra and Matt about the reading this week. Although I enjoyed thinking about the different perspectives in Chapter 4, I found myself flipping back to the Chapter 3 Introductory Matter and the Advanced Organizer to help clarify my understanding of much of the information. I’ve always thought myself to be a constructivist but found myself wondering if that perspective was the best fit. After reading and considering each carefully, I think it is.
ReplyDeleteThis week I was working with a pre-service Math Coach on her Externship Project for her VCU Leadership class. We were revising her literature review and I stumbled across an article in The Arithmetic Teacher, an NCTM publication, entitled, "Constructivist Learning and Teaching” by Douglas Clements and Michael T. Battista. Reading the article and thinking about constructivism in the context of math education seemed to help give this week’s reading assignment meaning as I tried to put the theoretical ideas into “practice.” In their article, Clements and Battista suggest that most traditional mathematics instruction is based on the view that students passively “absorb” mathematical structures invented by others. Teaching then consists of transmitting sets of established facts, skills, and concepts to students. Constructivism and constructivist pedagogy offer a sharp contrast to these long-established customs. In constructivist teaching and learning knowledge is actively created or invented by the learner. Students build knowledge by reflecting on their thinking about big mathematical ideas. They explore these ideas by manipulating concrete objects or in other ways enacting situations. As their understanding becomes more sophisticated they represent these constructions and begin to consider them abstractly. Learning mathematics can thus be thought of as adapting and organizing one's world in quantitative terms. The authors also suggest that constructivist teaching and learning should be a social process where ideas are shared and developed collaboratively. The constructivist classroom then involves not only discovery and invention but is replete with social discourse involving explanation, negotiation, sharing, and evaluation. The teacher is the facilitator of these conversations and encourages reasoning and sense-making.
After reading the article, I went back and reread Perspective 3: Constructivism as a Theoretical and Interpretive Stance by Yvonna S. Lincoln. I could see her ideas more clearly and found ways these ideas are enacted, in a practical way, in my classroom.
The Paul reading reminded me of the many interpretations that can come about when dealing with statistics. With most mathematics courses, one can assume there is a set solution for any specific problem given, with the exception of undefined and complex solutions which are still accepted answers at this point. This is scientifically based on centuries and/or decades of work with regard to these subjects. However, statistics and its interpretations seem to have a different set of rules. There are indeed problems with specific solutions based on statistical definitions. Yet, there are innumerable instances where students can come to several conclusions based on personal interpretations. In my non-statistics courses, grading is made easier due to there being a straightforward, right or wrong answer. Whereas, grading in statistics can take much more time and effort due to the many truths that can be extracted.
ReplyDeleteThe reading also made me reflect on today’s political climate. Many people believe that their own extreme way of thinking is the only possible truth and are not open to opposing and/or mediating views. Anything they see as contradictory to their beliefs is considered “fake news,” ignorant, and/or evil. Many beliefs that extremists hold are unwarranted. There are so many ways to find information today, but so many refuse to take the time to seek evidence in an attempt to gain more knowledge and actually solve problems. If inquiry is done, it seems to be done to either to support personal views and/or disprove opposing views instead of simply inquiring to find the “best truths available” based on past and present reality for the betterment of humanity.
Another thought that came to mind during the reading was how, as an educator, I am responsible for the material I put out. Students need to know that I am a reliable source for information. They need to know that I am a life-long learner who takes pride in my craft. I absolutely love mathematics because everything I teach or come across can, ultimately, be proven in some form. I have heard so many horror stories of teachers making a mistake (i.e. improper or incomplete instructions, informational errors while teaching, etc.) and not owning up to it. Quite a few will stand strong on the mistake and twist it to make it seem right. If I make a mistake or someone believes I have, I immediately own up to it and check. I stop, retrace my steps, and present proofs to show whether my stance is correct or incorrect. I refuse to force something onto an inquiring mind that could possibly be wrong when there is evidence available to prove otherwise. I also let students know that most problems can be solved via numerous methods. I make sure they understand that no one method is more correct than the other. I leave it up to them to choose the method that they are most comfortable using. I do not believe in “my way or the highway.” I tell them, “I don’t care how you get there. Just get there safely and intact.” “There” is representative of the correct solution while “safely and intact” means they should arrive at that solution using an appropriate method that accurately fits.
Nicole Peterson
ReplyDeleteLike many of you, I also found the article to be “heavy” and written in an unfamiliar style. I felt like I understood the words but lacked the experience to really put the concepts together in a way that made sense! I did however really appreciate the table that allowed us to compare and contrast the perspectives and I found the description of reality in pragmatism particularly interesting as the author wrote, “reality is warranted assertions and justified beliefs: these are held until we have evidence that can make them untrustworthy” (Paul, pg. 46). This reminded me of when as teachers, we are presented with a reading strategy or program or math curriculum or “new way” of teaching and expected to incorporate it into our routine. We trusted that our district, our principal or curricular specialist had the best interest of our students in mind when choosing this initiative. Always looking to improve our practice, teachers often put these initiatives into place without looking into the research base and with some sort of “guarantee” that they will be effective. In a similar way to how Paul describes it, we are looking for evidence that makes them untrustworthy!
