Note something from this article
with which you disagree (note: I assume that reading this paper was a different
experience for those with P-12 experience and those without. That said, he made a sufficient number of
bold claims so I’m sure everyone can disagree with something he said). Why do
you disagree with it? Did Labaree give
words to any tensions that you feel as you head down the road of the
educational researcher?
In general, I found myself wavering while I read to either completely agree or completely disagree with the author’s statements- no surprise there since I assume that it was chosen to spark discussion! The tension between a “teacher” and a “researcher” reminds me of a guiding ethos that I gained during my undergrad as an elementary education major: the way to become a great teacher is to never stop being a student. As I racked up years of teaching experience, I came to understand that the opposite was also true: students who are given the opportunities to be teachers are able to develop specific habits of thinking and knowledge acquisition that have unmeasurable benefits. As a first year doc student, I would argue that maintaining the qualities of both teacher and researcher would be a characteristic to aspire to, but I guess not!
ReplyDeleteIncluded in the list of things that I agree with Labaree would be the way in which experienced teachers come to Ph.D. programs with- a set problems that we want to solve, gripes with the way things are currently done, and were pissed. Further, I agree with the level of passion, dedication, and sense of urgency that the author includes in his argument. I appreciate how he outlines this point as he writes, “All of this may seem to these students like so much intellectual fiddling while the classroom burns. Posed with a situation in which two children are fighting in the back of the classroom, the scholar wants to ponder the social, psychological, economic, and pedagogical reasons for this conflict, while the teacher wants to separate the combatants.”
So here’s where I disagree….sort of. I struggle with how far Labaree suggests that us teachers push aside the very experiences that have driven us to take it one step further than our teacher colleagues. This can best be seen as he writes, “They need to be persuaded to retire teaching experience as a trump card and use it instead as one possible perspective, to explore the possibility that theory can be as useful as experience and that the practice of theory building can be as important as the practice of teaching.” I certainly don’t completely disagree- I think that just like there is value to teachers who are students and students who are teachers, there is value in researchers remaining teachers. More to this point, I don’t think I would currently be pursuing this program if it didn’t provide the opportunity to keep one foot in the schools and one foot in academia.
Another gripe I have is in the statement, “teachers see things normatively and researchers see things analytically.” Maybe because I was most recently a special educator or because I have always taught reluctant learners, but I would argue that myself and every great teacher I know was more of an analytical problem solver than a normative thinker. Sure, you design a lesson, a unit, and a classroom
management strategy from the universal level, but nothing works for all and we expect that. We utilize analytical thinking to consider academic, social/emotional, and cultural barriers to engagement. It’s a constant functional behavior analysis on repeat in our minds to get our students in and to keep them there.
I am open however; to explore what it means to balance my past experience with current initiatives! It will take a great deal of fortitude; teachers are stubborn (but that’s what makes us great).
I am former early childhood teacher who studied education during my collegiate career. My program was a unique part of my experience in that it was teacher preparation program with a specific focus on community and parent engagement. We parallel the learning of our craft with solving larger issues within the community that directly impacted families. We would explore education policy and think about on-the-ground solutions. This in many ways looked like hosting and executing additional projects that would benefit families in our community. This experience really set the foundation for how I approach my work as an educator and even more now, how to practice as a researcher.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Labaree’s notion that there is a tension between the teacher and the researcher. I find it difficult sometimes to separate the learned behaviors and in times, find it really necessary to understand how they complicate each other. For example, my approach to solving case by case problems as a teachers is scaled when thinking about how research thinks about the larger generalizability of theory or practices. Learning to be an observer and less of a participant takes practice. It forces me to think about issues on political or national scale and being able find evidence through critical research questions and analysis in order to justify interventions. I am challenged by a point Labaree makes about the need to “make a persuasive case for the value of analysis” (p.19) in order to convince teachers. I don’t necessarily agree with that notion. I think teachers understand the value of research and analysis however their level of comfort with the practices varies because of their experienced. I think both approaches are valid and professors should find more innovative ways to create spaces for both experiences. Labaree recommends a hybrid program that merges theory and practice as a solution to bridge the gap between teachers and researchers. I was thinking about an immediate example and considered the construction of EDD programs in response to finding ways to create programs the connect teacher experience and practice to research. I am not confident that EDD programs provide the complete solution but they are a step in the right direction. There are opinions about these programs from other researchers in the academy and I think that will inform the success and reputation of those programs in the future.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe tone of the first few pages of Labaree’s article had me wondering if it ought not be retitled, “The Peculiar Problem of Professor Labaree’s Hierarchical Hang-ups”, fixated as it was on a public perception of schools of education as “lowly”, “lesser”, “tainted”, “low status”, “lacking respect”, and without “prestige”, to list a few of the descriptors Labaree leveled. He didn’t do much to explain how these perceptions would realistically affect education faculty beyond intimating that professors new to their roles in the university might find it harder to assume authority with their students. (I can see how unfortunate perceptions of schools of education might impact funding for researchers and their departments, a more relevant direction which Labaree did not persue.) Thankfully, Labaree mostly abandoned his focus on how Schools of Ed are perceived in order to hone in on two areas of interest: the unique and complex nature of research in the field of education and the transition for post-teacher doctoral students from a practice-based to theory-based/practice-informed orientation.
