How do we increase channels of exposure in schools and classrooms?
How does understanding fluency and disfluency engage the mind in schools? Watch the Video Now!
0 Comments
Research methods must match the researcher’s plan and desired outcomes. It is imperative to select between quantitative or qualitative research in relation to the hypothesis and desired collection of evidence. While quantitative uses externally created methods to collect numerical representation of data, qualitative uses best practices and researcher-created methods to document narrative forms of research. Bang (2012) documented collection of data relative to current shifts in our population in “Promising Homework Practices: Teachers’ Perspectives on Making Homework Work for Newcomer Immigrant Students”. Watkins and Stevens (2013) discuss finding the perfect balance in “The Goldilocks Dilemma: Homework Policy Creating a Culture Where Simply Good Is Just Not Good Enough”.
Structurally, both articles include standard formats. The articles begin with an abstract and keywords before providing an opening narrative that discusses leading research within the same topic. Both also include discussion and conclusion sections to extrapolate the findings and lead to next steps. After these similarities, Bang’s (2012) research provides more structure and details in his writing. The article includes beginning sections on theoretical frameworks and a more descriptive and explicit section on previous literature. Additionally, the article includes details on the study setting and its participants. These sections and the additional detailed subsections shared with Watkins and Stevens (2013) provide more validity and clarity when contrasting the articles. Readers looking too apply the findings and researchers looking to build upon the research will find Bang’s (2012) work more applicable. The rationale of the research design in both articles is linked directly with the outcomes the desired. Both articles looked to capture perspectives of students and teachers. Bang (2012) states, “Teachers explained various strategies they use in designing homework assignments that are appropriate for students with different levels of English proficiency and academic skills” (p. 14). Watkins and Stevens (2013) also documented perspectives: “The teacher focus group agreed that most of the parents wanted to be informed” (p. 83). The quantitative focus would not apply here as authors sought documentation of the differing perspectives on the topic of homework. Both research aligned with Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010), “Qualitative researchers study their participants in naturalistic settings while searching for the meaning and understanding of the human experience” (p. 34). Watkins and Stevens (2013) chose focus-group discussions and principal interviews with principals and teachers responding to the same questions in the same order to document positions on No Excuse Homework. Bang (2012) randomly selected participant teachers from a previous research database performed at immigrant heavy schools in New York. These participants used an interview protocol included in the article. This process allowed Bang to document the different perspectives and policies used in eight different classrooms. The results of the articles provide key shifts in mindsets and school systems to increase effectiveness of homework. Watkins and Stevens (2013) document the shift to collaboration: “Homework must be completed with an effort from everyone, beginning with faculty, continuing with parents, and ending with students” (p. 83). This idea moves away from independent work simply done by the student in seclusion. The authors continue by providing quantitative support by the means of grades: “The program became fully implemented in the fall of 2009. He went on to say that ‘the number of students receiving Ds has decreased by 57% and Fs by 72% in the first semester of 2009. Grades of a D or F dropped by 63% and 75% respectively for the second semester of 2010’” (p. 83). The added data in the findings further support the qualitative pieces of focus. Bang’s (2012) article seems less effective in this same regard, as it remains true to qualitative research and does not document and discuss the outcomes from applying findings in the research. The author acknowledges this in the conclusion: “The present study was exploratory in nature. It was collected from a site that serves only newcomer immigrant students. The study offers insights into the realities that shape the instructional practice of teachers in a promising-practices site, though not characteristic of the everyday experiences most teachers serving immigrant students encounter” (Bang, 2012, p. 20). References Bang, H. J. (2012). Promising Homework Practices: Teachers' Perspectives on Making Homework Work for Newcomer Immigrant Students. The High School Journal, 95(2), 3-31. doi:10.1353/hsj.2012.0001. Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle, K. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Watkins, P. J., & Stevens, D. W. (2013). The Goldilocks dilemma: homework policy creating a culture where simply good is just not good enough. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 86(2), 80-85. doi:10.1080/00098655.2012.748642. Education remains one of the steadfast organizations in America. Schools and students often operate the same way since education’s original inception in the 1920s as a public right. Through the years, leaders and teachers used intuition and previous experience to guide the necessary changes they saw in their schools. This process most likely established a cyclical pattern of leaders returning to what worked in their past to make education work for their students. Applying research-based and evidence-based methods to education breaks this cycle. It establishes a scientific and objective framework to determine the current state of the problem and outlines the path forward in making changes and documenting those outcomes. Perhaps most importantly, research-based methods allow school leaders and researchers to stand on the shoulders of giants from past research. By reading and including previous research, leaders escape the cycle of ineffective systems to establish advancements in education and document their use on a larger scale.
