Technology enhanced student centred learning: devaluing the role of teachers?

Student centred learning has long been an interest of mine ever since I started exploring Educational theories less than a decade ago. It is a perspective of learning that puts the learner at the centre of the learning process; that the learner becomes the seeker of knowledge or truth rather than being the passive recipient of knowledge handed to him / her from a perceived authority figure. Without a doubt, student centred learning is a vast research area that spans both children and adult learners within any discipline and within any learning context. A sub area of this is Technology Enhanced Student Centred Learning, which places technology at the core of the aims and objectives of such learning; that technology is designed and utalised within such learning contexts to support the aims and objectives, and to support the needs and requirements of the learners. During the past decade much has been written about the subject including Personalised Learning Environments, much of which has been written extensively by Graham Atwell, along with theoretical perspectives such as Paragogy, Heutagogy, and Rhizome learning, which can also apply to other areas of learning.

An article written by Ross Brenneman highlights some references that express fears about Technology Enhanced Student Centred Learning contexts that revolve around teachers being replaced with technologies and that the general teaching profession is being devalued as technology becomes more sophisticated at assisting learners with their learning and knowledge management.

Personally, I don’t agree with the notion that technologies shall eventually replace all teachers and other educators in a classroom due to the emotional needs of the learners: you cannot expect, for example, young learners with particular learning difficulties to learn only through technology as they need to be appropriately and suitably guided. There could be a hypothesis developed that suggests that Artificial Intelligence could gain such a technological status that they can begin to “know” learners in a sense that they “know” the best way to support particular learners and be able to differentiate between their needs and requirements. However this brings about certain Philosophical problems: how can a machine “know” a learner, and how can a machine “know” the way to differentiate between the needs of different learners? You could say through the use of logical programming, or some advanced form of logical programming, but can this really occur? Can machines also really develop that emotional bond with a learner that can exist between a young learner and their teacher?

I also do not agree with the assertion that teaching through student centred learning is being or will be devalued, because what might happen is not a deconstruction of the teaching profession, but of a reformulation. This is not the times of the industrial revolution anymore, and because of this formal school Education needs to be reformulated and reinvented using different Philosophical principles and a reformulation of roles. This is an era that involves a vast amount of information readily available by a vast quantity of technologies from anywhere across the world, not to mention the opportunities that are in place for learners to create their own representations of existing information or work together on these representations or to construct knowledge. Learners need to be taught to navigate this vast array of new opportunities and support networks and be supported in their personal learning journeys, and to be able to evaluate the sheer amount of information and its sources in order to determine its validity, authenticity, reliability and relevance.

Student centred learning empowers the learner to become effective producers of knowledge representations and of knowledge management; technology enhanced student centred learning simply offers the opportunities for learners to use a vast array of technologies that are deemed appropriate for their needs and requirements so that they can meet their personal learning goals and be productive along their learning journey. New educational theories and methods make it possible for this to happen and it’s nothing to do with devaluing the role of a teacher but empowering the learner with the abilities, skills, attitudes, and characteristics needed to become that effective learner and the mindset to continuously improve and develop, which can really only come about fully through guidance from the teacher, and this will then lead to meeting the needs of modern learners in this new era.

As the author of the article said, it isn’t easy to predict the future of Education. There are many many strands of research and debates across all aspects of Education, and new areas of discussions and research are continuously being identified. It is most certainly an exciting field of research and practice, and the role of the teacher in the future will be something worth watching and exploring further.

Refernce to the article:

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2015/08/teachers-versus-robots-is-the-future-of-school.html?cmp=SOC-EDIT-FB

Alex Darracott : 14 Aug 2015 22:28 |  Tags: Learning Student-Centred Students Teachers Teaching Technology |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Children as self–determined learners? Thoughts on an Ethiopian project

A few weeks ago at a research conference I was invited to discuss various educational topics of very recent interest, including what shall be a highly controversial and highly debated idea of children being self-determined learners essentially as described by a learning theory named “Heutagogy.” The main premise of this potential direction of classroom learning is utalising a pure child centred learning approach with the child taking full control of their learning without any assistance or without a teacher being present.