ReplyDeleteI found Labaree’s attention to the complexities of knowledge formation in the field of education interesting, and agree with the idea that education can be best understood by using a variety of research methodologies. I agree that educational researchers (really, all researchers) ought to understand the limitations of the research methods they apply, and that most topics of study in education would benefit from a multi-valent research approach. A realistic option for approaching research questions from multiple perspectives would be for educational researchers to collaborate, rather than expecting each research to be “equally expert in multiple research methodologies” as Labaree argues. (p. 15) I believe a collaborative approach would be the most effective method for weaving a research net that can capture the most information, from descriptive details to causal relationships.
Labaree describes the third “peculiar problem” for students in educational doctoral programs as the challenge in shifting a professional worldview. A majority of doctoral students in education were classroom teachers first. Labaree elucidates the many ways that prior teaching practice influences doctoral students’ ability and readiness to become researchers. Labaree rightfully addresses the goals that all professors of education doc students should consider: how to help students transition from classroom practitioners to educational researchers; and how this transition can be accomplished in a way that values and capitalizes on the experience of these former teachers while also preparing them for a broader, more theoretical perspective. While I understand the points he is making, I take issue with the general profile Labaree paints of an inflexible, un-malleable doctoral student and wonder what kind of data he collected to inform this belief.
Regardless of Labaree’s “peculiar” preoccupation with prestige and his (to my mind) overly simplified conception of the difficulty graduate students face moving from classroom teacher to educational researcher, overall I think this paper proposes interesting arguments regarding educational research and the professional integration post-teacher doctoral students must work toward if they are to maximize the impact they can have on the field.
During my initial reading of Labaree's article, there were salient moments of validation and agreement. Most illustrative of those feelings were the points in which Labaree suggested practical methods for narrowing the cultural divide between practitioner and researcher. Since beginning my doc program, I have experienced very intense moments of impostor syndrome-- this feeling is not because I question my intellectual abilities but more so questioning how am I going to get everything done, ideally, within four years. I think greater focus on the technical aspects of being a researcher would be helpful, probably in any doctoral program of any discipline. I think once someone becomes an expert, it becomes easy to gloss over the gritty pieces of the process of becoming. I also think a great focus on marrying theory with practice and using both as a bank of opportunity would prove beneficial.
ReplyDeleteIt's grossly unfortunate that those points did not come until the end of Labaree's article because I spent the majority of my time reading feeling triggered by some of the claims Labaree made.
One of the major themes I identified in this work was the idea that Pk-12 teachers are resistant to change and research-based practices, which later impacts their abilities to develop as researchers. Labaree dedicated a large portion of the article to discussing the affective tension practitioners experience when asked to lean into research. If I may take tremendous liberties and speak for all teachers who are still in some way connected to the classroom, it is not a resistance to research or a feeling of detachment that poses the problem. It is the fact that people outside of education, like Labaree- a sociologist who, from his CV does not seem to have ever stepped foot in an Pk-12 classroom, make bold assumptions and recommendations about what education should be/ look like. Teachers build their careers on explaining the "why" behind phenomenon and hoping to uncover the secrets of the universe, all of which require a certain inclination to research, topical as it may be. Labaree also pointed out what he felt to be shortcomings of being a self-contained classroom teacher. He suggested that the perspectives of teachers may be limited and not generalizable beyond their specific class/ school site. I've never carried out a case study at any point in my professional or academic life but, from my understanding, case studies-- which are a type of research-- focus on specific populations and sites. Many teachers, albeit probably unknowingly, carry out case studies and apply theories in research everyday.
Another point Labaree made, that I found particularly contentious, was when he called teachers "neophytes in the business of theorizing about education." Granted his article was published in 2003-- just prior to the push for data-driven instruction-- but in present day, I think his opinion has very little merit. The push for data-informed instruction has led to many teachers diving deeply with students data, both academically and behaviorally, and attempting to make sense of it. In this way the data depicts students numerically, which severs a lot of the emotion in teaching. Additionally, the adoption of frameworks such as PBIS ask teachers and school officials to theorize and test hypotheses rooted in various student domains.
