Month: September 2013

Charlie Rose Reflections

On By Shaaban Fundi, Ph.D.In PerspectivesLeave a comment

In this reflection I will discuss Charlie Rose’s interviews with President Obama and Michael Moore. I will also discuss the lessons I learned from watching these interviews. In addition, I will discuss how the lessons learned will help me in conducting my own interviews with my study participants. Finally, I will end my reflection by reflecting back on the introduction part and the ending part of the interviews I saw.

While interviewing Michael Moore for the documentary entitled “Capitalism a Love Affair,” Mr. Rose started the interview by asking a general question, the focusing question. The question was, “What’s wrong with capitalism? I thought we all liked capitalism.” The question was very broad but at the same time very focused. The purpose of the question was to center the whole interview on the idea of capitalism — the good, the bad, and the in between. As Patton (2002a) points out, narrowing a complex issue into a singular burning question helps the researcher gain clarity and focus around the question itself. I feel as though Charlie Rose used a similar approach in his interview with Mr. Moore by narrowing a complex issue such as capitalism into one broad but targeted question.  This question than got the respondent, in this case, Mr. Moore, to share his views of the benefits and drawbacks of capitalism.  This approach helped the interview remain on topic and allowed Mr. Rose to elicit the interviewee’s perspective on a very complex topic. 

In another interview, Charlie Rose discussed the developments in the Middle East with President Obama. The interview was centered on the Civil War in Syria, the elections in Iran, and the continued turmoil in Egypt. Since the topics he was exploring were not entirely connected around a single theme, Mr. Rose’s interview was conducted as more of a discussion as opposed to a question-answer format. What I learned from this interview was that not all interviews follow the same script. Some interview may take the form of a discussion with general leading questions. While others, may follow the question and answer format. Mr. Rose, in his interview with President Obama, was interested in eliciting the President’s views on a multitude of issues including peace, war, nuclear weapons, and American interests in the Middle East, and so he chose the methodology that would allow him to achieve this aim.

While interviews can be a great tool for data collection, like all data collection tools, they have strengths and weaknesses. Interviews can help the researcher explore the feelings and thoughts of the interviewee.  However, interviews are subject to several limitations including “personal bias, anger, anxiety, politics, and the emotional state of the interviewee at the time of interview” (Patton, 2002b, p. 306). Other limitations include recall error and responses that are either self-serving or reflect a social desirability bias.  In other words, respondents may not be willing to admit to engaging in behavior that goes against social norms and rules.  As I prepare to conduct my own interviews, I feel that it is important for me to know the limitations and benefits associated with this method of data collection. Furthermore, since I am relying entirely on interviews for my exploratory study, it is important for me to be aware of the limitations inherent with this method of data collection so that I can take steps to minimize these limitations.  For example, developing a good rapport with my respondents will be critically important to ensure participants are comfortable enough with me to share their perspectives in an open and honest manner and thereby reduce the risk of social desirability bias. 

To conclude, I greatly enjoyed watching Mr. Rose conduct interviews.  He obviously has a lot of skill in this area and I can learn many techniques for my own interviews by observing him.  At the beginning of both interviews I observed, Mr. Rose began with simple, friendly, and directed questions that served to frame the focus of the interview.  And, if there was more than one area of focus to the interview, Mr. Rose conducted a discussion rather than a question and answer type of interview.  By actively listening to his interview subject, Mr. Rose indicated a clear interest in what the interviewee was saying and this helped him establish a strong rapport with the respondent.  I intend to incorporate some of the techniques I witnessed Mr. Rose using in his interviews into the interviews I conduct as part of my own research.   This will help me improve my questions, use a format that matches the aims of my interview, and ensure that I establish a good rapport with my participants so that they feel comfortable sharing their experiences using virtual labs with me.

References

Patton, M. Q. (2002a). Variety in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Patton, M. Q. (2002b). Fieldwork strategies and observation methods. Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Post Structuralism and Deconstructionism In Education

On By Shaaban Fundi, Ph.D.In Atlanta, Dar Es Salaam, Education, Perspectives, Swahili, TanzaniaLeave a comment

This week’s supplemental reading was very informative and added to my overall understanding of chapter five of the book entitled “Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches” by Creswell. Chapter five of Creswell (2013) details the five qualitative inquiry types: Case Study, Ethnography, Phenomenology, Narrative Study, and Grounded Theory.  I, however, will not dwell on the five types of qualitative lines of inquiry in this reflection. I will mainly discuss two ideas that I found to be interesting in the supplemental reading. First, I found the post-structural theoretical approach to be very interesting and trans-formational. I have always had an inclination that inclusion practices in education were a problematic endeavor since my first encounter with the idea. My doubts for inclusion may have been caused by conflicting educational ideologies. My upbringing and the schooling philosophies I studied under while growing up in Tanzania were very different from the ones I found myself working under in the American schools.