A speaker who was making a case for this approach made the suggestion that learners do not need to have emotional and social connectivity within learning contexts, just the cognitive capability to learn and a micro environment that is suitable for their abilities. Opposition arrived from other people, suggesting that technology should not replace teachers; that children need to feel that they belong and that they need that social and emotional connectivity within a classroom in order to learn effectively and this can only happen if a perceived authority, a teacher, is present. Research within post compulsory education shows that, with some adult learners, it is the case that they need to feel a part of an online learning community before any learning within that community can take place.

Are social and emotional connections to a teacher or even other learners really necessary for learning to take place? We tend to view children as social and emotional beings (especially teenagers, I might add), so could findings at adult education level be applied to children? Would it be even more of a case for children to feel a sense of belonging and a sense of taking part so that they can learn? If so, what is it that makes a person, either a child or adult, feel that need for such connections before they perceive effective learning? Do you really need to feel socially and emotionally connected to other learners before effective learning can take place? Do you really need a teacher or a facilitator and feel connected to that facilitator in order for yourself to feel that you can progress with learning?

It was an interesting discussion and I haven’t really given it much thought until I came across this article published a couple of years ago. Titled “Given Tablets but no Teachers, Ethiopian Children Teach Themselves”, it describes a couple of schools in Ethiopia trying out an experiment where children, perceived to be illiterate, were given tablets with an assortment of pre-loaded software with the aim of finding out of they could teach themselves valuable reading skills.

Nicholas Negroponte, a founder of the project, suggested at an EmTech conference that early indications show positive results from the experiment. All the children involved in the project had never read a book or had anything to do with words, and yet a few months into the project the children were able to sing the alphabet song and were able to spell words using a paint program. Negroponte, quite rightly, goes on to suggest that this is not substantial proof or evidence that children are able to learn effectively on their own using technology, but the preliminary findings were substantial enough to warrant further research.

Whilst I found the article and the experiences of the children very interesting, I am not going to make any suggestion either way as to whether or not self-determined learning with technology would actually work with children in terms of not having that emotional and social connectivity. However, this project and others similar in other countries do suggest that children are capable of far more than perhaps British society and the British Education system allows them. I have come across people who actually believe that if you teach yourself, then you’re not really learning. This is a view that I do disagree with, and research in other countries show that it is possible that children can become self-determined learners given the right environment. Could it really be possible?

Do note that I am not making any suggestion that technologies should replace teachers; however, remembering that technology is simply an application of learning and not the means of all learning, it does encourage thinking further about the role of the teacher in the classroom. Technology, remember, should not be considered as the be all of everything but as one of many modern methods of designing learning environments so that more effective learning can take place among and between learners. Other methods include micro learning environments, self-determination, personalised learning environments, informal learning, among others.

It makes you think about the possibilities with technology and the transformations that technologies can bring to any classroom. It makes you think about and question the relationship between teacher, child, and technology and it makes you also question the role of emotive and social learning processes and their influence upon learning.

The biggest question in all of this, however, is whether or not children can really be self-determined learners. If you believe that they are not able to be self-determined learners (with or without technology), then are your assumptions about this restricted to what you have experienced? Are they bounded by the social and political contexts of our education system that does not encourage our children to be self-determined learners?

Whatever your answers are, the main thing when considering the issues raised in this blog post is that any amount of thinking and questioning about the relationship between teacher, child, and technology and the role and importance of social and emotional learning within self-determined learning contexts are always valuable and useful. This is simply because there can be no progress without questioning, and no understanding without exploring those questions as objectively as is possible.