As a current classroom teacher, I can admit that it has been an adjustment to being both a student and researcher again. I don't think any of my difficulties are for reasons other than trying to balance all of the responsibilities of being an adult. I understand some of the points Labaree tried to make in his article but, I think his work attempted to expand a dichotomous relationship that is largely based on nothing more than time management and the obligations of life.
I was somewhat taken aback by the fact that American “education schools” were labeled as having a “lowly status.” After reflecting on what was being stated, I started to understand the reason behind the remarks based on previously observed reactions to “education majors” from people with various professional backgrounds. I do not believe that schools of education truly deserve the label, but I do agree that the label exists due to prejudices and inappropriate generalizations from those in other fields.
ReplyDeleteThe first statement made in Labaree’s article with which I disagree is actually a citation he made: “The work of public school teachers is highly visible and the subjects they teach appear elementary, in comparison to the obscured work settings and arcane expertise of the higher professions (Fenstermacher, 1990).” I disagree mostly with the latter part since the work of public school teachers is definitely a high focus in society. I simply do not believe that the subjects they teach are viewed as elementary even in comparison to “higher professions.” I hear many parents, from numerous professions, stating that they cannot or do not have the time to figure out how to help with their own children’s or younger family member’s school/home work. Many have to seek the aid of tutors. We must remember that grade school teachers (public and private) are the people who give the foundational background to help those who later reach the “higher professions.” Many must also realize that teachers take on immeasurable roles and their job is far from the easiest of occupations.
Another statement that I disagree with is, “The quantitative researcher’s press for clarity can come at the expense of accuracy” (Labaree, 14). I am unsure how Labaree came to that conclusion. To my understanding, representing acts with numerical labels does not take away from true meaning. I believe that the action of quantifying is extremely helpful in pulling out statistical information, which gives greater meaning to future outcomes. One simply must make every effort to clearly identify labels, being sure that they are being categorized appropriately, and give detail on possible differences that can occur based on those labels.
I also disagree with the assertion that, “The object of a particular foray into research, as a piece of scholarship, is not to fix a problem of educational practice but to understand more fully the nature of this problem” (Labaree, 17). I understand why the claim was made to an extent, but I do not fully agree. I believe that both teachers and researchers can work together for the common good. Practice and analytics with regard to teaching and learning are not in opposition of one another. One is meant to aid the other. As implied by Labaree in other points, teachers often analyze situations as they practice within the profession. They may not have time to do longitudinal studies before applying ideas. However, those who care most definitely take the time to note what works and what does not work. I would call these observations “experiential longitudinal studies” which are embedded in the teacher’s mind instead of on paper. In addition, many teachers converse with colleagues and read literature for well-established and valid ideas. I also believe that many researchers go into studies hoping to come up with a solution to problems as well. They would like to get a deeper understanding of the nature of a problem, but the intent is to move in the direction of a resolution versus simply explaining an issue. These resolutions in turn aid teachers in fixing problems in practice. Nevertheless, it is also clear that the teacher in practice wants to understand the nature of problems that arise. Over time, reoccurrences of particular problems also allow teachers to get an understanding of various properties that frame a problem.
I have to withdraw my disagreement with the statement, “The quantitative researcher’s press for clarity can come at the expense of accuracy” (Labaree, 14). After reflecting on the operationalizing of reciprocal friendships in a particular study I read for another class, I definitely understand what Labaree meant. At times, choosing a particular way to operationalize a variable can "leave much to be desired."
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete...continued.
ReplyDelete*Labaree did not give words to any tensions with regard to being an educational researcher. Most of his points only supported my reasons for continuing my journey as a teacher and hoping to join the ranks of official educational researchers.
Note something from this article with which you disagree (note: I assume that reading this paper was a different experience for those with P-12 experience and those without. That said, he made a sufficient number of bold claims so I’m sure everyone can disagree with something he said). Why do you disagree with it? Did Labaree give words to any tensions that you feel as you head down the road of the educational researcher?
ReplyDeleteI have entered into this world of obtaining my Ph.D. because I truly feel that I can make a difference in the educational system. As my role continues to change, I see my net of influences broadening. My hope is that through research, relationships, and experiences I will be able to better influence the educational system by making informed and credible decisions, ultimately impacting the teaching and learning experience for the better.
