connecting and co-construction part 2

From: Bill Barowy (wbarowy@mail.lesley.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 17 1999 - 14:03:20 PST


I had left off at -- "especially when one of the goals is learning."

This gets to the very heart of the one of the issues of ecological
validity, that is getting involved with the activity with the intention of
changing it. My work is in several ways aligned with the form of Ann
Browns design experiment, and influenced by Yrjö's work with the change
laboratory. The work is intended towards inducing change in the system(s),
in direct contradiction with bronfenbrenners first guideline of
"maintaining the integrity of the situation being investigated" (cole,
hood, mcdermott 1997). So how can we approach ecological validity? Ahh...

Well, partially its a matter of drawing the boundaries, of what you
consider 'the situation' or 'the system'. I have to be careful with words,
because 'activity system' is what I've heard is taken traditionally to be
something that is stable and what I am studying is quite unstable.
Maturana and Varela treat the issue of drawing boundaries around the
'system' by stating this -- i'll paraphrase -- if you have to include
influences outside the system, then redraw the boundaries of your system to
include those influences. It gets to be quite a mess for me. At present
I can trace influences to the state of massachusetts doe, with it's testing
of both children and teachers, and the curriculum frameworks that it
developed, through our subsequent re-action to align to those frameworks
and standards, and can include at least one other organization that has
come into the spotlight to influence what we are doing with our
partnership. Oh yeah -- and as investigator/interventioner I am also within
the boundaries of this 'grand system'.

The insight I took away from Yrjö's change laboratory work was to begin
giving people access to the theoretical tools. This changes a lot -- it
develops a synergy between striving for ecological validity and inducing
change in the system. I'm tempted to scan in a drawing of triangles that
my collaborator drew for me (as recounted at the earli conference, she
grabbed my notebook away from me during an interview and began drawing!) .
My take on the idea is that people will begin using the theoretical tools
to re-shape their work -- learning takes place -- and observing the uptake
of the tools provides one with some clues to what is happening.

 There is an unresolvable tension between ecological validity and
investigation that is similar to trying to pin down where an electron is --
there is an uncertainty principle -- one cannot pin down where the thing is
at any point because in doing so one also influences where it is going --
the act of developing one perturbs the other. I think making the
investigation into an intervention by nature just makes this relationship
between validity and investigation/intervention more explicit, more open
for examination.

At EARLI, I some interest in design experiment related approaches -- but
the actual studies presented (by US folks) seemed to be those of
passive-researcher-observing-other-people re-designing their systems. And
this falls short of 'being there' and 'getting into it'. The
contradictions that exist in the systems under study can remain hidden
until you are one of the people trying to make a change. I guess this is
where the 'bricks on the head' come in.

gotta get in a run before dinner...

Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
 and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:08 PST