Showing papers in "Educational Researcher in 1990"
TL;DR: The authors briefly survey forms of narrative inquiry in educational studies and outline certain criteria, methods, and writing forms, which they describe in terms of beginning the story, living the story and selecting stories to construct and reconstruct narrative plots.
Abstract: Although narrative inquiry has a long intellectual history both in and out of education, it is increasingly used in studies of educational experience. One theory in educational research holds that humans are storytelling organisms who, individually and socially, lead storied lives. Thus, the study of narrative is the study of the ways humans experience the world. This general concept is refined into the view that education and educational research is the construction and reconstruction of personal and social stories; learners, teachers, and researchers are storytellers and characters in their own and other's stories. In this paper we briefly survey forms of narrative inquiry in educational studies and outline certain criteria, methods, and writing forms, which we describe in terms of beginning the story, living the story, and selecting stories to construct and reconstruct narrative plots. Certain risks, dangers, and abuses possible in narrative studies are discussed. We conclude by describing a two-part r...
4,981 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the dominant explanation presented by researchers and policymakers: the lack of rationality in proposing and implementing planned change and explore alternative explanations for recurring reforms, a political and an institutional perspective harnessed together.
Abstract: Why do reforms return again and again? To illustrate that the question is valid, I offer three examples drawn from instructional, curricular, and governance planned changes that have returned more than once. To answer the question, I first examine the dominant explanation presented by researchers and policymakers: the lack of rationality in proposing and implementing planned change. I explore why the dominant explanation is flawed in its frequently used metaphors and analysis. I then offer alternative explanations for recurring reforms—a political and an institutional perspective harnessed together—to explain the puzzle of why reforms return. The point of this analysis is to enlarge the repertoire of explanations that researchers and policymakers use to examine potential and past reforms. The policymaking stakes run high for expanding the range of explanations because the questions of why reforms failed in the past and why they return go to the heart of present policy debates over whether federal, state, ...
1,035 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that neither interpretive nor process-product classroom research has foregrounded the teacher's role in the generation of knowledge about teaching, and that what is missing from the knowledge base for teaching is the voices of the teachers themselves, the questions teachers ask, the ways teachers use writing and intentional talk in their work lives.
Abstract: Neither interpretive nor process-product classroom research has foregrounded the teacher's role in the generation of knowledge about teaching. What is missing from the knowledge base for teaching, therefore, are the voices of the teachers themselves, the questions teachers ask, the ways teachers use writing and intentional talk in their work lives, and the interpretive frames teachers use to understand and improve their own classroom practices. Limiting the official knowledge base for teaching to what academics have chosen to study and write about has contributed to a number of problems, including discontinuity between what is taught in universities and what is taught in classrooms, teachers' ambivalence about the claims of academic research, and a general lack of information about classroom life from a truly emic perspective. This article proposes that teacher research has the potential to provide this perspective; however, several critical issues divide teacher research from research on teaching and mak...
784 citations
TL;DR: The Rand Change Agent study as discussed by the authors found that effective projects were characterized by a process of mutual adaptation rather than uniform implementation, and that local factors (rather than federal program guidelines or project methods) dominated project outcomes.
Abstract: The Rand Change Agent study, undertaken from 1973–1978, indicated a significant shift in the ways people thought about affecting planned change in education. Rand found that effective projects were characterized by a process of mutual adaptation rather than uniform implementation, and that local factors (rather than federal program guidelines or project methods) dominated project outcomes. Revisiting these findings in light of today's changed practices and understandings reinforces some of Rand's findings and suggests modifications in others. This reconsideration also underscores the essential contribution of teachers' perspectives as informant and as a guide to policy and suggests that the challenge lies in understanding how policy can enable and facilitate effective practice.
732 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore two related literatures, teacher change and learning to teach, and develop a third perspective, which will be grounded in examples from a teacher change research project which is funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education.
Abstract: This paper addresses two questions: What is involved in bringing about significant and worthwhile change in teaching practices? How can or should research aid in this process? In order to do so, two related literatures will be explored—teacher change and learning to teach. These literatures will be used to develop a third perspective, which will be grounded in examples from a teacher change research project which is funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education. This perspective suggests that empirical premises derived from research (Fenstermacher, 1986) be considered as warranted practice, which, in combination with teachers's practical knowledge, become the content of reflective teacher change. It also suggests that practice should be viewed as activity embedded in theory. The paper concludes with suggestions for ways of approaching the introduction of research into teachers' ways of thinking.