In the article it is states, “I argue that the shift from K-12 teaching to educational research often asks students to transform their cultural orientation from normative to analytical, from personal to intellectual, from the particular to the universal, and from experimental to the theoretical” (Labaree, 2003, p. 16). I disagree with the sentiment of this statement. I believe that any great teacher must be able to think analytically, intellectually, and universally. Yes, at times, teachers are subjective, but that only makes them better researchers. Teachers are able to see the counter and exception. Questioning research is a necessary trait that researchers must have. If you quickly agree with the research or choose a hypothesis that you already know the answer to, the research is not advancing the current knowledge.
Labaree (2003) goes on to say, “Teachers spend a lot of time examining their experience to find out what works and what doesn’t, and many can deploy their tested instructional technique in a dazzling display of expertise. But the moral factor is still at the heart of the enterprise.” Although experience is helpful, it is not just experience that teachers use. Great teachers use data to help steer their instructional practices. For example, PLCs is a common platform where you can find educators analyzing data to determine the learner centered problem verse the problem of practice. If teachers just relied on experience they would constantly be playing catch up and acting in a reactionary manner as opposed to a proactive manner. Teachers often use pre-tests to help gather data and make the appropriate adjustments to their instruction.
Labaree hits on a common challenge for many teachers- to educate a child simply because it is what’s done and not what the child wants. Successful teachers must educate students by establishing what their goals are and using education to get there. I feel as though great teachers are able to illuminate the goals of students and use them to better educate those students. I do not believe that educators set out to change people as opposed to serving them. I think that educators help students discover what it is that they would like to do and explore possibilities that they otherwise may not have thought of.
While reading this article, I did not care for Labaree's description of schools of education as low status institutions. While I agree that education schools might not receive the same respect as schools of other fields, I do not think that it completely fails to instill the values of being an educational researcher on doctoral students. I believe that a strength of education schools is that is an opportune space to combine the knowledge of practitioners and researchers. And while one goal may be to move these practitioners to becoming researchers, these identities should not be mutually exclusive. With the description of education as soft and highly applied, I think that is what makes the work being done important and relevant in the contexts that it would be utilized. Education is a very expansive field and I think the variety of research topics and methods reflects this complexity. Thus, maybe the aim of education is to continue asking questions rather than seeking the right answers. Also, despite the "legacy of easy access and low standards," I believe that some amazing and rewarding work is being done in education. And while it gains "recruits" from disadvantaged groups, I think this is a strength rather than a weakness as it implies more diversity of perspectives in the field. Labaree did not give any words to tensions that I feel about becoming an educational researcher. Where he sees conflicts, tensions, and problems, I see possibilities. When he discusses what makes the transition from teacher to researcher hard, I think the issue I had with his argument is that it seems like you have to move from one frame of thinking to the other (a dichotomy). Maybe the aim should be to ground doctoral students in both spaces (recognition of normative thinking & building skills in analytical thinking; evaluating personal practice & learning intellectual practice; starting from the particular & widening the scope to the universal; and acknowledging experience & learning to apply theory). It shouldn't be either/or, but both/and.
ReplyDeleteAfter reflecting on Labaree’s article, my experiences as a teacher, and my time taking and earning education degrees, I am having a hard time finding something I disagree with in the article. This concerns me. I think Labaree paints a dismal picture of educational research and the teaching profession. The challenges that come with conducting effective, unbiased, and repeatable research in education and all of the social sciences are many. One of the biggests challenges for educational researchers (especially those who were once practicing teachers) is what Labaree points out on page 19. That is - teaching is deeply personal and so to is the research conducted in the field. I myself take my work very personally. I am proud of that; however, it is something that I know I am going to struggle with while working on my PhD. I am not transitioning from practitioner to researcher. Instead, I am doing both simultaneously. Despite the struggle with keeping the two separate, I would argue that in some regards that my continued practical experiences may aid me in making informed research decisions that might directly impact the classroom.
ReplyDeleteI’d also like to comment on Labaree’s labeling of education schools as “lowly” in status. Despite efforts to raise the status of teachers in our country, most have failed. I see education schools as part of the problem; however, I would also say that state boards of education and local governments share much of the responsibility as well. In the end, it is those education schools that are operating within the parameters set by these groups. Part of the issue with the teaching profession is that, sadly, far too many folks enter it underqualified and without sufficient training. I’ve had enough experience and professional interactions at this point in my career to see that there are far too many individuals in classrooms that should not be. Unfortunately, they bring the profession down. While there are plenty of individuals who are amply qualified and exceptional educators, there are just as many that should never have been given a key to a classroom. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that state boards of education and education schools have set low standards to enter the profession. They have created coursework that is not sufficiently challenging. Much like we are able to “push students across the stage” to graduate so that our accountability measures (graduation rates) are met, so to do education schools. They are in the business of producing teachers. These graduates are underprepared for the challenges they will face in today's 21st century classrooms. These individuals get through their education curriculum, pass very simple qualifying exams, and enter a public schools system with little struggle. Even the worst of the worst can remain in place for a lengthy 25+ year career. While teacher pay may be to blame for this, no one can argue that the job stability of a teacher coupled with a solid $45,000 annual salary with 3 months off is pretty attractive. In short, I would say that in order to bring teaching to the prestigious levels held by other professions requirements and qualifications for licensure need to be stiffened and pay needs to increase dramatically.
