Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from mblk-d39 (mblk-d39.mblk.aol.com [205.188.212.223]) by air-id07.mx.aol.com (v106.2) with ESMTP id MAILINID72-3e0342d2893c159; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:59:09 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:59:08 -0400
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
From: [log in to unmask]
References: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from 213.232.79.237 by mblk-d39.sysops.aol.com (205.188.212.223) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:59:08 -0400
X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI
X-MB-Message-Type: User
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 1.1.0.13071
Subject: Re: Questions 2 and 3 of the Review Stage
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="--------MailBlocks_8C754403985464D_61C_9B6F_mblk-d39.sysops.aol.com"
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [log in to unmask]
X-AOL-IP: 205.188.212.223
----------MailBlocks_8C754403985464D_61C_9B6F_mblk-d39.sysops.aol.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Brian,
I am a RE teacher in a large (2000+) comprehensive in Thame, in SE Oxfordshire. I am doing a PhD at Warwick into pupil self-assessment in RE, as a part of assessment for learning. (Further details at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wie/wreru/teaching/researchdegrees/mphil_phdprojects/)
I am interested in how pupils self-assess both their academic learning, and also more intangible qualities - self-assessment as a form of self-development, spiritual and moral development.
1. How do you assess the quality of your practitioner
research?
The obvious thing to do with research into assessment is to 'measure' pupil progress somehow. However, this is precisely what is not possible. My research is therefore qualitative, into pupils' perceptions of these processes, through interviews, triangulated agianst my perceptions as a teacher and simple questionnaires. The research at Warwick, and my own background is in ethnography. It is not focussed on my development in my teaching, though there are implications for that. I prefer to listen in my research, as I probably talk too much in lessons anyway!
2. How can we enhance the validity and rigour of our
practitioner research?
I think that the tensions between 'academic' research, 'emancipatory' research and professional development are currently construed as a battle between epistemology and ethics. Personally I am a fan of virtue ethics and more recent developments in 'virtue epistemology' [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-virtue/]. This is an approach to epistemology that focuses not on the processes by which one arrives at truth, but the qualities of the person necessary to arrive at truth. Some moral qualities necessary are e.g. sincerity, some epistemological ones are, e.g. knowledge and prudence. The practitioner researcher thus has to balance the demands of different virtues, e.g. the 'research' virtue of commitment to truth, with the teaching virtues of justice or compassion. Describing the problems of validity/rigour in this way may not resolve the disagreements, but it does allow one to pick ones way through the minefield, identifying the particular tensions and how t!
hey can be resolved. I am interested in the current discussion, but feel that a lot of assumptions are being made about the priority of certain virtues over others, a particular view of social justice over a commitment to epistemological rigour.
I hope that this makes some sort of sense. You asked for something more down to earth. I'm not sure that this is it.
regards
Nigel Fancourt
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian wakeman <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:28:21 +0100
Subject: Questions 2 and 3 of the Review Stage
Are you a practitioner researcher working in a school,
hospital or other professional setting?
The BERA SIG(Special Interest Group) on Practitioner
Research would like you to respond to the second and
third questions of the Review Stage.
We've heard a lot from the same eloquent writers, but
....
Maybe you have comments to make, or questions to ask.
e.g. I ask myself 'How do I make sure that what we
claim is happening is congruent with what is actually
happening, what others might see in our
institutions?
Does the information and evidence we collect reflect
the principles of fairness and balance?
What checks and balances do I use to ensure I am
seeing things clearly, undistorted by personal bias?
Am I grounding my analysis in the evidence I have
collected?
Is what I write consistent, and cogent...does it make
sense to others?
Is it just a matter of my opinion, my values?
Are there any criteria for 'quality'?
Please do write with your down to earth practical
thoughts ........
Kind regards
Brian
Convener of BERA SIG Practitioner Research
Brian E. Wakeman
Education adviser
Dunstable
Beds
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian wakeman <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:28:21 +0100
Subject: Questions 2 and 3 of the Review Stage
Are you a practitioner researcher working in a school,
hospital or other professional setting?