643 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that framing the issue of standards in terms of quantitative-qualitative debate is misguided and argue instead that the problem of standards for qualitative and quantitative research is best framed in the "logics in use" associated with various research methodologies.
Abstract: The proliferation of qualitative methods in educational research has led to considerable controversy about standards for the design and conduct of research. This controversy has been playing itself out over the last several decades largely in terms of the quantitative-qualitative debate. In this paper we argue that framing the issue of standards in terms of quantitative-qualitative debate is misguided. We argue instead that the problem of standards—for qualitative and quantitative research—is best framed in terms of the “logics in use” associated with various research methodologies. In particular, rather than being judged in terms of qualitative versus quantitative paradigms, logics in use, which are often drawn from other academic disciplines and adapted for the purposes of educational research, are judged in terms of their success in investigating educational problems deemed important. Finally, we proffer five general standards that can apply to educational research of all kinds.
450 citations
TL;DR: In this article, two major conceptions of educational achievement are characterized: achievement as basic skills and facts versus achievement as higher order skills and advanced knowledge, and the impact of such conceptions on the topics pursued by researchers, the ways teachers think about their teaching and the public's view of educational goals are noted.
Abstract: Two major conceptions of educational achievement are characterized: achievement as basic skills, and facts versus achievement as higher order skills and advanced knowledge. The impact of such conceptions on the topics pursued by researchers, the ways teachers think about their teaching, and the public's view of educational goals are noted. In addition, the author argues that present dominant conceptions are inadequate given the importance they have. More adequate conceptions need to (a) integrate divergent views of achievement, (b) carry clear instructional implications, and (c) focus on long-term goals of education
430 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a definition of mentoring is proposed that is grounded in contextual-developmental theory and consistent with the findings of past investigators, and it highlights critical elements of the mentoring process.
Abstract: Many educators have investigated the promise of mentoring as a vehicle of career development, yet no widely accepted definition of mentoring has been articulated. Without such definitional consensus, efforts to develop a knowledge base relevant to mentorships in education have been haphazard. To advance a knowledge base for future research, a definition of mentoring is offered that is grounded in contextual-developmental theory and consistent with the findings of past investigators. Corollaries of the contextual-developmental perspective raise issues that action research may profitably address to facilitate mentoring relationships. The proposed definition offers immediate benefits to mentors, proteges, and their sponsors as it highlights critical elements of the mentoring process.
337 citations
TL;DR: A theory of affect for Mathematical Problem Solving is proposed in this paper, with a focus on the role of affect in mathematical problem-solving, and a generic model for research.
Abstract: I A Theory of Affect for Mathematical Problem Solving.- 1 Affect and Learning: Causes and Consequences of Emotional Interactions.- 2 The Role of Affect in Mathematical Problem Solving.- 3 Describing the Affective Domain: Saying What We Mean.- II Studies of Learning.- 4 Affect in Schema Knowledge: Source and Impact.- 5 Aesthetic Influences on Expert Mathematical Problem Solving.- 6 Self-Confidence, Interest, Beliefs, and Metacognition: Key Influences on Problem-Solving Behavior.- 7 Information Technologies and Affect in Mathematical Experiences.- 8 Searching for Affect in the Solution of Story Problems in Mathematics.- III Studies of Teaching.- 9 Young Children's Emotional Acts While Engaged in Mathematical Problem Solving.- 10 Teaching Practices and Student Affect in Problem-Solving Lessons of Select Junior-High Mathematics Teachers.- 11 Affect and Problem Solving in an Elementary School Mathematics Classroom.- 12 Affective Factors and Computational Estimation Ability.- 13 Affective Issues in Teaching Problem Solving: A Teacher's Perspective.- IV Responses to the Theory.- 14 The Study of Affect and Mathematics: A Proposed Generic Model for Research.- 15 Psychological Conceptions of Mathematics and Emotion.- V Looking Back.- 16 Affect and Learning: Reflections and Prospects.- 17 Beliefs, Attitudes, and Emotions: New Views of Affect in Mathematics Education.- Author Index.
314 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify the craft knowledge of teaching, or wisdom of practice, as one important component in the design and validation of new national teacher assessments, and suggest some guides for inspecting exercises.
Abstract: This exploration raises some problems and poses some solutions in identifying the craft knowledge of teaching. Craft knowledge, or wisdom of practice, is one important component in the design and validation of new national teacher assessments. The prototype assessment exercises for national board certification are one site in which such craft knowledge has been used. From that experience and others, some guides for inspecting exercises are suggested.