Philosophy of Research Research is based on philosophical ideas that tie together methods to guide the researchers. In order to complete reliable and valid research, the designers need a deep understanding of their views and beliefs in the schools. This guides the creation of the research itself and will frame how the researchers will view and decode their collected data. It establishes the unit of the research and allows for critical readers to select appropriate research that aligns, in some cases contradicts, their views of the world as well. The scientific method is the entry point to all research, often taught to children who practice using the method throughout their education. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) state, “Scientific research as applied to education is defined as the application of systematic methods and techniques that help researchers and practitioners understand and enhance the teaching and learning process” (p. 10). This method establishes a hypothesis through a series of related tests and observations through logical reasoning. Scientists establish questions, execute tests, reason through the outcomes, and compose their hypothesis. Prior to executing research under the scientific method, designers of research must understand and select their reasoning pathway. Reasoning is the core of all research and one that must be solidified before creating the research process itself. Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are the two basic types of research. Inductive reasoning looks at the observations first and then moves toward its conclusions or generalized statements: “…the researcher uses observations to build an abstraction or to describe a picture of the phenomenon that is being studied” (Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle, 2010, p. 10). Deductive reasoning works in the opposite direction, starting with the general statement, and then seeking the evidence to prove the theory. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) describe that after collecting data the researcher “…made a decision based on the data to either accept or reject the hypothesis or prediction” (p. 11). These entry points of how the research designer views data and conclusion making then funnel to a qualitative or quantitative approach. Qualitative and quantitative research is the first major doorway for research designers. Qualitative research is driven mainly from inductive reasoning as researcher uses narrative and verbal perceptions to explain problems and the data relative to it. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) explain, “Qualitative researchers are often said to take inductive approaches to data collection because they formulate hypotheses only after they begin to make observations, interview people, and analyze documents” (p. 11). Context is also a driving factor for qualitative researchers as it drives their view on how they look for and interpret patterns in the data. Quantitative research, utilizing deductive reasoning, focuses less on the narrative data and context to focus more the numerical and statistical collection methods. Researchers adhering to quantitative methods establish their hypothesis and “seek to summarize data using numbers” (Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle, 2010, p. 11). In addition to quantitative and qualitative decisions by the research designer, one must also look to philosophical frameworks. The world is a complex place, which makes the collection of data and establishing valid and reliable conclusions that are generalizable difficult. Conceptual frameworks look to simplify that understanding to provide guidelines on how the researcher views the world. Researchers strictly seeking and using quantitative methods mostly align with scientific realism. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) state, “Scientific realists strive to establish cause-and-effect relationships when possible, using data collection methods such as questionnaires, tests, and observational checklists to produce quantitative data” (p. 13). Scientific realism looks to deconstruct the complexities of the real world into smaller, explainable constructs. Here, the world can be made simple through numerical representations of variables. Unlike scientific realism, social constructivism falls on the opposite side of spectrum. Social constructivists do not believe that the world can be made simple, but rather “they argue that phenomena must be understood as complex ‘wholes’ that are inextricably bound up with the historical, socioeconomic, a cultural context in which they are embedded” (p. 14). The world is value-bound and people make reality real. Reality is only a construct because of the individual’s perception of what is happening. Without the individual perception, there is no reality. This differs from scientific realism, which believes that reality is dependent of the observer. The advocacy-liberatory framework establishes more specific guidelines. As a mixed-methods research, this framework uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches to address social issues. Much like social constructivism, advocacy-liberatory assumes that reality is not just dependent on the individuals but also on the “social, political, and economic contexts” (Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle, 2010, p. 15). At its core, the framework wants to identify what needs to be changed on behalf of those who have little social power. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) state that the “data collected is less dependent on philosophical assumptions than by its potential to illuminate experiences and facilitate action to achieve a better life” (p. 15). The previous frameworks seek to debate or establish how to describe reality when looking at qualitative and quantitative data. Pragmatism, perhaps the most widely used framework, takes a progressive and practical approach. Simply put, “research simply helps us to identify what works” (Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle, 2010, p. 16). Using mixed-methods research, pragmatist look to collect and analyze data to determine what works best in each situation. Practitioners in the field, such as teachers or administrators, utilize pragmatic research because of its realistic approach to finding and establishing solutions. While each of these frameworks approach research differently, objectivity is often a reoccurring topic within them. From a distance, one would assert that scientific realism remains the most objective framework. This framework views the world as value-free, reality is real regardless of the individual or group or purpose. Social constructivism and advocacy-liberatory frameworks integrate a lack of objectivity into the methods on a philosophical level. Reality can only be constructed through the participants and the researcher may also be included in that understanding. Their view and beliefs are closely tied to the view of the world and therefore the data and outcomes from it. Pragmatism falls in between the presented constructs as it balances its view to achieve working outcomes. In this thinking, objectivity is directly tied to and linked to the framework the researcher holds. Core Concepts for Research Design Research, regardless of the framework, shares similar core concepts to best convey its conclusions and establish credibility, reliability, and validity to its outcomes. Additionally, the shared parts of published research increase the focus on the research itself and less how to read the research. All research shares a central focus, either through a statement of the problem or a proposed hypothesis. Without establishing this focus, the research has no bones in which to build a working body. A research needs to focus the research on a specific topic or problem to create a data collection method that will return data in specific relation to the intended problem. For instance, action research adds an additional layer as the researcher may have to select a topic relevant to the stakeholders or devote time to investing them in the topic’s importance (Berg, 2004, p. 197). Without the focus, the research may risk conducting research where the results do not relate to their point of observation. One of the fundamental pieces of research happens prior to conducting the observation or experiment. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) explains, “In qualitative research, the researcher reviews the literature to identify information relevant to the study, establish a theoretical framework, and write a research question” (p. 160). The inclusion and discussion of previous literature allows the researcher to establish what outcomes have already been reached within their focus point and using previous outcomes, establish a plausible hypothesis. Examining previous literature allows the researcher to identify continuing similar measures of data collection to a similar participant group or apply the same measures and treatments to a new participant group. For a reader, the literature review orients the research and results they are about to read. It creates a timeline and justification for the research being done and presented later in the reading. Research must also clearly define the population being studied and justify its sampling of the population. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) clearly define population: “A sample is a smaller version of the population, the group to which the researcher would ultimately like to generalize or apply the results of the study” (p. 25). The population is not the participants of the study but the intended group of individuals that would be impacted by taking the research full scale. Effective research must be manageable and this happens through sampling methods. Researchers provide an equal opportunity for the population’s members to participate in the study and through various means, selects them at random. Sampling increases the generalizing qualities of the study and frees the bias that would be evident if the sampling is purposeful. Another key understanding of research relates to understanding the variables in the study. In more scientific based research, two groups exist: treatment group and control group. The treatment group receives the planned manipulation to observe the outcomes while the control group is observed without receiving the manipulator. This process establishes the effect size of the treatment and promotes opportunities for triangulation. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) explain the treatment group: “…the manipulated or experimental treatment conditions are called the independent variable, which precedes and is assumed to cause a change in the measure referred to as the dependent variable” (p. 28). The presentation of findings take a variety of forms based on the type of research. Quantitative collection methods will collect numerical data as representation of findings. This necessitates more graphs, charts, etc. to display the relationship and outcomes of the research. Additionally, the researcher will also explain the statistical method used to correlate and extrapolate meaning in the data. This process explains the math behind meaning-finding in the data collected. Likewise, qualitative collection methods also provide summations and representations of the results. Researchers will provide more excerpts through narrative means to convey the findings. During the analysis stage, researchers may code the field notes or interviews for commonalities and abnormalities. This provides a deeper look at the data to strengthen the findings. Within research, designers must address assumptions, limitations, and delimitations. Regardless of best intentions, research includes bias, but these concepts seek to limit the amount of bias in the research and findings. Results and explanations in research must be backed by data and evidence; however, in some circumstances, a gap exists and the evidence is not collected. Assumptions are used to explain the researcher’s ideas and beliefs to fill those gaps. It exposes the researcher’s mind to the reader so they can understand the logical progression to the results discussed. Researchers often include limitations, which explain what cannot be controlled by the selected methods and processes. Research take multiple decisions and sometimes those decisions are not to do something. Delimitations aim to provide the researcher space to address the reasoning behind not taking certain actions or steps in their process. This process establishes reliability and validity to the results and credibility to the researcher Other Approaches to Research Design Aspects of the research design can demand different approaches to the data and analyzing the outcomes. To increase effectiveness and establish sound triangulation, some researchers use both quantitative and qualitative means to collect data. This process, known as mixed-methods research, looks holistically at the variables in the study to collect numerical representations, such as course mastery grades or homework completion percentages, and narrative perceptions, such as focus groups or interviews. Mixed-methods most aligns with pragmatism, which focuses on real world practical views on finding out what works. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) state, “Pragmatic researchers propose that even within the same study, quantitative and qualitative methods can be combined in creative ways to more fully answer research questions” (p. 16). Most pragmatists utilize action research because of its efficiency and practicality. Practioners, such as school principals or classroom teachers, often do not have the capacity to execute the extraneous facets of traditional research. Because of this balancing act of roles, action research works as a quasi-scientific study in which the researcher collects quantitative and qualitative data before, during, and after implementing a variable. It is quasi-scientific because it often lacks the steps which establish reliability and validity, thus reducing the generalizability of its findings. Action research does utilize systematic planning and “reflection is involved at every stage” (Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle, 2010, p. 320). In this manner, action research is unique as it is an ongoing cycle of reflection, collection, planning, acting, and repeating. Action research can be as small as a classroom assignment or as large as ways to maintain student populations from year-to-year. Pragmatism also extends to program evaluations in a similar manner as action research. Schools are littered with seemingly separate and distinct programs, often costing thousands of dollars and hours. Schools utilize the systematic approach of program evaluations to determine the effectiveness and impact of a program to determine if it should continue as it is, change the program, or remove it altogether. Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle (2010) identify how program evaluations are different: “…program evaluation is used for decision-making purposes, while research builds our understanding and knowledge on a particular topic and to inform practice” (p. 363). Its goals are different and therefore some of the practices are as well. Program evaluation uses formative data to determine its effectiveness while it is occurring and then summative data to report if it fulfilled all interim benchmarks of effectiveness and if all goals are met. A key feature of this method also is the main evaluator, which can be internal or external. An internal evaluator is an employee of the organization who is tasked with determining its effectiveness; however, obviously bias is more likely with this approach. To avoid bias in evaluating the program, an organization can bring in a third party who is not affiliated with the organization. This external evaluator has no connection and therefore “…have no immediate biases for or against the program…” (Lodico, Spaulding, and Voegtle, 2010, p. 368). References Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Action Research. New York: Pearson. Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle, K. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Professional development is necessary in growing the effectiveness of instruction at our school. An evolution in our vision of professional development will produce the results we have not previously seen in earlier structures. In order to maintain the growth of all educators on different levels, a more developed and robust professional development system must be implemented and maintained. I think of it as painting the roads and suggesting a route, but the drivers must choose their path. By outlining goals and using data, the context can shift to be more individual in nature. As teachers grow, their version of professional development might change from the previous and traditional views. District and school leaders paint the lines and act as Google Maps, suggesting a route, but the professional educator must be a large piece of choosing the final destination and route to get there. The context must match the understanding that teachers engage in professional development at different levels in different ways. Differentiation in PD must catch up to differentiation in the classroom. This should look like a general pathway of showing levels of teaching mastery and include an evaluation of current skills. As teachers cycle through, they can then shift paths to become instructional leaders and lead PLCs in discussions and changes directly impacting that group’s needs. At the next level, teachers can choose to perform book studies or complete action-research. The tiered approach will yield stronger relationships between professional development and student outcomes.
