Re: confused in california

Gordon Wells (gwells who-is-at oise.utoronto.ca)
Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:10:55 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Mike Cole wrote, in a longer message:
>
> What is the point of research on classrooms and schools and development
> and communities, etc. that we are doing if we have as an apriori
> conclusion that we cannot generalize from beyond individual cases?
>
> I think I know how to make the argument for restrictions on generalizibility
> and there is a fine tradition that claims there should be none expected.
>
> Is that what people think? Is it irrelevant to understanding educational
> processes that 90+ percent of classrooms use recitation scripts with
> known answer questions and activity-centered education with the properties
> that Gordon is valorizing exist only now and again? Does Ellice's
> work showing that kids thought to be able to engage only in Drill and Kill
> that is tracking them downward are capable of complex discursively
> mediated education amount to no more than a parlor trick, or the imposition
> of middle class standards on kids who are going to be tracked down
> no matter what?
>
> I do not mean to presuppose a correct answer to this question for myself
> or for the group. Its just that so much of the response so far says that
> we should not be taking responsibility for the study of the effects
> of our interventions or observations of others' interventions that it
> makes me wonder what we do take responsibility for.

To answer for myself, I don't think it's a matter of not taking
responsibility for 'successful' innovations on the grounds that every
case is unique - even though, to some degree, I think that is the case.
It's rather an unwillingness to be party to an innovation being
prescribed for all situations.

I _do_ believe that some practices are 'better' than others, in the sense
that they are not only worthwhile in themselves but that they "live
fruitfully and creatively in future experiences" (Dewey, 1938). But the
practices that work well in one situation may not be successful in the
hands of another teacher or with a different class. As I have argued in
previous messages, I believe the concept of a community organized to
promote dialogic inquiry provides a good framework within which to
experiment to find the practices that are appropriate in each situation.

However, I think the teacher's experimentation is also critical for success.
So to prescribe specific practices would almost certainly torpedo the
approach - particularly if it were imposed on unwilling or unprepared
teachers. As others have suggested, a grass-roots movement, building up
communities of inquiring teachers seems the best strategy to adopt. In
the long run, this probably also has a better chance of influencing the
institutional structure.

I agree with Eugene that values are more important than particular
practices, not only in persuading funding agencies, but also in appealing
to teachers to start observing more systematically what is happenning in
their classrooms. Over many years I have found Judith Newman's
injunction "to be open to being surprised by what is actually happening" is
an intriguing and pretty non-threatening way to invite teachers to start on
teacher inquiry. (J. Newman, (1987) Learning to teach by uncovering our
assumptions. Language Arts, 64(7) 727-737.) Then what is important is to
have one or more colleagues with whom to discuss what one discovers and
what one might do about it. It's at this point that reading about
others' innovatory practices can be most helpful. Having taken the
crucial first step towards becoming an agent of change, others' ideas are
now seen as suggestions (not prescriptions) to be tried out, modified or
rejected, as means to enacting the values that are gradually becoming
more conscious and explicit.

I am currently reading the assignments from last semester's M.Ed.course
for practising teachers. Here is one comment that is pretty typical:

"I have definitely been turned on to the wonderful world of teacher
research. The inquiry I carried out has created further questions for me.
Thank you for making inquiry part of the course. I especially enjoyed
talking to my peers in class about their daily observatios and experiences."

Teacher inquiry now forms an important part of nearly all inservice
courses leading to further professional qualifications at both York
University and OISE/UToronto. It is also likely to be included as one of
the routes by which teachers can secure re-accreditation under the
regulations of the new Ontario College of Teachers. As long as it
remains something that teachers are free to choose to do, this seems
likely to be a move in the right direction. How do others think about this?

Gordon Wells