If you have made it through the blog post this far, check out the article

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506466/given-tablets-but-no-teachers-ethiopian-children-teach-themselves/

Alex Darracott : 18 Jun 2015 21:22 |  Tags: Children Learning Roles Teacher |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Thoughts on the assumptions of learners and teachers automatically knowing about technology

Whenever I come across an article that explores the apparent inability of teachers to use technology effectively for teaching and learning purposes, you cannot help but wonder what is going on out there given that there is such a huge potential for technology to transform Education and to contribute towards the aims and objectives of meaningful learning experiences. As an Educational researcher (in the making) I think about the role of technology in Education constantly, both in individual self-directed and social learning contexts.

Reading through an article titled "Why Ed Tech is not Transforming How Teachers Teach" simply adds to the fact that technological investments are meaningless if there is a lack of investment in the training of teachers to use technology adequately and in learner understanding of the role and purpose of technology towards their learning, suitable for the teaching and learning contexts they are within at a particular time.

It is fairly pointless, in my opinion, to suggest that technology does nothing to improve learning after making huge investments when there is no clue in the classroom as to their appropriateness. There appears to be this long running, and still persisting, assumption that learners have an automatic, innate understanding of the appropriateness, purpose and use of technology for their learning simply because they use technology in their leisure time. I find that teachers, particularly newer teachers, are expected to know and understand uses of technology appropriate for their teaching. It is not expected that being able to drive a car on the road automatically means that the driver is able to control and drive an F1 vehicle around a race track, so why is there an expectation that teachers and learners automatically have an understanding of technology for teaching and learning simply because they use technology for leisure?

There must be a change in the assumptions that people have regarding an innate ability to immediately be able to comprehend technologies for learning just because technology is extremely common. General use of technology does not equate to being able to understand their uses in specific educational contexts.

In explaining the barriers to adopting technologies fully, the article makes some very excellent points about teachers feeling that they are bound to school politics and established classroom normalities and traditions, which is a very interesting and important point to pick up because this is a much wider problem than technological learning contexts. I have spoken to teachers in the past who have attempted to bring in advanced teaching methods such as problem solving methods, and these were scorned at by those higher up the school’s hierarchy. This then becomes a problem of teaching methods in general, and what is deemed as acceptable in the classroom and what is accepted is ever changing: just take a look at the methods now used to teach mathematics in schools. But is what becomes acceptable driven by Governments? School politics? Are children really being considered in the decision making as to what should be acceptable?

The article suggests and references other reasons for the lack of technological uptake, and all these reasons have very little to do with the effectiveness of the technology itself. Essentially, you cannot expect teachers and learners to improve their teaching and learning through technology if neither of them have had the training and experience that allows them to immediately evaluate and select the most appropriate technology for a particular teaching and learning context. All the investment in technology within Education shall not amount to anything unless there is a change of attitude and a more substantial investment in teacher and learner training and experience of technology within educational environments.

Check out the article:

Why Ed Tech is not Transforming How Teachers Teach

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/06/11/why-ed-tech-is-not-transforming-how.html?cmp=SOC-EDIT-FB

Alex Darracott : 18 Jun 2015 20:14 |  Tags: Technology Training |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

My First Research Conference Presentation!

I have had the absolute pleasure and delight recently in being given the opportunity to attend and present at the third Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Conference at Warwick University. I was rather concerned about this and a little nervous, because it had been the first time in a couple of years since I had presented my own ideas but regardless of the time span, any event that involves a person presenting an aspect of their own work that they have been thinking about for a while always brings on a set of nerves.

I found the research conference very encouraging and inspiring because of the positive feedback that I had regarding the research methodology that I’m planning and designing, and also what took me by surprise is that people who have been on their Ph.D. projects for longer than I have been on mine said that they found the poster presentation and my own discussions of my methodology to be uplifting and inspiring. This I found particularly encouraging and surprising given that I’m in my first year and given that formal planning and designing of the methodology are in their very early stages. Not sure if I’m going to upload the poster to an online avenue, but I might create some sort of online version of aspects of the poster at a later time.  I have also found the discussions following other Ph.D. presentations and the debates that I was involved with were also quite encouraging and inspiring and made me think about my own research particularly the further directions I could go with my literature review.