280 citations
TL;DR: The notion of subject specificity has been widely discussed in the literature on critical thinking as discussed by the authors, and it has been a hot topic in the last 30 years or so, especially since Ennis' recent Educational Researcher article.
Abstract: Robert Ennis' recentEducational Researcher article (1989) helps to clarify the troublesome notion of subject specificity in the growing literature on critical thinking. It brings a welcome breath of fresh air to a set of questions that has vexed research efforts and educational programs that attempt to promote critical thinking. In calling for clarification on this matter, Ennis has also raised the level of discussion about the meaning of the terms subjects, domains, and even psychological transfer. No longer can we simply gloss over questions about the precise scope and limits of the putative skills that various critical thinking programs are alleged to promote. The recent paper in this journal by Perkins and Salomon (1989) also provides a useful historical overview of just how vexing this problem has been over the past 30 years. This article both replies to Ennis and continues the discussion.
TL;DR: In this paper, the concept of a formative experiment in which schools are supported in the appropriation of new technology is illustrated by a project that implements local area network technology in an elementary school.
Abstract: As computers are acquired in greater numbers in schools, their impact on the social organization of instruction increasingly becomes an issue for research. Developments in the cognitive science of instruction, drawing on the sociohistorical theory, provide researchers with an appropriate theoretical approach to cultural tools and cognitive change, while developments in the technology of computer-supported cooperative work provide researchers with models for organizational impact outside of education. The concept of a formative experiment in which schools are supported in the appropriation of new technology is illustrated by a project that implements local area network technology in an elementary school. The concept of appropriation derived from sociohistorical theory highlights how schools can make use of technology for goals not anticipated by the researcher.
TL;DR: Campbell has been one of the most influential contributors to the methodology of the social sciences and has published scores of widely cited journal articles, and two awards, in social psychology and in public policy, have been named in his honor as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Since the 1950s, Donald T. Campbell has been one of the most influential contributors to the methodology of the social sciences. A distinguished psychologist, he has published scores of widely cited journal articles, and two awards, in social psychology and in public policy, have been named in his honor. This book is the first to collect his most significant papers, and it demonstrates the breadth and originality of his work.
TL;DR: In this response to McPeck's reply to my paper, the authors briefly summarize my earlier essay, and make four major points: (a) the vagueness of the concepts, domain, field, and subject, is a problem when subject specificity serves as a basis for prediction, though not necessarily when it serves as slogan or a vague warning; (b) the distinction between the subject subject matter of schools and the subject-matter of everyday life is a viable one, but not the mutually exclusive one thatMcPeck seems to attribute to me; and (c
Abstract: In this response to McPeck’s reply to my paper, I briefly summarize my earlier essay, and make four major points: (a) that the vagueness of the concepts, domain, field, and subject, is a problem when subject specificity serves as a basis for prediction, though not necessarily when it serves as a slogan or a vague warning; (b) that the distinction between the subject matter of schools and the subject matter of everyday life is a viable one, though not the mutually exclusive one that McPeck seems to attribute to me; (c) that the distinction between topic and school subject serves to help avoid a tempting equivocation that starts with the premise that all thinking is about some subject; and (d) that “relatively narrow” general thinking abilities can be very broad in the range of their application, and that many, though perhaps obvious at times to some, are not trivial, because numerous people seem not to employ them in important situations.An underlying concern is McPeck’s apparent assumption that showing so...
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine several problems posed for emperical and theoretical research by the achievement of hegemony by one culture or system of thought over others and suggest adapting the design and management of the conduct of inquiry to better accommodate cultural, class, ethnic, and gender diversity under conditions of subpopulation variance and cultural hegemony.
Abstract: The authors examine several problems posed for emperical and theoretical research by the achievement of hegemony by one culture or system of thought over others. The issue is addressed from the special perspective of social scientists of African American descent who practice in a European /American dominant society. Several highly respected tenets of science, such as objectivity, positivism, and logical consistency, are questioned as to their universal utility when the life experiences, mores, and values of subjects studied are quite diverse. We suggest adapting the design and management of the conduct of inquiry to better accommodate cultural, class, ethnic, and gender diversity under conditions of subpopulation variance and cultural hegemony
TL;DR: In their article "What Can Research on Teacher Thinking Contribute to Teacher Preparation? A Second Opinion" as discussed by the authors, Floden and Klinzing contend that teacher education would be improved if it were informed by research on practicing teachers's expertise.
