Connecting Understanding With Doing V03


Published on

Keynote presentation delivered at 'Dealing with diversity: research strategies in deaf education', Oslo (Norway) 23-24 November 2009

Published in: Education, Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Differentiation is mediated by new technologies (and probably makes differentiation possible). Actor-networks in education result from the increasingly complex interaction of scientific research and expertise, educational professionalism, and the construction and circulation of ‘data’ (research data, monitoring data, performance data, and background data). When taken in combination, this controlled and controlling circulation of scientific and professional data is at the heart of ‘evidence-based education’ or EBE.
  • In the ‘child sciences’ the concept of a pupil is shaped by means of research aims, objectives and activities, according to epistemologies that govern the line of inquiry and the anticipated outcomes; in Wim Meijer’s CLB model, for example, the child is a background-product conceived of as a “client” that has no voice in the construction of CLB. In fact, the absence of children and young people is quite marked in all diagnostic, consultative, and professionalisation models of educational practice.
  • Foremost among the science and technology in education is the drift towards ‘evidence-based education’, which follows in the wake of similar drift towards evidence-based medicine or EBE in the medical field since the 1970s. Characteristic of this development is a combination of scientific expansion and technological development, which in particular has provided support for shared reference to a common evidence-base . Developments towards evidence-based practice (or EBP) are therefore closely related to the social embedding of infrastructural computing , and research becoming increasingly digital and standardised. At this time, I think three common forms of EBE can be distinguished, each of them presupposing a different formation of education and scientific research. The course that is steered in relation to EBE within a monitoring project has consequences in particular for how participation (of humans and technologies ) in the project might be conceived, and can serve in particular as a reflexive exercise in which project developments and levels of participation are assessed against EBE developments and levels of participation. Scientific hard core EBE A realist, empiricist attention to quantitative patterning and probabilistic reasoning as scientific bases for intervention > CEM Durham (Carol Taylor Fitz-Gibbon; Peter Tymms) Professionalist (differentiating) EBE A functionalist, objectivist attention to qualitative patterning and mechanistic reasoning as professional bases for intervention > CEBE, Princeton / TIERS, Amsterdam De-differentiating EBE A reflexive, constructivist attention to social patterning and personal commitment as participatory bases for intervention.
  • Inclusion by its very nature implies that all outcome targets should be relevant to all pupils; which pretty much wreaks havoc with the idea that a ‘three Rs’ approach to monitoring can adequately reflect ‘core’ educational benefit. There is need to acknowledge intrinsic variablity and diversity in even the most basic premises of systematicity or institutional structure, and recognise the technoscientific/realist position taken with all practical reasoning. This explicit, socio-political and normative incorporation of ‘mess’ in social science method (Law 2004) contrasts with all four of the metricity (on common value across alternatives) , singularity (one standard applies to all situations) , consequentialism (instrumental values as means for good consequences) and maximisation (premium value = rational choice) principles of practical reason (Martha Nussbaum). standards-based reform leads to narrow/core curriculum scientific autonomy <> personal appraisal all outcome targets should be relevant to all pupils Further, inclusion also implies that children themselves are co-owners of educational practice and values. Of 20,000 stdues of QL (1980-1994), 13% pertained to children; only 9% of those consulted children themselves (Wallander et al. 2001:572). Adult perceptions of QL should not be taken to be an accurate reflection of what matters from a child perspective; there is need to draw upon the experience and insights of children themselves; but how can this be done?
  • ‘ Acting with’ a quality of life agenda in an innovation landscape Of 20,000 stdues of QL (1980-1994), 13% pertained to children; only 9% of those consulted children themselves (Wallander et al. 2001:572). QL should be a construct that applies to all children, not just those within a sub-population. Adult perceptions of QL should not be taken to be an accurate reflection of what matters from a child perspective; there is need to draw upon the experience and insights of children themselves; but how can this be done? operationalize a generic QL definition include QL domains applicable to all children weigh satisfaction of importance to the child recognize that children are developing beings Examples of sociotechnical monitoring implementations learning to learn programme (CfLaT, Newcastle) IT-enabled learning—the global classroom (Lerwick, Shetlands) international deaf education monitoring collaboratory socialise monitoring
  • Connecting Understanding With Doing V03

    1. 1. Connecting understanding and doing Sociotechnical research in deaf education Dealing with diversity: Research strategies in deaf education Oslo (Norway) 23–24 November 2009 Ernst D. Thoutenhoofd To review this presentation see
    2. 2. Contents <ul><li>Oslo 1 objectives: web of science </li></ul><ul><li>scale up effort through collaboration embrace heterogeneity </li></ul><ul><li>increase the rate of discovery keep pace with change </li></ul><ul><li>pool innovation don’t reinvent wheels </li></ul>Date 27.10.2009
    3. 3. We live in a sociotechnical culture clinic public media local authority parliament education ¶ Bruno Latour Reassembling the social, 2005. Date 27.10.2009
    4. 4. A pupil is a sociotechnical product range ¶ Annemarie Mol The body multiple, 2002. Date 27.10.2009 ‘ Pupil’
    5. 5. Contents <ul><li>Oslo 2 objectives: social participation </li></ul><ul><li>improve participation </li></ul><ul><li>contribute to quality of life pupils and teachers </li></ul><ul><li>socialise monitoring </li></ul>Date 27.10.2009
    6. 6. David Weinberger’s Cluetrain (1999) ‘ A powerful global conversation has begun. Through the Internet, people are discovering and inventing new ways to share relevant knowledge with blinding speed.’ Expertise is no longer in an individual, but the result of social interaction.
    7. 7. Oslo 2: Connect understanding and doing Evidence-based education No child left behind politics ‘ Acting with’ human and technical actors as research practice Date 27.10.2009
    8. 8. Evidence-based education—whose reality? Date 27.10.2009
    9. 9. No child left behind—by whose standards? Date 27.10.2009
    10. 10. Wallander et al (2001) Only 9% of quality of life studies consulted with children. Date 27.10.2009
    11. 11. ‘ Acting with’ a sociotechnical landscape Date 27.10.2009
    12. 12. Stephen Heppell Chair in New Media Environments, Bournemouth University It is not an age of information, but an age of learning .
    13. 13. Thank you for your attention Thank you for your attention