This was a very important day for many reasons: to receive feedback on my work so far, to find out if I could inspire others, to find further inspiration, and to show willingness to be involved with academic discussion and debates at conferences. It delivered far beyond my own expectations and assumptions and, most importantly for my own research that, despite the very early stages of the methodological planning and designing, that I’m on the right track with the methodology.

Encouraging, inspiring, networking, humbleness, being willing to get involved with various aspects of a conference are all important characteristics of a conference and of being involved. It would have been very easy to have refused to have taken part in anything if the nerves were too consuming, but despite the nerves I fell back into the role of presenter and, if you like, teacher, without even thinking about it. Sometimes you need to attend these conferences to remind yourself of exactly who you are and where you are going, so not only are conferences important to engage on an academic, social setting, but also on a personal level.

I do encourage all Ph.D. researchers to engage, attend, and present at conferences whenever they can. I remember attending a conference a few years ago and the result of that conference was a near total dismantle of my research proposal to the core of my research, and a rebuilding of ideas and directions to what it is now. I’m grateful for the opportunity to have attended that conference several years ago and to the Professor who said to me that in time, I would understand the importance of being able to dismantle your own research, or aspects of that research, and rebuild it from a particular position. It is very important therefore to never attend conferences with a set agenda or a set mindset that you are correct and that your ideas are unchangeable: they are changeable, I experienced that a few years ago! Attend conferences with an open mind and a mindset to listen and accept new ideas and perspectives, and decide if whether or not what has been presented is suitable, in some way, to the research that you are developing.

Be open minded about everything: being closed minded is never recommended or beneficial for anything except the pretence that what you believe to be true is true in reality and that every person should follow what you believe is true. Having such closed mindedness is a reason why certain political agendas and political parties can become more favourable or more dominant than they really should be, but that’s an aside and this is not a political blog (well, not too much of a political blog). Nevertheless, closed mindedness is not, and should not, be an academic agenda or goal. Open mindedness is the best approach, not just when attending conferences but within academia in general!

Oh and a couple of other things that might be useful: presenting at conferences might also help you with your Upgrade paper, and shall help towards whatever Professional Development courses or schemes that you are a part with at your own University!

Alex Darracott : 28 May 2015 11:34 |  Tags: Dissertation Prd Reflection Thesis |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Whatonology? Part C: why should Ph.D. researchers care?

On the way back to my beautiful home county of Cornwall after presenting at Warwick’s CES Third Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Conference, I continued to read literature on Mixed Methods methodology, which is the type of research methodology that I’m currently planning and designing for my Ph.D. project. Mixed Methods methodology, of which there are various types and various debates for and against, is simply a methodology that combines multiple methods of research to gain a more complete understanding of the phenomena being investigated. Literature on Mixed Methods is quite extensive and the debates and discussions, including from Ontological and Epistemological perspectives, are immense and it shall be difficult for any Ph.D. researcher to be able to identify a general consensus from literature as to the correct approach and correct perspective to take with mixed methods methodology. The best that I personally can do as part of the development of the mixed methods methodology is to develop a full understanding of the different discussions and debates surrounding the methodology and use these discussions and debates as a basis to form my own arguments for using mixed methods methodology, a certain kind of such a methodology, within the context of my research, and why it’s most appropriate for the phenomena being investigated. That in itself shall probably take up eighty thousand words of the thesis nevermind anything else!

My supervisor commented that he doesn’t agree with literature being categorised or polarised within qualitative and quantitative paradigms of research, and also recently among the plethora of literature read on the way back from Warwick, I came across discussions that were divided as to the need and emphasis of articulating ontological and epistemological perspectives within research. This I found very interesting, because in a lot of research methodological textbooks there is a clear emphasis on the need for such discussions and considerations to take place, particularly within a Ph.D. thesis. It just goes to show that not everything is black or white.