Last semester I took an adult learning seminal readings course and loved reading the progression through the last century of our understanding of adult learning. It was fascinating for me because it was outside my track and personal experience. While reading Paul’s collection of nine philosophies of educational research this week, I found myself wishing I had carried the names of these perspectives with me into the readings last semester. It would have been helpful in my own understanding and critique of the theories as each researcher differed and overlapped with the others. I wonder now if much of their differences did not come from their differences in ontology, epistemology, methodology, or values. The chart showing the differences and overlap is especially helpful for helping to see where these authors fit in and how they relate to one another. Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed came to mind several times as I read the section on Critical Theory. His call to action for educators and researchers to question power and ideology as well has his acknowledgment that social life exists within power and ideology seemed to fit this lens. He believed in researching and exposing oppression in order to change it. A piece that I found most salient in his writing was that the research should be done WITH the oppressed and that ownership should be with the oppressed, not the researcher. Carspecken's quote on page 77 ("critical researchers must explicitly consider how their own acts of studying and representing people and situations are acts of domination even as crucial researchers reveal the same in what they study") seems to speak to Freire's same assertion, however, not as strongly worded as Freire. I appreciated Freire’s warning against “cultural invasion” and a call to a “co-intentional relationship.” Education, and therefore research in education, should be initiated and understood by the learner. I saw some of these same themes reflected in the section of Paul’s chapter on “Ethics, Methdology, and Democracy.” The ideas of dialogical approach, where the people being studied are valued and seen as a part of the process of learning seems to fit in line with Freire also.
ReplyDeleteAnother researcher we read last semester was Carl Roger’s Freedom to Learn. I found myself questioning if he fit into the Constructivism theoretical and interpretive stance as I read this chapter. Rogers sees the human as the center of educational endeavors, capable, curious, and naturally inclined to learn. Does this fit in with the constructivism framework? I thought so at first because Lincoln writes on page 60 that it is “an interpretive stance which attends to the meaning-making activities of active agents and cognizing human beings.” However, Rogers’ book was focused on a systemic problem in the schools and told through individual teachers’ experiences wehre there were times teachers needed to expose students to a particular set of content. I wonder if there is a difference in a humanist lens separate from constructivism?
Paul's work seems overwhelming, but self-enlightening. It did not remind me of anything in particular, but it did allow me to process new concepts. I was reflective of my own perspectives while reading and tried to understand the other principles of perspectives listed. It lead to me to think that research or teaching is difficult to separate from perspective. In practice, I don't think I ever consider what type of perspective I use when teaching or conducting research. I think the overwhelming part about perspective is the fact there are so many it is hard to think about in practice, but is important.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many that this reading was a bit heavy and challenging to read, and it helped to have the visual of Table 3-1. While I have heard of these perspectives, this reading allowed me to look more in-depth at them and reflect upon my own perspectives. When reading, I related most to the perspective on race, ethnicity, and gender. It is a perspective that continues to determine an individual’s identity. Since I work with students with disabilities that come from various backgrounds, I see students around me trying to determine which group or subgroups they belong too. Additionally, I see the influence of culture and history that guide them to self-identification. With that being said, I, also, see the parents influence on their child’s recognition of his or her identity. Society and culture are constantly changing in the world of education. It is important to look at how gender, ethnicity, and race influence education and educational research.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the Paul reading was interesting. I think it gave me a good introduction to and understanding of the more common perspectives in research. But, it was somewhat heavy to take all of this information in and think about what perspectives apply to kind of work that I want to do. This reading makes me think about the independent study course on Black feminism that I'm taking this semester. Through the different readings (by Patricia Hill Collins, Alice Walker, Kimberle Crenshaw, Lynn Weber, and more), I'm starting to see and learn how this particular theoretical perspective is broken down philosophically. Seeing what it values and how that relates to ontology, epistemology, and methodology is helpful in terms of me understanding the theory better. In terms of ontology, it is argued that reality is constructed, and it is often constrained by the dominant, Eurocentric, masculinist viewpoint. But with Black feminism (or womanism), in education, for example, it sees realities as polyrhythmic where people and actions move in multiple directions at once. These realities don't follow a linear model. With epistemology, it recognizes the dialectical relationship of Black women's oppression and activism as well as their unique perspectives as being both Black and women. Due to this, it advocates for connectedness through dialogue because that is a way that Black women share their knowledge. And in methodology, for example, in education, Black feminism attempts to make both teachers and learners active participants in the classroom where each person feels empowered to share their voices, experiences, and differences.
ReplyDeleteLike many of my classmates, I had a difficult time working through the Paul reading. I found myself becoming defensive. I felt like when I was teaching that I did have the mind of a researcher, using EBP in my classroom. I can say that many times I failed to implement them correctly, but that's part of learning. As a special educator, a huge part of my job was collecting data to support IEP decisions. I believe I did have a research mind set. In fact, I often became frustrated when I felt my data based decisions weren't being supported by administration/other educators. Maybe I have a behavioralist-ish approach to writing IEP's?
ReplyDelete