Now, I may sound like a total pessimist here, so please allow me to conclude by saying that I love teaching. I love public K-12 education and I believe in what I do. I’m in this PhD program because of issues that Labaree raised as well as for reasons that I have shared above. I’m skeptical about the likelihood of seeing education raised to the status of those practicing law or medicine, but I do believe we can try. In the end, if we go back to Labaree’s comments on how education is “personal” and we remember why we do what we do - that is, work for children - then in the end, we should all be able to sleep well at night. As future scholars and researchers in education, I believe we have a duty to elevate both the teaching profession and the quality of educational research.
My first thought after reading this article was that I don't really see the teacher and researcher as such a dichotomous pair as described in the article. Although most of my experience has been in higher education and not P-12 education, I feel like my training is grounded in research. I couldn't do what I do without the research that was done before me and, although, I guess I can't say that it's always intertwined with my daily work, it has guided some of my actions and values. It's hard for me to think of my doctoral program as solely intellectual, universal and theoretical. I would like to think that some of it will help me grow as a practitioner as well as in the research I pursue.
ReplyDeleteLabaree's view on training in the profession seemed to have a narrow focus in my opinion. Although I think generalizations and stereotypes see the training and profession as easy, I am not sure that is necessarily why people pursue a degree in education. I think some of the top research institutions around the United States put forth a lot of resources and time in ensuring that students are prepared for the field and for their career in teaching and not just the research that is done. To me, those statements just seemed like very broad generalizations about the profession. However, I would agree with him as he described the characteristics of an education doctoral student, mature, with professional experience under their belt, and passionate about the field.
I would also agree that we all have our work cut out for us in education because the research that is done is so vastly different from our peers in the hard sciences but we have to continue to justify our work. We can continue to display our passion and dedication to education through our research.
I thought Labaree’s article was a good read and I agree with many of the author’s assertions. I disagree with Labaree’s statement that since new teachers tend to be socially disadvantaged, women, and or working class that this contributes to the low social standing of teachers and teaching. I would argue that the inception of the poor perception of teachers is less of a result of who represents the field and more about the historical perception of education, who should be educated and who was deemed worthy of teaching. Historically, there was a belief that there was no need to educate women and certainly no need to educate Blacks. White males were the only ones deemed worthy of education.
ReplyDeleteI think my bigger issue with Labaree’s statement lies deeper than what he said, but rests with the meaning behind what he said. If he believes this statement to be true, then I think this speaks volumes about what he thinks about the socially disadvantaged, women, and the working class. He is basically saying that when you have a field made up of such “undesirables” how could you possibly be able to teach and educate and output anything of value. It seems that it is easier for Labaree to blame the position of a profession on its “subject matter experts” than to address the root issue of why being socially disadvantage, a woman, or working class would equate to “low standards” in the first place.
While reading this article I could not help but think, “what if this article was published now? How different would it read?” It seemed to me that many of his claims regarding students resisting the pressures of becoming more analytical are outdated and not representative of the people I sit next to in class. He goes on and on about the transition teachers must go through to become an observer and not the doer in a classroom. Labaree states, “They frequently hang back from embracing the intellectual skills that they need in order to become educational scholars”. The way he writes it, it seems as if students were throwing stones at him while teaching them about the importance of data and research. I think, that in 2019, most people in PhD programs understand the value and power of data and sound data collection methods. In addition, I think most people want to learn how they can use data to improve curriculum and classroom dynamics, among many other topics. In all honesty, I believe that if people did not see the value in using data to inform practices than they would not apply to a doctoral program. Related to this concept, he writes, “This means convincing their teacher-students that, instead of feeling guilty about playing researcher, they should enjoy the luxury of being the observer for once rather than the person in charge and use it to develop a richer understanding of the problems of teaching practice”. I thought this statement was completely condescending of teachers in a doctoral program. When I saw the words, “they should enjoy the luxury” I just knew I was not going to like his statement.
