Re: Best practices
Kevin Leander (k-leand who-is-at students.uiuc.edu)
Tue, 6 Jan 1998 14:00:34 -0600
I've been catching up on the discussion of best practices and community
with a great deal of interest. In reflecting on the remarks of several in
the group, including Eugene ("best for what, for whom . . . ") and Gordon's
reflections on academy to school research trajectories, I'm puzzling over
how we construct homogeneity in groups that are the object of "best
practices" research. Since "best for" is often followed by some
sociocultural qualifier (low-income, "gifted," Latina, etc.), there is a
form of selection integral to the research plan, which is itself linked to
research funding bases, regional and national agendas, etc. I'd be
interested in hearing more about research that selects student groups for
heterogeneity, or assumes heterogeneity in the groups studied (however they
may be qualified as experiencing the common/community). How (where) do we
speak about "best," "excellent" or even "pretty good" practice(s) in these
highly heterogeneous contexts?
Despite all types of institutional work that attempts to sift students into
homogeneous groups (including research work), the heterogeneity in public
school classrooms that I'm observing, anyway, is astounding. Recognizing
this heterogeneity must mean more than just troubling over adjusting
teacher practice to meet various sub-groups, developing new forms of
individualized instruction, or perhaps throwing in the towel and assuming
the impossibility of teaching. Rather, it suggests that understanding
dialogic teaching or inquiry-based teaching or whatever must have a lot to
do with understanding how kids that are very different from one another
dialogue with one another, develop group goals and practices, or somehow
make their learning-in-common possible. (To add to Eugene's list the
question "Who's practicing?")
Kevin Leander
Doctoral Student, Curriculum & Instruction
(217) 333-6604
http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/students/k-leand/homepage/index.html