Abstract: In their article “What Can Research on Teacher Thinking Contribute to Teacher Preparation? A Second Opinion” (Educational Researcher, June/July, 1990), Floden and Klinzing contend that teacher education would be improved if it were informed by research on practicing teachers's expertise. We do not disagree. However, other questions must be answered if such reforms are to be effective: What is expertise in teaching? How is expertise communicated? Who are the experts? This article attempts to address these questions and further the discussion of expert thinking in teaching.
TL;DR: McKenna et al. as discussed by the authors proposed a research agenda for whole language, which is an educational paradigm complete with theoretical, philosophical, and political assumptions, and it has its own congruent research agenda.
Abstract: One of McKenna, Robinson, and Miller’s major problems in proposing a research agenda for whole language is that they do not understand what whole language is. It is not an alternate methodology for language arts instruction. It is an educational paradigm complete with theoretical, philosophical, and political assumptions. As such, it has its own congruent research agenda. What prevents McKenna et al. from understanding whole language and from seeing the legitimacy of whole language-generated research is paradigm blindness. What encourages them to pretend to a role of neutral statesmen are particulars of their own paradigm (which they are also blind to) and the dominant position of that paradigm. What makes their proposal so outrageous is their presumption to speak for whole language educators and their attempt to impose their whole language-violating agenda on them while expecting those educators to cooperate in the violation.
TL;DR: The authors suggest that research can only provide teacher educators with food for thought, observational methods, and rationales for current practice, and although each of those contributions is valuable, research on teaching and teacher education can provide even more.
Abstract: Recent reviews suggest that research can only provide teacher educators with food for thought, observational methods, and rationales for current practice. Although each of those contributions is valuable, research on teaching and teacher education can provide even more. It is inappropriate to turn research results into teaching prescriptions and teacher-testing systems, but research knowledge still can, and should, play a substantive, constructive role in teacher education.
TL;DR: The number and proportions of Blacks gaining doctorates and entering academe have continuously declined in all fields including education, particularly educational research as discussed by the authors, and the fact that, psychologically, Black faculty often find themselves in work environments that are not fully supportive.
Abstract: The numbers and proportions of Blacks gaining doctorates and entering academe have continuously declined. This decline is seen in all fields including education, particularly educational research. Coupled with this downward trend is the fact that, psychologically, Black faculty often find themselves in work environments that are not fully supportive. Prejudice and discrimination remain as obstacles, and for many the lack of mentoring, at any level, is a reality. The situation for many Black faculty in education can be described best as a predicament. For black educational researchers and the nation, this situation has long been of crisis proportions, and it demands to be addressed directly, for it relates to the common good for American education. As never before, more involvement and more Black educational researchers are needed in the efforts to address the myriad problems that beset U.S. education. Related issues and recommendations are discussed in this article.
TL;DR: The authors examines the current rift in perspective between whole language arts and traditional language arts instruction by analyzing the basis of each view in research and theory and makes suggestions regarding research developments that might alleviate the present impasse.
Abstract: This article examines the current rift in perspective between whole language arts and traditional language arts instruction by analyzing the basis of each view in research and theory. Suggestions are made regarding research developments that might alleviate the present impasse. These include not only hypotheses to be tested but also explain the need for a variety of designs, improved instrumentation, and collaborative investigations
TL;DR: In the last three decades American educators have been heavily concerned with student rights and equal educational opportunity as discussed by the authors, which has caused educators and the public to give teachers the primary responsibility for student learning and have drawn attention away from questions about the student's responsibility for learning.
Abstract: In the last three decades American educators have been heavily concerned with student rights and equal educational opportunity. These and other concerns have caused educators (and the public) to give teachers the primary responsibility for student learning and have drawn attention away from questions about the student's responsibility for learning. Two recent approaches attribute the ultimate responsibility for learning to the student. These general approaches are constructively criticized so that the key insights can be used to set and articulate a defensible theory of student responsibility. The major conclusion is that high-school students have both aright to an education and aresponsibility to use educational resources sensibly
TL;DR: The authors made a distinction between two kinds of research, each of which they portrayed as having an important bearing on education: decision-oriented and conclusion-oriented research, and they described how they described the difference as "decision-oriented" and "conclusion-oriented".
Abstract: I n 1969, just a little over 20 years ago, Lee J. Cronbach and Patrick Suppes coedited a book entitled Research for Tomorrow's Schools in which they drew a distinction between two kinds of research, each of which they portrayed as having an important bearing on education. The first of these they called "decision-oriented" inquiry, the second, "conclusion-oriented." Here is how they described the difference:
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the difficulties arising from the need for anonymity and the desire for visibility in collaborative studies in collaborative relationships with researchers, and present a set of problems about the conduct of such inquiries, such as revealing the names of the people, schools, and districts participating in research.
