Compare Biesta’s vision of
democratic research to Ken Howe’s (in Paul)? From what you’ve learned thus far,
what sort of place do you see for this kind of work in the world of educational
research?
Allison on Biesta (2007) & Howe (2004): Both Biesta and Howe argue ER requires deliberation because it is value laden, moral/political/social/cultural/. Biesta suggests instead of ER focusing only on the simplistic EBP of "what works", ER should focus on what is "educationally desirable" through democratic debate. Howe suggests, "deliberative conception" is a type of democratic participant engagement to ensure accurate methodology. Howe further argues this approach is critical to eliminate and mitigate power imbalances in ER methodology-"a fiduciary responsibility" of the researcher (p. 82).
I like how Biesta talks about warranted assertions on page 16. He says, "research, in short, can tell us what worked but cannot tell us what works." I think this is an important fact for educational researchers, policy makers, and practitioners to remember as we (hopefully) have conversations about the goals of education and how to reach them. Practitioners need to look at what has worked and the context in which it has worked when determining the best approach for their particular students. There can be no one way that works in education because learning is context dependent.
Both authors seems to stress the hypothetical and symbolic nature of educational interactions. However, I believe Biesta takes a more pragmatic approach towards the democratic perspective compared to Howe. Howe focuses more on deliberation and ensuring everyone has a voice. While these concepts are important to Biesta, he spends more time discussing the contributions of Dewey and the practical nature of figuring out what "works" in education.
On p. 17 Biesta describes Dewey's practical epistemology... Towards the bottom of the paragraph, I appreciated the statement that "neither research nor professional action can or should focus on the most effective means to bring about predetermined ends." I agree it should be more systematic and extend to society at large. I think this speaks to the idea presented in the beginning of the manuscript in which Biesta discusses decreasing the gap between policy-- practice-- and research. With a goal to decrease this gap, Biesta says on p. 18 "education should be a constant topic for discussion and deliberation... and that the political climate in western countries has made it increasingly difficult to have a democratic discussion on the purpose of education." Therefore, as we move forward in ed research, similar to what Sam said- we need to have conversations about the goals of education & work together as a society to reach them.
An interesting point was made on page 4: "Still others have criticized the managerial agenda of evidence-based education and its linear, top-down approach to educational improvement". The note regarding how top down it is stuck with me. The irony of educational research, education, and instruction as a whole is that it's supposed to achieve an outcome regarding individuals - students - at the "bottom". While all these adults are running around making decisions on "what works" (ie. what gets higher grades) for the bottom, there is not much discussion about what the "bottom" thinks, what they imagine, or feel. Our educational system has already implemented a variety of supposedly educational research practices, and we've now reduced recess, canceled art, done away with PE, and created little individuals who can (sort of) read, (sort of) write, have a reduction in physical health, in mental creativity, and ever limiting social skills. So, if that is what educational research is aiming "to find and ultimately control all the factors that determine learning" (p. 8), it raises serious concerns about the outcome at the human level of all this scientific research.
Rachel: Biesta comments in the article about the nature of "evidenced based" research and the lack of practitioner input in making decisions based on the specific context of their classroom/school. Interestingly he discusses how "what works" needs to move beyond the what and into a more values based model considering the who is it working for and who gets to make these decisions. I think it is important in education research to include the input to the practitioner in decision making. The author continues to argue the "who" and not just the "what works" stating "what is appropriate for these children in these circumstances", but this could possibly be interpreted as "what evidence based practice will work here", so there is very much still an element of "what works". With the large number of evidence based interventions and practices available it is possible to choose the one that works "here". Biesta uses a pragmatic approach towards education frequently citing Dewey's theory and way of knowing. He questions who should have the power of deciding what works and who it works for.
Allison on Biesta (2007) & Howe (2004): Both Biesta and Howe argue ER requires deliberation because it is value laden, moral/political/social/cultural/. Biesta suggests instead of ER focusing only on the simplistic EBP of "what works", ER should focus on what is "educationally desirable" through democratic debate. Howe suggests, "deliberative conception" is a type of democratic participant engagement to ensure accurate methodology. Howe further argues this approach is critical to eliminate and mitigate power imbalances in ER methodology-"a fiduciary responsibility" of the researcher (p. 82).
ReplyDeleteI like how Biesta talks about warranted assertions on page 16. He says, "research, in short, can tell us what worked but cannot tell us what works." I think this is an important fact for educational researchers, policy makers, and practitioners to remember as we (hopefully) have conversations about the goals of education and how to reach them. Practitioners need to look at what has worked and the context in which it has worked when determining the best approach for their particular students. There can be no one way that works in education because learning is context dependent.
ReplyDeleteBoth authors seems to stress the hypothetical and symbolic nature of educational interactions. However, I believe Biesta takes a more pragmatic approach towards the democratic perspective compared to Howe. Howe focuses more on deliberation and ensuring everyone has a voice. While these concepts are important to Biesta, he spends more time discussing the contributions of Dewey and the practical nature of figuring out what "works" in education.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn p. 17 Biesta describes Dewey's practical epistemology... Towards the bottom of the paragraph, I appreciated the statement that "neither research nor professional action can or should focus on the most effective means to bring about predetermined ends." I agree it should be more systematic and extend to society at large. I think this speaks to the idea presented in the beginning of the manuscript in which Biesta discusses decreasing the gap between policy-- practice-- and research. With a goal to decrease this gap, Biesta says on p. 18 "education should be a constant topic for discussion and deliberation... and that the political climate in western countries has made it increasingly difficult to have a democratic discussion on the purpose of education." Therefore, as we move forward in ed research, similar to what Sam said- we need to have conversations about the goals of education & work together as a society to reach them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point was made on page 4: "Still others have criticized the managerial agenda of evidence-based education and its linear, top-down approach to educational improvement". The note regarding how top down it is stuck with me. The irony of educational research, education, and instruction as a whole is that it's supposed to achieve an outcome regarding individuals - students - at the "bottom". While all these adults are running around making decisions on "what works" (ie. what gets higher grades) for the bottom, there is not much discussion about what the "bottom" thinks, what they imagine, or feel. Our educational system has already implemented a variety of supposedly educational research practices, and we've now reduced recess, canceled art, done away with PE, and created little individuals who can (sort of) read, (sort of) write, have a reduction in physical health, in mental creativity, and ever limiting social skills. So, if that is what educational research is aiming "to find and ultimately control all the factors that determine learning" (p. 8), it raises serious concerns about the outcome at the human level of all this scientific research.
ReplyDeleteRachel: Biesta comments in the article about the nature of "evidenced based" research and the lack of practitioner input in making decisions based on the specific context of their classroom/school. Interestingly he discusses how "what works" needs to move beyond the what and into a more values based model considering the who is it working for and who gets to make these decisions. I think it is important in education research to include the input to the practitioner in decision making. The author continues to argue the "who" and not just the "what works" stating "what is appropriate for these children in these circumstances", but this could possibly be interpreted as "what evidence based practice will work here", so there is very much still an element of "what works". With the large number of evidence based interventions and practices available it is possible to choose the one that works "here". Biesta uses a pragmatic approach towards education frequently citing Dewey's theory and way of knowing. He questions who should have the power of deciding what works and who it works for.
ReplyDelete