ReplyDeleteLabaree reviews what he is asking K-12 teachers to do when they become students of a doctoral program and mentions that the “cultural orientation” must shift from personal to intellectual. When I read this I paused because I really could not believe that he was implying teachers do not use intellectual skills in their classroom. If a problem between students arose in their classroom, would a teacher not employ intellectual skill to resolve the situation? Would they not see the problem and think critically about the best way to resolve the issue? Based on his statement, it sound like teachers would just hug the problem away. This statement, along with many others were laughable to me.
Laberee points out that teachers enrolled in education doctoral programs bring a lot of experience and knowledge to their programs. He indicates that this breadth in knowledge means that students do not want to be taught about what they already know and that they want to examine issues that they have experienced in their professions. I think both of these statements are very true but it made me wonder about the students like me, with not education background or experience that do not know the ins and outs of a classroom or the educational system except for what they have experienced personally. These “non-education” students might fall through the cracks if not provided ample opportunities to learn about the education system more thoroughly through the viewpoint of an educator. Also, if faculty among schools or programs of education assume that all students are there to learn about best practices for the K-12 system they will marginalize the adult theory students.
I took issue with the fact that his entire article focused on educational doctoral students wanting to learn how to make education better for children. What about the students, who like myself, want to learn best practices or gain insight about adult education and theory? I feel those focused on adult learning are typically left out of assessments like Labaree’s.
In his conclusions about how far teachers and researchers should go in adopting the perspectives of the other, Labaree (2003) quotes Metz and Page (2002) saying about teaching, “the job is to teach the required curriculum to the assigned students at an appropriate level of effectiveness and this leaves no time for carrying out research” (p. 18). I disagree and do feel some tension NOW as I head down the road as an educational researcher.
ReplyDeleteI began conducting research this semester with a colleague in the Mathematics and Applied Mathematics Department on undergraduate instructors who are reforming the way that they teach mathematics. As part of that project, I will be recording video observations of my class and collecting examples of student work on in-class activities and assessments. The primary purpose of this research is to capture narrative case studies of what reformed teaching looks like at the undergraduate level. I feel these case studies are important because teachers need to not only see what reformed teaching could look like, but also learn from their peers who are attempting to teach in these new ways. I look to the author’s mention of an “emerging genre in the field of education scholarship, which seeks to promote a more analytical approach to education among teachers” (p.18), that is teacher research and action research.
To prepare for our research project, my colleague and I studied the work of two educational researchers, Deborah Schifter and Virginia Bastable from Mount Holyoke College. We replicated work done in their Mathematics Process Writing Project that involved reading mathematics education research and responding to it via weekly writing prompts. The project at Mount Holyoke was highly successful and spawned numerous publications. In one such publication, What’s happening in math class? Reconstructing professional identities
Volume 2 (Schifter, 1995), Stephen Lerman writes “there is no distinct line between what constitutes research and what does not, and criteria used to make such judgments are those of the academic community. In recent years in education, there has been a shift away from the view that research is what is carried out by people in universities with access to funds and knowledge about research that can be acquired only by joining their group. Research is about knowledge production.” He concludes that “teachers, rather than university-based researchers, are best placed to incorporate into such research the richness of the complex, sociocultural setting of the school classroom” (p. 130). I think it is important that we, as the author states, participate in research and put the research “into the public arena through writing and disseminating that writing, because it is an essential aspect of knowledge production” (p. 131). The whole mathematics education community benefits by sharing teachers’ learning through research in the classroom.
A theme that I noticed in this article is that doctoral students and researchers in education have a need to "fix the problems" that are in education. I do believe that there are issues and current practices that need change within the field of education but that is not the only driving force for educational researchers. Like medical and technological advancements occuring in the world, educators also are developing best practices that go hand in hand with medicine and technology.
ReplyDeleteI work with students with severe disabilities and I have noticed that medicine evolves and medical researchers are identifying new etiologies, special education researchers need to develop new evidence based practices that are required to provide these students with the best possible education. Technology also is continuously evolving and creating new devices, programing, etc. that educational researchers need to look further into and see if this new technology can benefit students of all ages.
As I read Labaree's article, I felt that he was making educators appear to be Joan of Arcs who are willing to burn at the stake for the injustices that occur in the field of education.Although there are injustices that need attention, I feel that that is not the only thing that drives educational researchers.
Labaree, especially in the first part of the reading, made many points with which I disagree. A point which I found particularly maddening was his frequent claim(s) of the low status of education schools in general.
