 |
 |
Dear All Picking up where I left off yesterday, I shall now attempt to complete my action plan. The first three stages were as follows (with slight amendments): 1. What is my concern? I am concerned that this e-seminar will not be able by means of an act of corporate effort to come to a conclusion that identifies a clear response to the question: ‘The nature of educational theories: what counts as evidence of educational influences in learning?’ 2. Why am I concerned? At the moment I see the archive (which embodies the interests of its separate contributors) taking on the appearance of the expanding Universe after the Big Bang – I see galaxies forming which have their own internal threads and consistencies but I cannot discern a sense of common purpose within the whole. I feel that our expanding Universe must take care not to dissipate itself to no purpose. 3. What do I think I can do about it? Carrying out a review of the archive will not respond to or resolve my concern. That review is for each group that inhabits each galaxy to carry out. I shall review a piece of published work – at http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Eedsajw/module/kathy.htm “An infant/primary Action Research module” by Kathryn Yeaman - that is regarded as being a good-quality action research enquiry. I shall start this enterprise by attempting to develop and use standards of judgement that are based on: * having respect for evidence * identifying the nature of evidence * invoking the logic of question and answer * maintaining an aesthetically engaged and appreciative response * an awareness of taste * an awareness of thymos These standards are discussed more fully at http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/monday/pmcritbera00.html I assume that other standards will emerge over time as part of a developing ‘epistemology of practice’. ---------------------- Having ruminated on the above overnight, the draft of my intentions for the final stages runs as follows: 4. What kind of 'evidence' can I collect to help me make some judgements about what is happening? I do not think that I can generate evidence on my own by a formal analysis of Kathryn Yeaman’s account. I need to establish a collaborative enquiry with another or others in which we engage with Kathryn’s work as a focal point as we go on to generate and identify a process of appraisal/review (using 3. above as a starting point). Evidence will accumulate as our written exchanges develop and accumulate over time. 5. How do I plan to collect such evidence? Contributions to a typical strand of the e-seminar currently average 140 lines. I am proposing to limit a quantum of evidence (i.e. one posting/exchange) to around 30 lines (negotiable) - so that an on-line conversation develops whose alternating form of question and answer probes the central question: “How can we review the work of Kathryn Yeaman and thereby develop standards of judgement which help us to understand the nature of educational theories and what counts as evidence of educational influences in learning”. 6. How shall I check that my judgement about what has happened is reasonably fair and accurate ? If the collaborative enquiry outlined above develops to the point where it produces its own archive by means of 4. and 5. above, then that archive will implicitly contain judgements about what is happening i.e. to what extent the enquiry is responding to the question posed. Validation of any such judgements or claims will come about through contributors occupying other ‘galaxies’/strands adapting the process in order to themselves respond to questions of the sort: “How can we review the contributions to the xxxxxxx strand of this e-seminar and thereby develop standards of judgement which help us to understand the nature of educational theories and what counts as evidence of educational influences in learning”. If anyone is interested in taking the above proposed collaborative enquiry forward, then please first of all read Kathryn’s work. I shall do the same over the next couple of days. Then hopefully someone will start the ball rolling by asking a question. - Peter