So given all that, should the Ph.D. researcher be involved with and concerned with ontological and epistemological perspectives of reality and the way in which these have influenced the design and application of their methodology? I’m going to say yes, whilst acknowledging that this is not a black or white argument.

It is not a black or white argument because there really is no right or wrong answer. Just because a Ph.D. researcher has adopted a Positivist Ontology it doesn’t make that researcher anymore correct, or incorrect, than a Ph.D. researcher who adopts an Interpretivist Ontology. Similarly, a Ph.D. researcher who adopts a single methodology, either qualitative or quantitative, is no more right or wrong in their approach than a person who adopts a mixed methods methodology.

What’s most important is that whichever methodological, epistemological, and so on, perspectives are selected that they are able to contribute effectively towards answering the research questions and be compatible with the phenomena being investigated. What is also very important, I argue, is that a Ph.D. researcher is able to effectively and convincingly argue that their Epistemological, Ontological, and Methodological approaches are suitable; essentially, each Ph.D. researcher must be able to select a particular positioning, and develop and present convincing arguments as to why their perspectives are the most appropriate for the context of their research and phenomena being investigated. Why is this? Because, despite what some literature says, there is a connection between Ontology, Epistemology, and Methodology; that there is connection between these considerations, the context being explored, and the phenomena being investigated. When you, as an example, explore the differences between the Sciences and Social Sciences, it is plainly obvious that both context differ, and both contexts carry different Ontological and Epistemological assumptions and perspectives, and therefore influencing methodological concerns and considerations.

My own arguments that argue for the positions that I’m currently positioning myself in are in the developmental stage and they will be in development for quite some time as I explore all these debates and discussions among the other work as part of the Ph.D. that I am currently involved with. I find it all an exciting challenge, and it’s something that is extremely intellectually stimulating and satisfying; therefore the reasons of an intellectual challenge and intellectual stimulation should further encourage Ph.D. researchers to become fully engaged and involved with their own Philosophical and Epistemological perspectives and developing arguments for these perspectives through engaging with debate and discussions both within literature and through online discussions and conferences with other researchers.

Go explore: be stimulated, be inspired, be challenged, and have fun doing so!

Alex Darracott : 28 May 2015 10:02 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Methodology Ontology Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Whatonology? Part B: the terms

Brief introduction to Ontology

Reality is an important consideration for all researchers including Ph.D researchers, and considerations include the way that reality is perceived, in what way they interact with reality, and what way they act and behave within reality. Is there such a thing as an objective reality, where concepts, behaviours, actions and interactions of reality are common across different populations? Or reality could more likely be subjective, where reality is defined as unique for each individual person; where concepts, behaviours, actions and interactions of reality cannot be generalised across different people and populations. Questions that cover the existence, purpose, interactions with and behaviours within reality are a part of Ontology: the study of reality, of the relationship between researcher and reality, and the relationship between researcher and that being researched or, if you want, the relationship between the observer and that which is being observed. Ph.D. researchers usually have an ontological perspective of reality, they just are not usually aware of their position or do not really understand it until they are in a position where they think about it.

There are two main types of ontology: realism and idealism. Researchers who view the world through a realist perspective view reality as fixed and unchanging, and can therefore explore reality using methods that reduce reality into measurable elements such as variables. Researchers who view the world through an idealism perspective view reality as complex and intricate, containing answers that are not easy to search and locate. Realism considers research findings as generalizable whereas idealism view research findings as more contextual and specific.

Brief introduction to Epistemology

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, of its components, of its sources, and of its origins, and is important for researchers because epistemology is also the study of the way in which knowledge of reality is investigated and understood. The main types of epistemological views of reality are positivism, or postpositivism in Social Sciences, and interpretivism. Interpretivist researchers interpret the actions and events of reality in a way that is usually subjective and unique relative to their personal framework of experiences and perceptions of that event or action. Therefore, interpretivist researchers construct knowledge of reality inside their minds as a result of their subjectivity, and is usually different for each interpretivist researcher. The essential difference with positivitism and related perspectives is that knowledge does not need to be constructed and is therefore readily available to access and be discovered by the researcher. Using a positivist approach, a researcher’s framework of experiences and perspectives of an event does not need to be considered, because knowledge of that event exists regardless of any experience or perspectives.