ReplyDeleteHe points out “In addition, teaching, more than other professions, draws recruits from groups that are traditionally disadvantaged socially, women and the working class. This link to the disadvantaged further undermines the social standing of both teaching and the education school in comparison with the higher professions and professional schools, which historically drew on middle-class male recruits and continue to enjoy the lingering status benefit of their association with this privileged group” (13).
While I don’t doubt that statistically, education school recruits are more representative of “traditionally disadvantaged” groups, I’m inclined to view that heterogeneity as a long-term advantage. In general, I believe that the more heterogeneous a student/teacher/or researcher body is, the more effective they will be representing and meeting the needs of the country’s population.
One particular point with which I agreed, and which also gave words to some of the tensions I have felt as a future educational researcher, was the idea that educational researchers “should, however, be aware of the limitations of their own approach and the value of alternative approaches, and they should be capable of working in conjunction with researchers doing work quite different form their own” (15). I viewed this as valuable, if not commonsensical, advice for performing educational research, or really any job. From this, I’m reminded of the value of recognizing your own shortcomings or biases, whether it be as a student, teacher, and/or researcher, and being eager to combine forces with others in your field in order to arrive at the best, most holistic understanding of a particular issue.
As the article went on, although I don’t personally see the degree of polarization between teaching and researching that Labaree does, I was able to at least see more of his point. I found his example of a fight breaking out in the classroom (18) to be a more salient illustration of the differences he sees between “scholars” and “teachers.”
In my experience, the secondary classroom landscape is vast and variable, changing from day to day and even moment to moment. This highly variable experience, at least on the surface, stands in stark contrast to the more controlled, sterile mental picture I have of traditional research. Toward the end of the article, Labaree argues that presenting only neatly packaged research is a disservice to doctoral students, and he encourages professors to help to bridge the divide by presenting “the real process they followed from beginning to end, in all its complexity and incoherence,” (21). This was a point of commonality from my perspective, because I believe that both teachers and educational researchers can relate to the somewhat unpredictable nature of classroom occurrences, and that this point of commonality might be a worthy place to begin bridging the perceived “cultural divide.”
Reading this article felt a bit like walking through a hall of distorted mirrors at a carnival. Last week I heavily identified with Golde’s tension “between the practice of education and research in education” (p. 247); This week I felt defensive as if I was ready to deny I’d even felt such a tension. In questioning my change in affect while reading something that seemingly stated similar themes, I decided it was the polarity through which Labaree writes. He seems to be painting a black and white picture of teachers and researchers, whereas in reality most are gray and different for each individual and circumstance. From the very beginning in the abstract [“Students may feel they are being asked to transform their cultural orientation from normative to analytical, from personal to intellectual, from particular to universal, and from experiential to theoretical. They often resist” (p. 13)], I disagreed that this was the type of tension I have felt for the past six months. It’s the word transform that makes this so disheartening. I do not feel that any professors, work, assignments, or feedback have asked me to transform. I do think that a “sizeable cultural gap” (p. 13) exists between teaching and research, but I think they are not mutually exclusive as he seems to think. For example, as a teacher I was called to be analytical quite frequently when looking at my school’s reading or SOL data and helping to create a plan for the following school year. On the flip side, I have heard my professors here be quite personal even when conducting research; they don’t choose research topics or teach on topics that have no personal relevance to them. Their final manuscript may be void of their personal connection, but the process contains room for putting the intellectual aside and acknowledging that that they have individual thoughts.
ReplyDeleteHe continues to write of students and researchers as opposites without acknowledging that many of the researchers themselves used to be teachers. At the end of the day both have a commitment to improving education in some way. I was quite aware that I had taken off my “teacher hat” as I packed up boxes and stopped receiving my paycheck; however, I feel that I have come to a place with the intent of learning a new skill and have met professors who want to improve education. I don’t feel that I needed to be convinced “that there is something valuable they can learn about education by examining it as an outsider, as a researcher” (p. 21) because that is what I came to VCU to do. It doesn’t mean that the experience of thinking this way is not new or different or sometimes uncomfortable for me. I have had to begin learning a new skillset, and that is sometimes difficult! In addition, I’ve had a culture shock of the differences in expectations and schedules. It's a cultural gap in that research is on a loop - submit, feedback, revise, revise, revise. Teaching students has a clear beginning, middle and end for each class, day, unit, nine-weeks, year. The school culture of turning in assignments and studying on weekends is different than being a teacher.
One final thought about the timing of this article: On page 17 he writes “if teaching is a highly normative practice, which focuses on the effort to produce valued outcomes, then educational research is a distinctly more analytical practice, which focuses on the effort to produce valid explanations.” As this was written in 2003, the incoming doc students were a pre-No Child Left Behind group of former teachers. I wonder if this has changed at all in the past 15 years as teachers have been asked to be much more data driven.