The BERA SIG(Special Interest Group) on Practitioner
Research would like you to respond to the second and
third questions of the Review Stage.
We've heard a lot from the same eloquent writers, but
....
1. How do you assess the quality of your practitioner
research?
2. How can we enhance the validity and rigour of our
practitioner research?
Maybe you have comments to make, or questions to ask.
e.g. I ask myself 'How do I make sure that what we
claim is happening is congruent with what is actually
happening, what others might see in our
institutions?
Does the information and evidence we collect reflect
the principles of fairness and balance?
What checks and balances do I use to ensure I am
seeing things clearly, undistorted by personal bias?
Am I grounding my analysis in the evidence I have
collected?
Is what I write consistent, and cogent...does it make
sense to others?
Is it just a matter of my opinion, my values?
Are there any criteria for 'quality'?
Please do write with your down to earth practical
thoughts ........
Kind regards
Brian
Convener of BERA SIG Practitioner Research
Brian E. Wakeman
Education adviser
Dunstable
Beds
----------MailBlocks_8C754403985464D_61C_9B6F_mblk-d39.sysops.aol.com
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<HTML><BODY><DIV style='font-family: "Verdana"; font-size: 10pt;'><DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Dear Brian, </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am a RE teacher in a large (2000+) comprehensive in Thame, in SE Oxfordshire. I am doing a PhD at Warwick into pupil self-assessment in RE, as a part of assessment for learning. (Further details at <A href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wie/wreru/teaching/researchdegrees/mphil_phdprojects/"><U><FONT color=#800080>http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wie/wreru/teaching/researchdegrees/mphil_phdprojects/</FONT></U></A>)</DIV>
<DIV>I am interested in how pupils self-assess both their academic learning, and also more intangible qualities - self-assessment as a form of self-development, spiritual and moral development. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1<STRONG>. How do you assess the quality of your practitioner<BR>research?</STRONG> <BR></DIV>
<DIV>The obvious thing to do with research into assessment is to 'measure' pupil progress somehow. However, this is precisely what is not possible. My research is therefore qualitative, into pupils' perceptions of these processes, through interviews, triangulated agianst my perceptions as a teacher and simple questionnaires. The research at Warwick, and my own background is in ethnography. It is not focussed on <EM>my</EM> development in my teaching, though there are implications for that. I prefer to listen in my research, as I probably talk too much in lessons anyway!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>2. How can we enhance the validity and rigour of our<BR>practitioner research?<BR></STRONG><BR>I think that the tensions between 'academic' research, 'emancipatory' research and professional development are currently construed as a battle between epistemology and ethics. Personally I am a fan of virtue ethics and more recent developments in 'virtue epistemology' [<A href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-virtue/"><U><FONT color=#800080>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-virtue/</FONT></U></A>]. This is an approach to epistemology that focuses not on the processes by which one arrives at truth, but the <EM>qualities of the person</EM> necessary to arrive at truth. Some moral qualities necessary are e.g. sincerity, some epistemological ones are, e.g. knowledge and prudence. The practitioner researcher thus has to balance the demands of different virtues, e.g.!
the 'research' virtue of commitment to truth, with the teaching virtues of justice or compassion. Describing the problems of validity/rigour in this way may not resolve the disagreements, but it does allow one to pick ones way through the minefield, identifying the particular tensions and how they can be resolved. I am interested in the current discussion, but feel that a lot of assumptions are being made about the priority of certain virtues over others, a particular view of social justice over a commitment to epistemological rigour. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I hope that this makes some sort of sense. You asked for something more down to earth. I'm not sure that this is it. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>regards</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Nigel Fancourt</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV> <BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Brian wakeman <[log in to unmask]><BR>To: [log in to unmask]<BR>Sent: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:28:21 +0100<BR>Subject: Questions 2 and 3 of the Review Stage<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
.AOLPlainTextBody {
margin: 0px;
font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;
font-size: 12px;
color: #000;
background-color: #fff;
}
.AOLPlainTextBody pre {
font-size: 9pt;
}
.AOLInlineAttachment {
margin: 10px;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader {
border-bottom: 2px solid #E9EAEB;
background: #F9F9F9;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader .Title {
font: 11px Tahoma;
font-weight: bold;
color: #666666;
background: #E9EAEB;
padding: 3px 0px 1px 10px;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldLabel {
font: 11px Tahoma;
font-weight: bold;
color: #666666;
padding: 1px 10px 1px 9px;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue {
font: 11px Tahoma;
color: #333333;
}
</STYLE>
<DIV class=AOLPlainTextBody id=AOLMsgPart_0_2eb33c46-c7e3-4378-91ec-db9d317fa838><PRE><TT>Are you a practitioner researcher working in a school,
hospital or other professional setting?
