The Power of Practice-Based Literacy Research

A Tool for Teachers

Misty Sailors, James V. Hoffman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429614323
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Accessible and inviting, this book showcases how teachers and literacy coaches can use research as a tool to teach literacy effectively and with intention. Sailors and Hoffman invite literacy specialists and practicing and preservice teachers into a conversation about how they can use research as means for professional learning, mentorship, and empowerment.

Chapters feature a wealth of tools, examples, and strategies that make key concepts in literacy research refreshing and practical. This book invites the reader to pause and reflect on the practical knowledge through special features in the book and available online as eResources, including:

• "Points to Consider" boxes to encourage reflection and deeper thinking

• 
  
  

• "Pause and Reflect" boxes to give the reader space to apply concepts to their own work as practice-based researchers

• 
  
  

• eResources with recommended readings and "Meet the Teacher" exemplars of teachers' stories to provoke further reflection, available on the book's webpage: www.routledge.com/9780367177607

Perfect for literacy specialists, coaches and consultants in literacy, ELA/literacy teachers, as well as preservice teachers, this book is a comprehensive and engaging guide to using research as a means to transform classrooms.

Part I
Background on Practice-Based Research

CHAPTER 1
What is Research, and What Counts as Research?

Preview: Think of this chapter as background to the central focus for this book. We introduce some basic frameworks and terminology that will be used throughout the book. We also use this chapter to situate our focus on practice-based research.

Imagine this scenario:

Brenda:	“This old car is falling apart. We should start looking for a new one.”
Marcus:	“I think you’re right. We should start by doing some research on affordable cars.”
Brenda:	“Right, I’ll Google it.”

Points to Consider

Do you think this scenario describes an act of research? If so, why? If not, what would make it research?

There are all kinds of ways in which we use the term research. Some uses seem quite casual, as in choosing a movie to see, while others are much more formal, such as the findings related to global warming. The similarities in the uses of this term are as important to explore as the differences. We will begin our examination of the term research in its informal uses and move to consider the kinds of research activity that are the focus in this book.

Reflection and the Scientific Method

John Dewey, the preeminent educational philosopher of the 20th century, published a book in 1910 entitled How We Think. He centered his description of thinking on the reflective processes humans use as we engage with the social and physical world around us, developing the metaphor of “forks in the road” to describe the ways in which we engage with the challenges in daily life. These moments of decision-making can range from the relatively mundane (e.g., Should I drive to work today or take the bus?) to the more consequential (e.g., Who should I vote for in the next presidential election?). These moments of conscious decision-making trigger what Dewey called reflective thinking. Dewey talked about intentionally structuring classrooms so that children could learn to be reflective thinkers.

Dewey outlined the five steps in reflective thinking: First, one must identify and define the problem. Second, one must analyze the problem. Third, one must generate several possible (and viable) solutions. Fourth, one must evaluate options and select the best solution based on the evidence at hand or evidence gathered. Finally, one must test and implement the solution.

Over time, humans develop routines for how to deal with daily decisions, and the patterns of behavior become less a function of conscious reflective thinking and more a matter of “that’s just the way I do this.” We drive a car with only moments of active reflection. When new challenges are faced, however, our need to engage in reflective thinking surfaces. Such is the case when we are on the highway during rush-hour traffic and we realize that the exit we must take is coming up very quickly and we need to move over four lanes of traffic. We are now fully engaged in reflective thinking, although just moments before we were tapping our hand on the steering wheel to the beat of the music on our smartphone.

Dewey was a leader in the progressive educational movement (circa 1880–1940), and his model of individual thinking was closely aligned with the broader progressive movement sweeping all areas of society. The guiding principle of progressivism was that society can be improved through the systematic application of scientific thinking to the challenges we face—whether these challenges were part of the physical sciences (e.g., Is alternating current better than direct current? How can fertilizers be used to increase corn productivity?) or the social sciences (e.g., How do we improve worker efficiency in factories?). General Electric, founded by Thomas Edison in 1878, became a model for the progressive movement in industry, with its recurring themes around “progress is our most important product” and “imagination at work.” Progressive education was rooted in the notion that experience should guide learning; many modern ideas of education draw from the progressive movement, including project-based learning, experiential learning, and collaborative and cooperative learning. And, according to Dewey (and others), imagination is at the heart of innovation.

Imagination and Scientific Methods

Early in the 20th century, Bowman (1936) cautioned researchers that it was their obligation to “implant pictures or conceptions in the reader’s head like those which the investigator has in his” (p. 635) as part of their research report. He recognized that the research report was the space between what was in the writer/researcher’s head (the “imagery”) and what was in that of the reader. Some would argue that this is an archaic definition of imagination (as our “mind’s eye”). Even so, imagination holds an ambiguous status (in many Western societies), thought of as a cognitive function in and of itself by some philosophers, while others believe it to be subservient to our intellect (or our minds).

Others believe in what is called a primary imagination (one not subject to our control) and a secondary imagination (which allows us to re-create new out of our “real” world). Even though this theory draws from the late 1700s, our society continues to believe, essentially, that “only artists can paint a beautiful picture because they were born with the ability”—that is, some people have control of their secondary imagination, but not all of us do. According to contemporary theories of imagination, this is an erroneous belief. In fact, more recent theories of imagination suggest that it is at the heart of all human endeavors, and tools that humans use are all a result of our shared imagination.