Abstract: Many teachers, in collaborative relationships with researchers, no longer want anonymity. They seek recognition for their contributions to the studies in which they engage. Yet revealing the names of the people, schools, and districts participating in research raises a new set of problems about the conduct of such inquiries. Difficulties arising from the need for anonymity and the desire for visibility in collaborative studies are the subject of this paper.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present data on citizen involvement, administrator-teacher collaboration, teacher collegiality, student voice, and cooperative learning in small-town schools and conclude with recommendations to enhance democratic participation about academic matters.
Abstract: To study democratic participation in small-town schools, over 5 months the authors interviewed and observed local educators, policymakers, and students from 25 districts in 21 states. The article presents data on citizen involvement, administrator-teacher collaboration, teacher collegiality, student voice, and cooperative learning. The democracy that was found had little to do with academic life. The authors conclude with recommendations to enhance democratic participation about academic matters in small-town schools.
TL;DR: This paper pointed out that the main difference between the two perspectives involves how and when skills are taught, and the extent of our understanding of whole language is an issue that is more complex.
Abstract: Let us begin by putting Edelsky's response into perspective. Of the possible reactions to what we have proposed, hers represents an extreme camp whose intellectual paranoia sees in every question a provocation, in every questioner a saboteur. Her response typifies the view of this camp that those who question must (a) be driven by covert and contemptible motives linked to cultural hegemony, (b) lack sufficient understanding of whole language to ask even the right questions, and/or (c) be chained to paradigms incommensurable with those they prefer. Not wishing to take chances, Edelsky accuses us of all three. Because she has no special knowledge of our motives, her ascription to us of a desire to see an end to whole language is an act of baseless and irresponsible conjecture that does not warrant discussion. Our motives are what we say they are: The illumination of central questions not adequately addressed to date. The extent of our understanding is an issue that is more complex. Our intent in providing capsule descriptions of whole language and traditional perspectives was to highlight central differences that affect instructional practice. We do not dispute that the former includes more than methods, though Edelsky concedes that certain methods are in fact embraced, others rejected, as a consequence of the perspective. Neither do we dispute the socioconstructivist orientation of whole language, but because many of its related tenets have long been acknowledged and investigated by mainstream researchers (e.g., Lipson & Wixson, 1986; Wixson & Lipson, in press), we did not emphasize it. We note that Edelsky confirms our conclusion that the chief methodological distinction between the two perspectives involves how and when skills are taught. We readily confess that we do not fully understand whole language and its many implications for literacy development. This is, after all, the point of a research agenda. However, we suggest that some of the writers on the subject have been less than helpful in providing a coherent description that might have served to ward off misconceptions. Edelsky assumes, for example, that the issue of definition is well settled. She wonders why we have difficulty accepting the specimens we cite—specimens deliberately selected because they lack the Aristotelian characteristics necessary for accurate classification and observation. Watson (1989) has gone so far as to suggest that whole language proponents would be foolish to offer formal definitions that might be used to ground comparative investigations! It is hardly surprising that Stahl and Miller (1989) adopted a liberal standard in deciding which studies to include in their review. They had little choice. Nor is it cause for wonder that eminent mainstream researchers feel compelled to recount their \"possible misconceptions\" (Pearson, 1989, pp. 237-239) or that whole language writers must spend so much of their time dispelling \"myths\" (Newman & Church, 1990; Wiseman, in preparation) and composing contentious, often indignant responses such as Edelsky's (see also Goodman, 1979, 1989a). To what do they attribute the origin of so many misconceptions? Part of the answer, surely, is epistemological. A view of how one comes to know is crucial to the credibility accorded evidence, and Edelsky is partially correct in pointing to paradigmatic differences as a source of problems. However, the very range of whole language research designs she cites attests to the fact that whole language investigators have not adhered to a single paradigm. Nor, we suggest, should they have. A central problem is that some proponents (again, we are convinced, a minority) have adopted a stance that is essentially aparadigmatic. They lack a coherent philosophy of how research should be conducted or even of what constitutes research. One of the anonymous reviewers of our article offered this observation: \"In essence, it is no longer a scientific issue since the whole language people share a system of beliefs and they claim they have evidence to support their beliefs. But, when you look up what they cite as evidence, it is often just someone else's published beliefs.\