Brief introduction to Methodology

Ontology and epistemology together explains the way in which a researcher perceives reality, with the former being relative to the relationship between the researcher and reality, and the latter relative to the relationship between a researcher and the way in which they perceive knowledge of reality. Methodology explains the way that knowledge of reality is explored and investigated in order to assist with answering research questions. It is at the methodological level where methods of investigating knowledge is defined, and as can be guessed the selection of methods is influenced by the selected epistemological and ontological perspectives.

There are a couple of general types of methodologies: quantitative and qualitative, each of which contains a large variety of different research methods that explore reality and knowledge of reality in particular ways. Quantitative methodologies involve exploring reality commonly through using experimental and quasi-experimental research designs; qualitative methodologies involve exploring reality and knowledge of reality through very open methods that contain no experimentation or manipulation of reality: case study, phenomenology, interviews, focus groups and observation are examples of qualitative methodologies.

General thoughts

As was said in Part A of this series, although each of these methods are part of a wider umbrella of definitions, all of these methods within each umbrella explore reality and questions of reality slightly differently. As an example, although interviews and focus groups are similar in that they are qualitative investigations of reality, they are different in that they used for different purposes: interviews in terms of obtaining specific views and insights from specific people; focus groups in exploring a particular phenomenon identified among a group of specific individuals.

A key central point to selecting the correct method, therefore, is not only understanding your own ontological and epistemological perspectives of reality, but also fully understanding the research questions that you want to answer in your research project. This shall be covered more in a separate blog posts, at a later time. 

Alex Darracott : 17 May 2015 16:33 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Methodology Ontology Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology, Whatonology? Part A: Reality itself

When you are asked questions along the lines of, “what is reality? What does reality mean to you?” What kind of images of reality comes to you? What is your idea of reality? For some people, reality is getting the children ready for school before a certain time whilst rushing about trying get themselves ready for work, getting the children belted up in the car and rushing them off to school before travelling to the place of work. It must be realised however that all those with children are not in the same reality, so to speak, as others, as there are married couples with children, single parents, parents dealing with an assortment of behavioural, emotional and psychological problems, and their work context might differ: they might work at home, they might not currently have a job, and so on. It can be taken that whilst each of these scenarios have the common feature of people having children, the way that people interact with reality and perceive reality is different, and one of the biggest challenges facing any society is being able to understand that reality is not the same for each person.

Reality therefore is something that we interact with on a daily occurrence. We might have a sense of reality, but do we really think about it to any great lengths or great extents? Reality itself and interactions with reality needs to be considered greatly among Ph.D. researchers and researchers in general, simply because whatever way a researcher perceives reality influences their interactions with and behaviours within reality and therefore can influence greatly the type of research, and the methods used within their research, that is used to understand the reality that they perceive. This can get even more complicated when you abstract from this and start realising that objective reality is perhaps an illusion as each person, each researcher, could perceive reality a little differently and those who share the same perspective of reality could investigate that perspective of reality a little differently.

You then start really asking the questions about what method or methods of investigating reality really brings out the true and correct knowledge about reality, made even more complicated by the fact that knowledge itself can be perceived in many different ways, therefore making it impossible to really decide for sure. But should there be a right or wrong method? Why would a researcher perceive a particular method as a poor method just because they perceive reality and knowledge a little differently from researchers who find that method effective? What is knowledge? What does it consist of? Where does knowledge come from? Is there such a thing as objective knowledge and objective reality? What does it all mean and why is it so important for Ph.D. researchers to consider carefully?

All these questions, and more, must be considered carefully by any researcher. Welcome to Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology!

