Class notes, M O29

Teachers,

Some thoughts and questions on our class tonight:

Bracey:
When is using the mean appropriate?  The median?  The range?
How do you know if groups, and the conditions of their learning, are comparable?

What do the statistics from assessments really tell us?  What else must a teacher include in order to get better interpretation of the data?

To answer Corrie question: School leaders are not 'stupid' for using standardized measures as evaluators of teachers.  They are efficient and frugal.  Tests have what is called 'face validity;' on their face, most people accept them as valid.  And, in a crude sort of way, they are.  Our discussion in class concerned the validity and reliability of their inferential statistics.  Most people do not (and can not) pay attention to inferential statistics.

Observations:
Eric Fischel, "Year of the drowned dog" - explanation

Fredric Remington, "Fight for the water hole" - explanation

When observing, do we impose a narrative upon a scene?
Is it possible to observe without judgment, or interpretation?
How does a new teacher both trust her growing instinct, yet remain skeptical and inquisitive into why she does what she does?

Class notes S O20

Teachers,

Notes and questions from today's class:

How do you move from should to do?
What moves knowledge into action?

What data/information about our teaching can we collect and analyze?
What are the contextual factors of our teaching for which that data has meaning?

What are our goals, objectives, aims, ends, philosophies (what do I want to achieve, to happen, to be learned)?
What effort am I willing to apply to reach my objectives?
If I am not reaching them, do I change my action or have  I changed my beliefs?

How do I change from a judgment stance to one of inquiry and reflection?

What keeps me from asking "what in the world is going on?"
How do I turn from seeking solutions to problems, to seeking better understand about what happened to know what problem to address (what are meaning problems)?

How much of the contextual factors do I need to understanding before I have 'enough' understanding to act/decision?

How often do I take the effort to reflect on what did happen?
What a claim valid (what leads to mutual understanding in communication)?
Do we share the same objective world (are we talking about the same thing)?
Do we share the same subjective world (do we mean the same thing)?
Do we share the same normative world (do base our actions on the same principles and norms)?

When does an experience and anecdote represent the general reality?

Class notes, S O6

Teachers,

Some questions that arose during our class this past Saturday.  Look for a set of posts related to the articles in the next few days.  Please share your thoughts, if they add to the learning.

Thanks.

article critiques

• What is the conversation in this area?  What are the current norms, expectation and accepted methodologies and evidentiary criteria?
• To whom is the research directed?  What are the expectations of readers of this journal?  How difficult is it to get published in this journal?  How does that level of ease or difficult affect the standards of evidence?
• What can I learn about this area?  How can the research change my assumptions, schema and understandings?
• I am reviewing the idea or the research on the idea?
• Is the research deductive (does it start with a belief and find evidence for that belief)?  Is the research inductive (does it start with the evidence and ground up to a more general theory about the collected data)?  Is the author an analyst of the data or an advocate for an idea?
• Do authors attempt to generalize their findings (universally true, true for all regardless of any context)?
• Do the authors attempt to prove/validate a theory or do they intend an exploration of a phenomenon?
• Do the authors attempt to make a policy recommendation or do they advise more research?  Does the population of participants support their intent?

data gathering

• Attention matters; how narrowly should I focus?  What do I miss?
• How much control do I have over my focus and attention?  How can I become more aware of what I am aware? How do I know I know what I know?
• Humans are pattern detectors; is what we perceive really there?  What do we ignore, miss, make invisible in order to detect that pattern?
• Do we detect a pattern because our identity demands it?  Are we willing to allow our worlds to be rocked?
• How do find the balance between focusing on the context and investigating the margins?
• How do we make the invisible visible?
• What assumptions do we make about another's experience?  To what extent do I attempt to position-take with that other person in order to understand their experience?
• What is working for me?  Why do I think so?  In other words, it 'works' to do what?

Bracey, chapters 1 and 2 for S O20

******************************************
"Position-taking" - the empathic and active self-distancing of our own feelings to see through the experience of another.  If, as van Manen claims, we are "fated to never be transparent to ourselves" and we need to "make thoughtful sense of the meaning the child's experience has for the child as well as for our adult view," how can we tell when our efforts at position-taking result in a confabulation of the other's point of view or a confirmation of what we expect and want the other's point of view to be?