The BERA SIG(Special Interest Group) on Practitioner
Research would like you to respond to the second and
third questions of the Review Stage.
We've heard a lot from the same eloquent writers, but
....
Maybe you have comments to make, or questions to ask.
e.g. I ask myself 'How do I make sure that what we
claim is happening is congruent with what is actually
happening, what others might see in our
institutions?
Does the information and evidence we collect reflect
the principles of fairness and balance?
What checks and balances do I use to ensure I am
seeing things clearly, undistorted by personal bias?
Am I grounding my analysis in the evidence I have
collected?
Is what I write consistent, and cogent...does it make
sense to others?
Is it just a matter of my opinion, my values?
Are there any criteria for 'quality'?
Please do write with your down to earth practical
thoughts ........
Kind regards
Brian
Convener of BERA SIG Practitioner Research
Brian E. Wakeman
Education adviser
Dunstable
Beds
</TT></PRE></DIV><!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_2eb33c46-c7e3-4378-91ec-db9d317fa838 --></DIV> </DIV> <BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Brian wakeman <[log in to unmask]><BR>To: [log in to unmask]<BR>Sent: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 11:28:21 +0100<BR>Subject: Questions 2 and 3 of the Review Stage<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
.AOLPlainTextBody {
margin: 0px;
font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;
font-size: 12px;
color: #000;
background-color: #fff;
}
.AOLPlainTextBody pre {
font-size: 9pt;
}
.AOLInlineAttachment {
margin: 10px;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader {
border-bottom: 2px solid #E9EAEB;
background: #F9F9F9;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader .Title {
font: 11px Tahoma;
font-weight: bold;
color: #666666;
background: #E9EAEB;
padding: 3px 0px 1px 10px;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldLabel {
font: 11px Tahoma;
font-weight: bold;
color: #666666;
padding: 1px 10px 1px 9px;
}
.AOLAttachmentHeader .FieldValue {
font: 11px Tahoma;
color: #333333;
}
</STYLE>
<DIV class=AOLPlainTextBody id=AOLMsgPart_0_43207ad5-a953-41e3-ac6d-2cdaa1b23fa2><PRE><TT>Are you a practitioner researcher working in a school,
hospital or other professional setting?
The BERA SIG(Special Interest Group) on Practitioner
Research would like you to respond to the second and
third questions of the Review Stage.
We've heard a lot from the same eloquent writers, but
....
1. How do you assess the quality of your practitioner
research?
2. How can we enhance the validity and rigour of our
practitioner research?
Maybe you have comments to make, or questions to ask.
e.g. I ask myself 'How do I make sure that what we
claim is happening is congruent with what is actually
happening, what others might see in our
institutions?
Does the information and evidence we collect reflect
the principles of fairness and balance?
What checks and balances do I use to ensure I am
seeing things clearly, undistorted by personal bias?
Am I grounding my analysis in the evidence I have
collected?
Is what I write consistent, and cogent...does it make
sense to others?
Is it just a matter of my opinion, my values?
Are there any criteria for 'quality'?
Please do write with your down to earth practical
thoughts ........
Kind regards
Brian
Convener of BERA SIG Practitioner Research
Brian E. Wakeman
Education adviser
Dunstable
Beds
</TT></PRE></DIV><!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_43207ad5-a953-41e3-ac6d-2cdaa1b23fa2 --></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
----------MailBlocks_8C754403985464D_61C_9B6F_mblk-d39.sysops.aol.com--