Alex Darracott : 17 May 2015 16:15 |  Tags: Design Epistemology Methodology Ontology Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

What is that discipline called Philosophy?

I have been thinking about the role of Philosophy in research for many months, and continue to think and engage with lots of reading about the subject especially recently in relation to Educational research and my own Ph.D research project. When you are asked what Philosophy is, it’s a bit difficult to really describe Philosophy because it is quite an intricate and complex subject mostly because, unlike Science, there is no real general consensus on the way that the world should be perceived and interacted with. There are no agreed terms and no particular Philosophical perspective is considered more important than the other. I’ve become to realise over the many months of research and thinking about Philosophy that it’s not really a case of trying to push a particular perspective as correct, but to utalise the most appropriate perspective for the context that is being considered. Philosophy in general therefore could be regarded as a discipline or knowledge domain that defines human interaction with each other, with themselves, and with objects of reality. There are many branches of Philosophy and many contexts of which Philosophy could be applied, but for this post I’ll just focus on some of my thoughts regarding the importance of Philosophy in research

What is Philosophy? This is a question that can be answered in many ways, but for me as a person taking part in Ph.D research, it is a perspective of reality that can have major implications on personal understanding of knowledge of reality and the way in which knowledge of this reality can be explored. The construct of a Ph.D thesis and the way in which everything is approached can be solely determined by an individual’s Philosophical stance: from the approach of the literature review, to the selection of research methodologies, to the design of the research methodologies, to the exploration of data, and to the reporting of findings. Perhaps it’s really not much of a surprise to find out that there are many cases where a person is a little confused about their Philosophical stance and this is reflected in their thesis where at the beginning they suggest a particular stance then as they construct their thesis they show that they are actually supporting another stance.

Personally I’ve been thinking about my own Philosophical stance for many years: I do believe that I’m fairly clear with my own Philosophical beliefs of reality and the way in which we should interact with reality. That doesn’t mean to say that my particular Philosophical stance of reality is correct; it just means that I’m beginning to form full arguments that support my stance against other stances. It’s important as a Ph.D researcher to think about reality; to think about where your general considerations of knowledge of reality is within the context of reality, and develop appropriate arguments that supports that stance. Argumentation development is very important in an area such as Philosophy where there is essentially no common agreement with Philosophers as to which should be the most dominant and correct perspective. This is probably a major reason why some people simply do not like Philosophy as they prefer to grasp what they perceive to be “real” answers and not some set of answers that could be correct depending on context.

This is just a brief overview of my general thinking of Philosophy. My understanding of Philosophy and considerations of my own Philosophical perspectives of reality and explorations of reality are continuously developing. More postings of Philosophy in Research shall be forthcoming as I do believe that this is an important topic that learners should be getting to grips with.

Alex Darracott : 01 May 2015 22:50 |  Tags: Philosophy Thesis |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Thoughts on the new research into impact of class size on the teacher

The new research into the impact of class size on the teacher is an interesting piece of research. Though my research is in the adult education, post graduate sector at the moment, I do have an interest in the role of the teacher and the impact that a teacher can have on children in the classroom.

When I think about the teacher in a classroom, I have a host of questions such as: what is the role of a teacher? In what way can a teacher disseminate information to a whole classroom? What methods do they use? Do they prefer a method over another method? Do they differentiate between different styles of learning and levels of abilities? Do they believe in a macro learning environment only, or micro learning environments within a macro environment? In what way do they include those perceived to have learning abilities outside “the box”? Should learning be placed within a box anyway? What implications do all these considerations of methods, inclusions, abilities, and environments have on the teacher?

Obviously, when it comes to adult education particularly post graduate education these questions are not really that important because learners are meant to be more independent. That’s not to say, however, that children are not able to be independent learners as learning systems in other countries have shown, but that’s another topic. At Secondary and especially at Primary levels, the idea is that children are not exactly independent in their learning. Therefore, as can be understood, this is a big responsibility placed on the teacher. The politicisation of the UK education system in terms of the development of the national curriculum, and Governments’ attempts at telling teachers the way to do the jobs they are already qualified for, has simply increased the pressure on them over the years.