John  Lloyd, tedtalk on the Invisible

Jonathan Haidt, on intuition and reasoning (from the NYTimes, S O7): "We effortlessly and intuitively “see that” something is true, and then we work to find justifications, or “reasons why,” which we can give to others.  Both processes are crucial for understanding belief and persuasion. ... And intuitions are rarely stronger than when they are part of our partisan identities ... But I never said that reasons were irrelevant. I said that they were no match for intuition, and that they were usually a servant of one’s own intuitions. Therefore, if you want to persuade someone, talk to the elephant first. Trigger the right intuitions first. "

Reading question: van Manen and Schon

Teachers,

As hoped for and promised, though a bit tardy.  As you read each article, please keep these questions as a guide:

Max van Manen, "Beyond assumptions"

• Why does van Manen begin his paper with the claim that there are no agreed upon techniques and procedures for action research?
• van Manen seeks "a more self-reflective human science-oriented form of action research while restoring the pedagogical quality of our relation to children." What does this imply about the forms of research typically undertaken by teachers?  Why would he want it to change?
• What impact does his claim that "theory enlightens practice after the action has occurred" have on self-reflection?
• What are "meaning questions," in contrast to improving pedagogy or problem-solving in classrooms?
• How might you investigate a teacher's "pedagogical thoughtfulness and pedagogical tact"?
• What might van Manen mean by "the way we make thoughtful sense of the meaning the child's experience has for the child as well as for our adult view"?
• What are the implications for data collection if "the most captivating stories exactly those that help us to understand better what is most common, most taken-for-granted, and what concerns us most ordinarily and directly in our tactful pedagogical interactions with children "?
• How are we to understand our decision-making and teaching practice if we are "not completely transparent to ourselves"?
• How can the research process enable you to find your "pedagogical nature"?

Donald Schön, "Educating the reflective practitioner"

• How does Schön argue for indeterminacy in professional practice?  Why does he do so?
• How does "technical rationality" contrast with "reflection-in-action"?
• What steps would you take to answer the question “what it is it that we do when we do what we do"?
• What kind of method and rigor is required for "reflection on reflection-in-action"?

Facts do not enlighten

Teachers,

An op-ed from the NYTimes confirms the view that reason is not a tool of truth-seeking, but rather one of argumentation.  Even 'facts' get disregarded: "You might expect that people’s views would soften and that divisions between groups would get smaller. That is not what usually happens. On the contrary, people’s original beliefs tend to harden and the original divisions typically get bigger. Balanced presentations can fuel unbalanced views ... What explains this? The answer is called “biased assimilation,” which means that people assimilate new information in a selective fashion. When people get information that supports what they initially thought, they give it considerable weight. When they get information that undermines their initial beliefs, they tend to dismiss it."

Biased assimilation acts to filter out what we neither expect nor want to hear.  Unfortunately, the 'wanting' occurs well below the level of cognitive awareness; we may not realize how selective our perceptive and cognitive processes are.

Fallibility of memory

Now, from the NYTimes, this article supports some of our previous reading and work on reflection.  Some choices quotes:

• Yet scientists have long cautioned that the brain is not a filing cabinet, storing memories in a way that they can be pulled out, consulted and returned intact. Memory is not so much a record of the past as a rough sketch that can be modified even by the simple act of telling the story.
• Why is a witness’s account so often unreliable? Partly because the brain does not have a knack for retaining many specifics and is highly susceptible to suggestion. “Memory is weak in eyewitness situations because it’s overloaded,” said Barbara Tversky, a psychology professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York ... Hundreds of studies have cataloged a long list of circumstances that can affect how memories are recorded and replayed, including the emotion at the time of the event, the social pressures that taint its reconstruction, even flourishes unknowingly added after the fact ...While most of us tend to think memory works like a video recorder, it is actually more like a grainy slide show. Lost details, including imaginary ones, often are added later. 
• Sometimes we miss details because we weren’t paying attention, but sometimes we are concentrating too hard on something else. Nothing is as obvious as it seems.
• Whether in a story told in a courtroom or at a dinner table, the mind is sometimes prone to blur the distinction between reality and fantasy. Brain scans taken as people “recall” something they did not actually see have many similarities to the brain dwelling on an actual memory ... “That’s one of the striking findings of the studies,” said Daniel Schacter, a psychology professor at Harvard. Whether an event is real or imagined, “many structures involved in the coding and retrieving are the same" ... All this makes sense, he said, when you consider the purpose of memory. He and his colleagues believe that memory is designed not just to keep track of what has happened, but to offer a script for something that might.
• Because the brain uses memories for mental dress rehearsal, we are not wired to retain every facet of an event, scientists say. We don’t have to. A general framework is all that’s necessary to keep from getting lost, or find food, or know what to do when a storm is coming.

Class notes, M S17

Teachers,

Below you will find a distilled reflection on the ideas we discussed in class.  Please contribute more if I have filtered out some crucial point.

********************************************
Making the invisible visible - paying attention to those elements we might normally filter out of attention; to do so, we might need to make the visible invisible - consciously ignoring the habitual and obvious

The critical eye of observation - noticing changes, differences, newness; do we need to consciously focus in order for our critical eye to operate?

Expectations, conditionings, use - all play a part in how we filter attention; they lead us to make connections, to prime us to things certain ways and to activate certain schema

Our perspective is shaped by physical properties, everything from what space we inhabit in a location to our own feelings, emotions and perspectives (this is the heart of phenomenology - for we experience in full, though our perspective is but one dimension of the innumerable ways of seeing).  Our backgrounds, our desires and intentions, who we are at any given time (and who we expect to be and who we expect others to expect us to be) and what we think the situation demands all prime us to attend to various things in diverse ways.

The key is to be aware of how we are responding to an environment, to a phenomenon, of our biases and expectations.  Only be paying attention to how and to what we do pay attend are we able to exercise more authenticity in our observations and experiencing of a situation.

You raised a flurry of terrific points about your observation process.  These include:

• analyzing while data collecting (Jay)
• how expectations, conditioning shape attention (Kelly)
• direct attention in an abnormal way - noticing the implicit and taken-for-granted (Rachel)
• pre-set patterns 'prime' us to notice things, even if they do not exist (Kelsie)
• emotions may over-determine perceptions (Jessica)
• noticing how the atmosphere/vibe affects you (Jacob)
• seeking out information/patterns rather than noticing them as they arise (Aimee)
• focusing on things that disturb or challenged expectations (Corrie)
• paying attention to others can make us reflect on ourselves (Andrew)

**********************************************************

Notes from the readings worth considering:

memory reconsolidation 

• the act of remembering changes the memory
• 'misremembering until it made sense' - making our memories cohere
• "Based on his research, Bartlett concluded that the standard view of human memory – it’s a vast repository of stable facts – was completely wrong. “Remembering is not the re-excitation of innumerable fixed, lifeless and fragmentary traces,” he wrote. “It is an imaginative reconstruction.”"
• "Reconsolidation constantly alters our recollections, as we rehearse nostalgias and suppress pain. We repeat stories until they’re stale, rewrite history in favor of the winners, and tamp down our sorrows with whiskey. “Once people realize how memory actually works, a lot of these beliefs that memory shouldn’t be changed will seem a little ridiculous,” Nader says. “Anything can change memory. This technology isn’t new. It’s just a better version of an existing biological process.”"
• from Sean Carroll: "We tend to assume that the brain must be like a computer — when we want to access a memory, we simply pull up a “file” stored somewhere on the brain’s hard drive, and take a look at its contents. But that’s not it at all. Schacter believes that pieces of data relevant to any particular memory — times, images, sounds — are stored piecemeal in different parts of the brain. When we want to “remember” something, another part of the brain assembles these pieces into a (hopefully) coherent picture. It’s like running a new simulation every time you need a memory, and it’s the same thing we do when we try to imagine some event in the future.  Everyone has heard that memories can be unreliable, but many of us don’t appreciate the extent to which that is true. It’s not the case that “real” memories are stored once and for all deep in the darkest recesses of the brain, and it’s just a matter of digging them up. False memories — conjured from any number of sources, from gradual embellishment to direct suggestion by others — seem precisely as vivid and real to us as accurate memories do. For a good reason: the brain uses the same tools to construct the memory from the available raw materials. A novel and a history book look the same on the printed page."
• from The Guardian: "Memories are not filed away in the brain like so many video cassettes, to be slotted in and played when it's time to recall the past. Sci-fi and fantasy fictions might try to persuade us otherwise, but memories are not discrete entities that can be taken out of one person's head, Dumbledore-style, and distilled for someone else's viewing. They are mental reconstructions, nifty multimedia collages of how things were, that are shaped by how things are now. Autobiographical memories are stitched together as and when they are needed from information stored in many different neural systems. That makes them curiously susceptible to distortion, and often not nearly as reliable as we would like ...  In storyboarding an autobiographical memory, the brain combines fragments of sensory memory with a more abstract knowledge about events, and reassembles them according to the demands of the present. The memory researcher Martin Conway has described how two forces go head to head in remembering. The force of correspondence tries to keep memory true to what actually happened, while the force of coherence ensures that the emerging story fits in with the needs of the self, which often involves portraying the ego in the best possible light ... How many more of our memories are a story to suit the self? There can be no doubt that our current emotions and beliefs shape the memories that we create. "

adaptation; or, 'why we tune out' - For all of our senses, when a certain input is constant we gradually get used to it

believing is seeing

attention may be different than awareness

motivated reasoning - thinking is like a lawyer (winning arguments), not a scientist (exploring, rationally, the 'truth')

• from Cordelia Fine: "... we humans quickly develop an irrational loyalty to our beliefs, and work hard to find evidence that supports those opinions and to discredit, discount or avoid information that does not."
• from Joe Keohane: "In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information."

***************************************************

For class S, O6:

• Write down fifty things about one trip/experience/chore.
• Keep a daily consumption or purchase log (for a week or between class sessions)
• Create a simple survey of at least five questions.  Give it to a sampling of people.  Document their answers in a way that is interesting and readable (like a graph or chart, spreadsheet, pictogram).
• Read Max van Manen "Beyond assumptions" and speech by Donald Schon (pdf's to be emailed, with guiding questions)
• We will return to the implications of 'motivated reasoning' as well