After reading Labaree’s article, I found myself relating to a lot of what he wrote. I feel that most of the time, education is seen as an “transparently easy” (page 13) profession and lower on societies status ladder. Often, people tell me that it must be nice to have an 8-4 job where you get to hang out with kids and then go home and then have all these breaks. However, this is not true. I am constantly thinking about my students and what I need to do. I lesson plan at home come in on the weekends. It is far from being easy. Sometimes, I feel that when I talk to someone who is in a medical field or law field (friends and family) that my profession doctoral degree is inferior to theirs, but again, I think that comes from societies perception and history.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Labaree that one of the biggest challenges for educational researchers who are transitioning from a practitioner to a researcher is the personal experience. Through my years of research in education, professors have told me to be careful of own personal experiences and moral purposes. Personal experiences and moral purposes can often guide the way we want and argument to go, so it will be hard to see the other side. However, I disagree that doctoral students should stay way from arguments that encounter “theoretical and empirical literature” (pg. 20). I believe that I as educational researchers will use the data given to make an appropriate judgement. Yes, personal experience is important, but it is not the end all. I think through the doctoral process, it is important to learn about how to limit bias when conducting both qualitative and quantitative research.
Also, I disagree at the end of the article where Labaree states that “learning means changing into someone different” (21). I don’t think doctoral students are changing into someone different, but are growing and maturing. I believe as researchers, we continue to be dedicated to education but are taught how to effectively use the characteristics of an education doctoral student to become a better learner as well as a teacher.
Labaree says that doctoral students who do not come in from a teaching profession do not hold a normative experience of the classroom or a professional history that would necessarily contrast with the theoretical foundations of a research (Labaree, 2003, 16-17). What he fails to acknowledge is that those who pursue a doctorate in education can come from other education programs at the bachelors or masters level, meaning that they had some sort of experience, no matter how small, in student teaching, internships, or shadowing. Additionally, those students coming straight through have experience in the k-12 system that drove them to seek knowledge to better the system they experienced. To make the assumption that students who go straight through have just been, "good students," is a stretch in my mind (Labaree, 2003, 16).
ReplyDeleteLabaree ultimately makes the assumption researchers and teachers have differences which causes issues in the preparation of educational researchers. It is suggested that there is a research to practice gap and the two views are not effective together. I disagree with Labaree's position because both sides can learn from each other. Perspective is important in the learning environment. Both researchers and teachers can teach or learn from each other to fill the gaps for the needs of students.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Labaree’s article, I didn’t feel as offended as most. This isn’t to say I agree with everything being said, I see a lot of what he says in everyday life.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Labaree’s description of schools of education as low status institutions. Is that not how we are treated? I find that very congruent with people’s opinion of education today. We don’t fund schools; we don’t pay teachers a salary they can live off of. Teaching/Education are not respected fields overall. Sadly, when I decided I wanted to become a teacher both of my parents tried to talk me out of it. The argument was “but you’ll probably have to work a second job” and “even if you do move up into leadership, they aren’t paid or respected well either.” My parent’s/family friends did not say this because they believe that’s the way it should be, this is the reality of our world and something we should be very angry about. You can’t turn the TV on today without seeing something about a teacher strike. We need to change the perception of teachers by paying them a decent salary and using education leader’s opinions in national change. Otherwise, why should people want to become teachers? It has to be about more then moral obligation.
Another point he made that I loosely agreed with was the tension between researchers and teachers. I have already been told multiple times by professors to “take off the practitioner cap and put on the researcher cap.”
My lens for this problem is also skewed because a big part of my job as a special educator was to work with general educators to implement best practices for inclusion. I loved working with general education teachers to provide tips/strategies to meet students’ needs. This form of collaboration worked really well with some teachers but not as readily with others. Some educators have been working for years and have formed a routine that they feel does not need to be changed. However, what they are doing is not working for students with different learning styles. I occasionally encountered teachers that wouldn’t try even very simple techniques that required minimal change and very little effort. For example, an emerging practice is called “2 for 10” where the teachers meet with a student for 2 minutes of individual attention for 10 consecutive days. I worked in the high school setting so I usually suggested before the bell rings, if the student is early, or just before class is over while students pack up. Research supports that this practice can greatly effect the student/teacher relationship and as a result positively impact student engagement. I worked with a couple old school teachers and the students would tell me they just hated them or felt like the teacher didn’t like them, there was no student/teacher relationship. This would have been an easy approach to the problem, and yet I received a ton of pushback about giving it a chance. I wanted to scream “listen to the research” but I digress.