So then, the study! It is an international investigation into the impact of class size on the effectiveness of a teacher. So there are already a couple of variables: class size, and teacher effectiveness. Class size is somewhat predictable: about thirty to a class, but teacher effectiveness is a bit more difficult because effectiveness is one of those abstract terms that are difficult to define, and different researchers have different ideas as to its meaning. The study might also mention student achievement: in what way should this be measured? Most research in Education points to this variable being measured through grades, which is a quantitative evaluation. I would like there to be more qualitative evaluations and definitions of achievement, but admittedly this would be more time consuming and complex to carry out although a more realistic perspective of achievement might be obtained.

Professor Peter Blatchford, the study’s director, has the belief that previous research that uses student achievement as a variable did not take class size variable into account, and I tend to agree with him because in research I have come across there has not been a significant analysis of class size and their impact on class or group based learning.

I shall be watching the progress of this research. Whilst it is not directly related or perhaps even relevant to my Ph.D research, it is an interesting piece of research that shall provide new knowledge about the role of teachers within varying classroom sizes, and in what way they manage environments of different sizes.

More information on the research can he found here: https://news.tes.co.uk/b/news/2015/02/20/international-study-to-look-at-effect-of-class-size-on-teachers.aspx

Alex Darracott : 24 Feb 2015 15:52 |  Tags: Children Education |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

New Year: brief reflection of the past few months!

It’s a New Year, and it’s a special year for movie buffs as they shall be no doubt scrutinising everything to do with Back to the Future two and working out if anything predicted in that movie has actually come true. As much as I enjoy the Back to the Future movie, I shall let the experts care about that whilst I get back to what I care about! Writing about Education, Research, Technology, and writing in general! I realise that I’ve neglected this blog a little but I’m sure many of you will understand that you get moments where you become so focussed on a task that you don’t really want to put it aside until you are at a position where you are happy with directions enough to get on with other things that are pulling at your attention. I’ve been able to reflect back on the first few months of the Ph.D and I’m pretty pleased with what has happened so far.

The key task of the past few months has been the literature review. It is too early for the formal writing process, but this shall take place later this year. This period of the literature review between the first day of the Ph.D, in fact even before that, and till later this year is composed of extensive reading around and within the now identified research areas and write fairly comprehensive notes on relevant research papers and other academic work. It is difficult early on to predict what exactly will be read or the extent of the material that there is to read, but there are strategies that can assist and I'll be discussing these at a later time. Start planning and coming up with ideas of the literature review from the very beginning. This is what I've focussed on the most during the past few months and I do believe it has been a success. Obviously the structure and the finer details shall be further explained, but the main elements and the order of these elements are beginning to be decided upon.

Thankfully also I've built an awareness of the importance of the literature review. The literature review is extremely important because this sets the context of your research, and this context involves using existing and previous research in a way that it provides a basis to argue for the need of the research. It gets more complicated than this because the context includes not only the argumentative but also the theoretical, epistemological, methodological and ontological. The importance and the challenge of producing this chapter cannot be underestimated and it cannot be taken lightly and I advise all Ph.D researchers who have not yet started on their literature review to start reading and writing extensive notes straight away.

Also the past few months have been taken up reading a fair bit on Educational research itself and again this is an important activity to do, and just like the literature review this shall be continuous during the year. I’m becoming more fascinated with Educational research and the political structures that influence research, the need for Educational research and the way it has been developed over the decades.

I could write a thesis about writing a thesis! Basically, the literature review is extremely important, as is doing as much background reading to Educational research as you can. Do this early, and make it continuous and often. Plan well, be continuous and consistent at what you do, work hard, and have an excellent year!

Alex Darracott : 12 Jan 2015 23:16 |  Tags: Reflections |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem