During our last class, Kevin shared how his research is built upon a behaviorist foundation and that it employs ecological and transactional theory to contend with the contexts within which behaviors are situated. he noted that some folks in schools have said that his program is not compatible with High Scoop (http://www.highscope.orga). Granted, I am not an expert on Kevin's work and I know only what I found on the website about High Scope, but I do think it is notable that folks in the field have felt what I see as a clash at the highest level of abstract theory, that between a behaviorist and what might be a social constructivist approach to learning (note: form poking around the website it seems likely that High Scope has some Vygotskian foundations...). I don't really have a question here, I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether this helps to think about how theory exists/operates in the background of our work. Kevin (if you read this), am I characterizing all of this even remotely correctly?
I feel a little odd about commenting on this first since I wasn't there for the conversation, and so I might be waaaayyy out in left field regarding what Kurt is looking for with this prompt. But I've got to comment and I won't be near wifi tomorrow and it's after 11pm here, so here goes (please don't laugh).
ReplyDeleteTheory shapes the way we formulate questions, the types of questions we ask, the basic assumptions that provide the groundwork for every word that comes out of our mouths. I don't know if looking at this website versus Kevin's outlook helps us understand how theory operates in the background of our work--I'm curious as to why we need help and really wish I had been in class on Tuesday. If people can identify (correctly) their own theoretical framework and then have a conversation with someone else who can (correctly) identify their theoretical framework and they tell each other what their theoretical frameworks are, it makes it a lot easier understand the roots of disagreement in a productive way. Once you can understand the other person's entire thought process it's easier to find a collaborative solution rather than getting stuck in the unproductive pattern of wondering why the other person is talking "nonsense" when, in reality, what they are saying makes complete sense when you know that thought's trajectory. In my opinion, behaviorists and constructivists are perfectly capable of getting along as long as everyone respects multidimensionality in research.
Sounds like you guys are having great conversations--carry on! :)
Diane here . . .
DeleteIf I'm not mistaken, I had a conversation with Kurt before he posted this prompt. I'm still thinking about my own response, but this might just qualify.
One of the things we talked about is that instructional methodology research does not necessarily include theory. Much of special ed research does -- at least from a self-determination perspective (my discipline). I find that having a theoretical framework to frame the research really does help make the context clearer and more understandable. From what I understood about Kevin's project (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), behaviorism is aimed at doing something to people, while High Scope aims to develop intrinsic motivation -- more along the lines of self-determination, which is driven by people becoming causal agents in their lives.
Understanding the theory behind self-determination is important to implementing those practices and processes in the classroom. As an undergrad, theory was less important than application to me; however, I have since discovered the value of theory and its importance to practice. I'll go back to the research I did last semester on the theory and research to practice gap. Developing theory is independent of practice and necessary for developing effective practices (Bauer, Johnson, & Sapona, 2004).
I was hoping to respond directly to you, but I think I actually responded to the prompt as well. Hoping this makes more sense.
Thanks Diane,
DeleteAm having troubles understanding how anyone considering themselves a researcher would not consider theory as all of their thought processes must be like reinventing the wheel...
First some quotes from the High Scope website:
ReplyDelete"High Scope is not a one-size-fits-all approach but rather a model in which all children fit."
"Listed below are 58 key developmental indicators which define important learning goals for children."
"[Adults] respect children and their choices, and encourage initiative, independence and creativity."
High Scope tends to depend on children arriving with a sense of either wanting or having some level of intrinsic motivation. The idea being, if given a choice they will choose to learn rather than misbehave. For most children, their early childhood experiences have built a foundation for that type of thinking. High Scope claims to be a model for all and this makes me highly suspicious. Some children arrive (preschool or Kindergarten) having learned that poor behavior gets them what they want. EIther through parenting style or environmental factors, some children experience dysfunction ans as a result consistently make poor choices. Poor choice have always worked for them, yet High Scope would suggest giving them "support" to make better decisions is all they need.
Behaviors are always two-sided. Much like the many types of conflict we learned about in English class (internal vs. external) behavior is one half of a transaction. Children who arrive thinking that poor behavior will get them what they want often times need direct feedback and intervention to learn how to use appropriate behavior to fill their needs.
Straight behaviorist theory seems to be on the other side of the extreme. Control all conditions so that the only logical choice is appropriate. I would argue there is very little learning, other than being programmed,going on with this approach.
Using the ecological approach adds the dimension that behavior is not only transactional but dependent upon a number of mitigating factors. In essence, children ust learn how to make choices within a complex array of pitfalls.
Now, back to the stewardship question from a previous class:
Researchers need to have a viewpoint. They base it upon data and research combined with exposure to differing points of view. Sometimes researchers choose to use an exclusionary view and advocate for their position alone. This is especially done when a product/program is marketed (such as High Scope). A different point of view threatens the bottom line. I would argue that taking such hard stance casts a negative light on the field in general. Differences in opinion in any field are difficult to overcome but this affects the lives of children. It is bigger than you or me, or all of us combined.
Last paragraph--well said! (Mindy)
DeleteLong day, and i am answering this at a (very loud!!) basketball game, so forgive me if it doesn't make sense. I'm gonna go with a stream of consciousness here and hope for the best...
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am crazy or stupid (or both), but I don’t see an insurmountable conflict between a constructivist classroom and behavioral techniques. When I taught early childhood classes my orientation was constructivist overall, but I certainly incorporated other learning theories. I absolutely praised specific positive behaviors (using kind words, sharing, waiting for a turn, etc.,), which is basic behaviorism. I certainly don’t think Kevin’s program, as I understand it, would be incompatible with the goals I had for my students and their learning, despite my constructivist orientation. Can constructivism and behaviorism happily coexist? I think they can. Perhaps a “simple” change in behavior does not constitute true learning, but this change is sometimes the first necessary step toward true learning, especially for young children. Vygotsky once said something like, “the greatest moment of development is when action and speech converge.” I think we get in trouble when we are wedded to one view or theory to the exclusion of all others.
Above from Meg. Told you i was not very focused....
DeleteJenny here...I agree with you, Meg. I think, as consumers of research, we can't get attached to one theory and exclude others. We need to keep an open mind. I do think, however, that knowing the theoretical framework a particular researcher is aligned helps us, as consumers, to better understand the research and where the author is coming from. (Sorry I ended the sentence with a preposition. It's getting late and I am from Georgia, after all!)
DeleteI think you characterize it accurately Kurt, but also want to highlight that I don't think (necessarily) that HIgh Scope folks would argue that BEST in CLASS isn't compatible with their program (unless of course they saw a threat to their bottom line?); the more specific problem we've run into are some school folks (not all by any stretch) who don't understand the difference between a tier 1 and a tier 2 intervention. These folks think that one size (High Scope) fits all and they're not amenable to change...I would imagine this perspective generalizes to other aspects of their professional (and personal) lives!
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Laura and Christine's posts, I don't have much to offer. They spoke to two points I highly concur with.
ReplyDeleteI quote two points I value:
"Once you can understand the other person's entire thought process it's easier to find a collaborative solution rather than getting stuck in the unproductive pattern of wondering why the other person is talking "nonsense" when, in reality, what they are saying makes complete sense when you know that thought's trajectory. In my opinion, behaviorists and constructivists are perfectly capable of getting along as long as everyone respects multidimensionality in research." Laura
"High Scope tends to depend on children arriving with a sense of either wanting or having some level of intrinsic motivation. The idea being, if given a choice they will choose to learn rather than misbehave. For most children, their early childhood experiences have built a foundation for that type of thinking. High Scope claims to be a model for all and this makes me highly suspicious." Christine
Both highlight the dubiousness of claiming the ONE RIGHT WAY, whether theoretically, in research perspective, or pragmatically.
For Kevin's purposes, behaviorist theory founds an intervention that works (e.g. is pragmatic). Maybe that does not work for other children, and more intrinsically-motivating theories apply.
To Laura's point, she has provided great research perspective wisdom that sounds a bit like Native American wisdom: "Don't judge a person until you walk two moons in their moccasins."
The key term here is differentiation when making considerations in a multi-faceted ecology.
I personally cannot imagine writing a manuscript without a theoretical framework, and in terms of research design (aside from some qualitative methods of inquiry), I can't say that I would know where to begin without having a theoretical framework in mind. In Ed Psych, my experience has been that theories provide focus and direction. I also appreciate how theories in ed psych have not only led to multiple approaches for framing research, but also to strongly supported claims that are able to be applied to practice.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Kevin's research, I must admit that as a researcher I am not a fan of behaviorism. That being said, I don't know much about it beyond what I learned in a human learning & motivation class, what I am expected to teach in 607 and my experience using behaviorist techniques in my classroom (so probably more than the average person might, but I'm not well versed in the literature). When I was teaching about motivation earlier in the week in 607 we started by discussing the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and we noted that behaviorism had its place in education, particularly in the context of what Kevin does. As a researcher I use theory to frame my practice, but as a practitioner I always took the approach that there is "Good", "Better", and "Best" practice - pulling from multiple perspectives to find what works for that particular child at that particular time. It seems to me that HighScope is a good place to start, but from a practitioner perspective sometimes theory seems too "pie in the sky", particularly if theory is advocating, to steal from Becker here "One Right Way". I see HighScope & Kevin’s work as compatible in that the approaches serve different populations of students.
Jenny here...I absolutely think it is helpful to understand how theory operates in the background of someone's work. Once you understand the theoretical framework from which a person operates, you can better understand their research and the perspective from which they are operating. Obviously, a behaviorist is going to focus on understanding the behaviors of children and a constructivist is going to focus on how to help children construct meaning from their environments. Just because a person is more closely aligned with one theory over another, however, does not mean that the two cannot understand each other. Certainly, in the everyday practice of teaching, there is room for both theories to interact to better help our children to learn. You can still address behaviors in a constructivist classroom.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin that “some school folk” probably do not have a thorough understanding of RTI and its levels. RTI is a model that has interested me for some time. The difficulty in implementing RTI is the cultural change and professional development that it requires. I define PD with a broad brush as I include coaching models, PLCs, book clubs, and traditional trainings. For reference: http://www.rti4success.org/. I digress in my conversations about RTI. I believe that my purpose in working toward this degree is exactly the crux of this blog. I desire to wrestle with the idea of conflicting theories and philosophies in a school setting. I want to be able to analyze and comprehend research. I believe that fundamentally some theories are incompatible. The beauty of RTI is that it does not necessarily require a direct interaction between interventions or the theories behind particular interventions. By design, RTI allows freedom of choice in regards to implementation and interventions. Bruce
ReplyDeleteI agree with Meg that constructivism and behaviorism are not exclusionary in the way they would look when implemented, and I certainly see room for behavioral approaches in the fairly structured High Scope classroom. However, at their core constructivism and behaviorism are very different philosophies; the first one focuses on mental processes, or inward behavior, while the latter on the observable behavior.
ReplyDeleteI think theory is important. It drives the kind of questions we ask and the way we conduct research. This makes knowing the theories we adhere to important, which brings another dimension to the way we define ourselves as researchers, not just in terms of philosophical orientation, but also a more narrow path of theoretical foundations/convictions. Whose truth (or Truth) do we believe? Even within a philosophy there’s still enough wiggle room that allows us to pick different theories or trends of thought that are aligned with our own. I also agree with Laura that we need to be familiar with other theories, and even philosophies than our own, not just to be able to converse between different disciplines and researchers, but to find ways to incorporate the most valuable ideas in our system of lenses.
Irina
I agree with Kurt, that the discussion does "helps to think about how theory exists/operates in the background of our work." I like when the discussion of one piece of research or project leads to an academic discussion about the true base of the research and where and how it might lead to resistance. Being in P-12 I can say comfortably, although all may not agree, systems, schools, and teachers can get lost in the "implication" and not realize why they continue with different practices or interventions. I think often the theory that lies underneath a piece of research, program, intervention can help the "Why" question be answered, that we just do not ask enough. Why might this be something to try for this group of students, specific student, new teacher, at this time of the school-year, in this environment. I am like so many of you and feel one theory should not dictate my thinking, but I so agree that as both practical and research-based educators we need to be sure we are asking why and trying to connect theory to the "why" to unsure a foundation for the decisions we make. Keeping in mind that not all theories, practices, interventions, etc. are best for all kids, no matter what theory they are based in...we need to see it all as options that we can stand solidly on.
ReplyDeleteMindy--I have to admit feeling a bit underwater this week (eyes open and full of wriggly fluids, ears full, a disoriented feeling) as my educational background did not include much educational curricula, and my jobs have never involved any aspect of early childhood/adolescent development as I have either worked with fish or 17 year olds. Excuse my post if it seems simplistic; I’m treading some water and I have to do some basic background research to clarify what each topic brings to the table. All philosophy topics in the post were primarily nurture-centric, all topics seem to agree that learning is a socially driven behavior. Behaviorism seems to boil down to basic animal training in that it incorporates stimulus-response (I read this and I get a sticker—YAY!), and rests its foundation heavily on the “Nurture” philosophy; observe, attempt the observation, receive praise for learning the observation. Constructivism (which, I just discovered, is how I primarily teach) is also heavily socially-driven, but provides the learner information that enables them to make choices: High Scope seems to have its foundation in constructivism. Transactional theory seems to include more “nature” then the others mentioned, but is also heavily social and “nurture-centric” It seems that since the common theme among all these is socially driven learning that there should be some way to merge ideas successfully, but probably not a in a way that would please those trying to do “pure” methodological research.
ReplyDeleteAlso, on a separate tangent, who can recommend a book on educational philosophies that will A) keep me on the edge of my seat, and B) “edumacate” me reasonably well on the different philosophies?
Kierstyn here.... Theories are important because they help guide research. In order to really understand the questions asked for this week’s blog I had to first understand the ecological theory. A quick google search showed a diagram of the theory. In the model, the child is at the center, followed by the immediate family, institutional community (school) and then the political and social structure (socioeconomic status). By using this theory it is easier to understand the usefulness of the opportunities to respond and other strategies Dr. Sutherland recommends. Also using theories help predict outcomes in research. Being able to use a theory to predict research outcomes will help save time for the researcher and determine if the research question is worth studying. Both theories mentioned by Dr. Sutherland, help support his data and help the reader understand why the research problems exist.
ReplyDeleteDiane here . . .
DeleteKierstyn, you do know you're talking about ecological systems theory, right? Can't avoid it when putting the child at the center . . .