Recent theories indicate that our imagination is grounded in our experiences and is circular. That is, what we experience influences our imagination, while our imagination influences our experiences (Sailors, 2019). Studies from neurology indicate that humans combine elements of past experiences with “novel events” (those future events that we anticipate based on our imagination) as part of our adaptive process (Schacter et al., 2012). It is this adaptive process that has helped humans develop over time.

Scientific Theories, Knowledge, and Research

Of course, scientific thinking had a long history prior to progressivism, such as Newton’s laws of physics and Ptolemy’s representation of the motions of the moon, sun, and stars. These theories were all attempts to explain natural phenomena through the examination of evidence. There were also practical sides to this theoretical work (e.g., refinements in the calendar and in measuring time). In the classical tradition, the distinctions between philosophy and science were not as clearly marked as today. Aristotle was renowned for his observations of the sea, animals, and the universe and his investigation of causal relationships. The roots of Western science grew out of these philosophical traditions.

What distinguished the work of the progressive era from earlier work was the rapid expansion of scientific theories into practical applications in both the physical sciences (e.g., invention of the airplane, invention of the telephone) and the social sciences (e.g., constructs of intelligence in assessment), although some of this science was, with hindsight, for nefarious intent (e.g., eugenics). Research drove discovery. Research was the engine for dispelling some theories and introducing new ones. Research became the essential tool for the building of scientific knowledge. As its use expanded, the methods for doing research came under increasing scrutiny. What counts as research? Who gets to decide what counts? And, what ethical considerations should there be related to research? Professional communities of scientists focused in different disciplines began to create standards for what constitutes research and the ways in which research claims would be judged.

Universities, professional organizations, corporate entities with research and development divisions, and public institutions through their evaluation efforts began to formalize standards for research. Often, research methods grew inside of disciplines and then may have been shared or applied across others. Ethnography, for example, developed as a research methodology associated with studies of indigenous cultures from the field of anthropology. Many of the tools of ethnographic research have been adapted for use in educational research.

Pause and Reflect

• What role did classroom teachers play in establishing standards for research?
• What might be the impact of the lack of participation in research by teachers?
• What role should teachers play in the standardization of research?

Argument and Evidence as Key

Research is an inclusive term that involves different forms of activity. At the center of research, however, are studies that are bound by time, focus, and design. Through these studies, researchers gather evidence to inform understanding. In many cases, this information, often referred to as data, is collected in very small pieces. Data only becomes useful when it is analyzed in some fashion—data collected and then stored without being analyzed or discussed (such as all the data collected in many schools today) isn’t really data, is it? Data is the record of the observations made and artifacts examined. Data becomes evidence as it is used to build an argument in support of a claim. Data is interpreted in the context of a question being posed and the theoretical frame being used to look at the data. Data often gets transformed in the processes of research. Data derived from student responses on a test is extrapolated and interpreted numerically. But data could also be a drawing that a child made, the talk in a discussion of a book, or a video of a coaching conference. Data varies by the area of inquiry. Data for a paleontologist might be a dinosaur’s bone. Data for an epidemiologist may be the presence of a virus in a blood sample. What is common to all scientific research is the focus on empirical (i.e., verifiable through observation or experience) data. Data is always reported in scientific studies.

Collectively, studies often unfold in a series or sequence that forms a program of research. The understanding and explanations that emerge from research inform the scientific knowledge in a field. In some perfect world, this building of scientific knowledge would be conducted in a spirit of harmony. In fact, science and research are highly contested spaces. One scientist’s representation of how words are recognized by a child in reading might stand in stark contrast to the representation of a different scientist. There may be three other scientists who have additional versions that contrast with those of the first two.

These kinds of contested spaces for scientific knowledge are critical to the building of scientific knowledge. The classical philosophers recognized the essential relationship between science and argument. It is in these spaces of argument that the work of scientific communities sorts out these claims and warrants and settles them within a community of peers.

Engaging in Research with Children and Youth

When we teach argument writing, we are teaching similar notions of research:

• What are the claims being made?
• What is the evidence for these claims?
• What processes were used to gather this evidence and to make these interpretations?

In legal deliberations, we see a similar kind of process. Claims are made based on evidence. Arguments are made that try to both make the case for the claims and discredit the arguments of the opposing side. The rules of evidence and the processes for deliberation are clearly defined. Ultimately, the judge (and/or jury) decides. The case ends, or it may be appealed to a higher court, and the case may become a defining case for legal precedent. Research claims are similarly argued, disputed, and adjudicated in the public space of professional journals. The internal review process of research reports (as they are submitted to a team of journal editors) is designed to ensure that (a) there is sufficient rigor in the methods used, (b) the warrants for the claims being made are firmly grounded in evidence, and (c) these claims contest or contribute to scientific knowledge. If these conditions are met (based on peer review), then the study is published and becomes part of what is known as a literature of a topic.

While no one study alone can provide the kind of scientific evidence on which important decisions about education can be made, all studies “fit” into a trajectory of a field’s growth. The field of scientific knowledge (and what counts) can be inherently democratic if the process of public adjudication is followed carefully. For example, researchers often challenge the findings of the work of others. This happens in both the testing and retesting of hypotheses as well as in the challenging of the theoretical frames that researchers used to conduct their studies. For example, a widely published study by Hart and Risley (1995) described what the authors called a “vocabulary gap” between children who lived in what they called “wealthy” and “poor” neighborhoods. They claimed that it was the language deficiencies in ch...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• eResources
• About the Authors
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I Background on Practice-Based Research
• Part II Conducting Practice-Based Research
• Index