Feedback is an essential tool for teachers with a Hattie effect size of .73 in 2015 (Visual Learning). For feedback to be effective, then the teacher must institute a system where the feedback is prompt, timely, and specific to the student’s writing. When some teachers have a workload of 160 or more students, some of this becomes difficult. Even if I spend 3 minutes per paper, given it is a 4-page paper, and then I will spend 213.3 minutes or 3 hours and 33 minutes. Given this time spent on each paper, how is quality feedback expected. I would be lying if I believed I provided quality feedback to all students given that time frame. In comes the Graide Network. Now, both teacher and student can receive work with detailed sentence and word level feedback within days of submission. With the shortening of time spent on submission-feedback return cycle, I can provide time for students to reflect on the feedback, improve their writing, and complete the process again as needed. The feedback is no longer summative, but rather formative and driving my instruction in the classroom. Isn’t it time to stop grading and start Graiding? Resources Visual Learning. (2016, May 10). Hattie ranking-interactive visualization. Retrieved from http://visible-learning.org/nvd3/visualize/hattie-ranking-interactive-2009-2011-2015.html Life does not include simple worksheets and multiple-choice tests as a means of day-to-day life after the last bell rings of schooling. Students must master the basics of become lifelong learners, thinking deeply and questioning everything. As teachers, this places more demand on creating stimulating activities that forces students to engage in creative thinking, such as metaphor or simile composition for complex ideas, and novel thinking, developing new ideas in a long list of traditional ideas. More of the educational needs to promote these activities to engage our students in their education.
This also puts a stress on teachers who are increasingly being asked to document student progress and provide data, data, data, and more data. Unfortunately, most curriculum and textbook resources are not structured for embedded thinking strategies and increasing thinking time of students. These are mainly focused on the transmission of content and skill from teacher or book/website to student. The focus is no longer in the student but on the teacher or the material. Focusing more on the student can be an abstract thought for teachers, but on that can be landed in the concrete world through questioning and cultures of thinking. After reading Ritchhart’s Cultures of Thinking and Rothstein and Santana’s Question Formation Technique, I decided to combine the two to see how my students responded to a culture of thinking. Students began with a 3-2-1 activity in reaction to the statement “Racism in America” (we had just finished To Kill a Mockingbird). Students had 3-4 minutes to list 3 words that came to mind, 2 questions, and 1 simile or metaphor for the topic. Not only did students directly engage with the material even before I finished the directions, but they added more than the required amount. As class, we then completed a group share out and recording of student responses. In some of the longer periods, I was able to embed metacognition and prompt students to add why they think that those thoughts or the connection between their ideas. Students transitioned to a Paper Talk, adapted from the idea of Chalk Talk. 6 large poster-sized sheets of white paper were separated around our room. In reflection, it would have been better to have a larger space for more separation. Students were assigned a starting location at one of the six stations and prompted to react to the statement on the sheet by recording their thoughts as they occur. Students should have some freedom in documenting their thoughts and not forced to write all paragraphs, etc. Students could document ideas, wonderings, or questions to the original topic. After students had a grasp on the activity, I added that if they had reactions, responses, or questions from peer writings on the posters, they could add those. I soon found students returning to multiple areas to add ideas, some were on to their own ideas. Additionally, students were connecting through lines and boxing like topics together. Unfortunately, the period ran short, but if time allotted, I wanted students to openly discuss their thinking process and describe some of the paths they took to adding those questions or conclusions. Some of the guidelines for the activity:
Resources and Examples Below In the past decade, there has been two separate movements for curriculum. One movement at the school level and one at the academic level. When I started teaching, schools either did not have a curriculum or handed me the textbook as the curriculum. Thankfully, we’ve progressed past that point; however, schools are still lacking in the development of a curriculum that will be effective for all teachers and in turn all students. Since the No Child Left Behind push, schools have become more advanced in assembling curriculum teams, reviewing curriculum, and evaluating fidelity to which teachers follow the curriculum. Unfortunately, some of the key aspects of an effective curriculum were taken too literally. Additionally, schools often, with a good purpose, try to solve things quickly. Many schools did and more importantly, still do use the standards as a curriculum. As you look at individual districts, large city district, or even countywide districts, the curriculum is usually some form of standards copied and pasted and handed to the teachers. Do a simple search of ELA or Math curriculum in any state or in the nation and you will find an abundance of examples to review. The school movement sought to provide a curriculum that, according to experts, needs to be based on standards to be effective. However, being based on standards is not the same as just being the standard. While schools continue to utilize this model of standards, even if split into topical units and spiraled to repeat, the potential effectiveness of their curriculum remains lower than developing a more research-based approach. The world of academia continues to utilize brain-based science and action research to produce better frameworks for curriculum development. Whatever model of instructional design that is being utilized in your school, universal ideas of curriculum might provide a better scope and sequence for teachers and students. Standards are the foundation for curriculum, but not its entirety. A collaborative team must review, engage in dialogue, and discuss the standards to turn them into learning strands and goals. These learning goals then become mastery scales. This is the key difference missing in curriculum design and one that starts the journey to differentiated learning and Response to Intervention programs. Without this piece to the curriculum puzzle, many teachers are left without clear guidance on how to systematically and effectively approach delivery within these schemes. These mastery goals and learning targets become embedded in units of suggested length under an umbrella of driving questions. To read more on this curriculum framework, visit DeFlitch’s Curriculum Website or purchase Marzano’s work on learning targets. Let’s remember that No Child Behind is over. The dawn of Every Student Succeeds Act appears on the horizon. Thinking. An obvious standard that all classrooms in all grades state is a main focus. But is it? When asked about concrete and observable targeting and developing of student thinking, many teachers resort to their use of Bloom’s Taxonomy in developing questions. According to Dr. Kagan (2005), “Although Bloom's Taxonomy is very useful from a practical perspective, in three important ways Bloom's Taxonomy does not align well with recent findings of brain science Universities and district and push Bloom’s as the standard for thinking levels without considering alternatives or evaluating its effectiveness.” Additionally, most of the artifacts collected that target thinking often represent the concrete product of the thought or an elementary use of graphic organizers. Too little is being done that explicitly grows and documents the progression of thought for students, which means most activities are just that, subject-specific activities that target testing and not thinking. The irony is that more targeting of thinking ends up producing students who can retain and depict their learning in all settings. Ron Ritchhart, among others, worked developed a system of routines that target thinking in students in all grade levels. Through Project Zero at Harvard, numerous teachers expanded their whole to focus on whole-brain instruction and provided educational opportunities that translated beyond subject knowledge to transferrable knowledge. Teachers are modelers of the thinking culture. A culture of thinking in schools cannot be rote nor cannot be faked. It is a genuine and purposeful environment set with the students and modeled by the teacher. In the correct environment, thinking proliferates given the parameters and language of the teacher and the opportunities to document and reflect on thinking, situations designed by the teacher to include. List of Thinking Opportunity Routines |
Mr. Brenton DeFlitchStriving to provide unique and research-based strategies to modernizing the educational experience of students. Archives
February 2017
Categories |