I struggled with the inclusion ideology a lot in my first few years of teaching in Baltimore, Maryland. I do understand the importance of mainstreaming disabled students, students with color, and others in the general education classroom. However, I was somehow dismayed by the fact that administrators will put students who were 3 to5 grade levels below in reading, writing, and mathematics in the same classroom with those who are on or above grade level. The inclusion idea is a brilliant one in theory, but in practice, it is flawed in many levels. It is a challenge for teachers to differentiate instruction to 30 plus students who are 3 to 5 below grade level and who also happen to have varied learning styles.  Dunne (2001) points out that inclusion is seen as fundamentally a good idea in the inclusive education arena. However, post-structuralism lens provides us with the tool to question the practice. Post structuralism also helps us realize that inclusion is laden with many problems in practice. For me it was heartwarming to realize that there are qualitative research methods such as post structuralism and discourse based qualitative inquiries that can be used to illuminate/or critique the fallacies of inclusive education.

In addition, I found the article entitled “The Q Standards and Initial Teacher Training: The Discursive Formation of Teachers and their Trainers” by Bartle (2011) quite interesting. It had never crossed my mind that text can be hegemonic. According to Derrida (1978, as cited in Bartle; 2001) deconstruction is a useful means of understanding text and the world.  Using Derrida’s deconstruction method we will be able to deconstruct the binary opposition in the text for instance, power/powerlessness, groups/individuals, knowledge/ignorance and so forth.  A good example of current education policies text that is embedded with hegemonic languages is the No child Left Behind and the Race to the Top. The Race to the Top is littered with the language of power (the county, the state, and the nation) and the language of powerlessness for the teachers. The undemocratic nature of the Race to the Top policy is clearly laid out in its language regarding the teacher evaluation system that is tied to student achievement. The document leaves no room for teachers to be knowledgeable and empowered professionals. All the power is allotted to the politicians. Thus, deconstruction and post-structural methods of qualitative inquiry can be a powerful tool in understanding meanings embedded in text that perpetuate and promote hegemony.

 

Reference

 

Bartle, P. (2011). The ‘Q’ standards and initial teacher training: The discursive formation of teachers and their trainers. In J. Adams, M. Cochrane & L. Dunne (Eds).  Applying theory to educational research: An introductory approach with case studies (pp. 31-46). New York, NY: Wiley.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Dunne, L. (2011). How applying a discourse-based approach. . In J. Adams, M. Cochrane, & L. Dunne (Eds).  Applying theory to educational research: An introductory approach with case studies (pp. 123-138). New York, NY: Wiley.

Social Efficiency and Learner Centered Ideologies in Education

On By Shaaban Fundi, Ph.D.In Atlanta, Dar Es Salaam, Education, Environment, Perspectives, Swahili, TanzaniaLeave a comment

Reading through chapters 4 and 5 of the book entitled Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns by Schiro (2011), I gained an in-depth understanding of what the Learner Centered and the Social Efficiency ideologies represent. In this week’s brief reflection of the two chapters, I will base my discussion on how the two ideology views the child/learner and the teacher.

In the Social Efficiency ideology, the child is not the main focus. The focus is to develop skills necessary for society’s needs. The child’s is viewed as potential adult members of the society. The Social Efficiency ideology places less emphasis on the individual needs of the child. It places more emphasis on the capability of the child to fill social needs of the society.  I take issue with this approach of educating children. I believe in educating the whole child and that other aspects of the individual child are equally as important as the capability to fulfill social needs of society. Individual needs of the child need to be addressed in the process of teaching and learning.

On the other hand, the Leaner Centered ideology’s main focus is on the learner.  The child’s needs and interests are central to his/her learning and needs to be incorporated in the learning experiences. I agree wholeheartedly with this view. As a teacher, I spend quite sometime in the beginning of the semester to learn my students’ interests, prior knowledge, and abilities. I believe that in order to teach students (kids) effectively, we need to know who they are and what they like. Being aware of students’ interests and ability is useful in the process of creating the experiences from which students will create their own meaning of the curriculum content.

The Social Efficiency ideology views a teacher as a “manager of the conditions of learning (Gagne, 1970, p. 324; as cited in Schiro, 2011). In essence the teacher’s role is to implement curriculum developed by developers with little or no input of their own. As a teacher I feel that the role of the teacher in the Social Efficiency ideology is misguided. Teachers should be able to make needed changes to the curriculum to meet students’ needs and interests. This will help students to learn, create meanings, and the skills necessary to be fully functioning members in a democratic society.

The role of the teacher in the Learner Centered ideology is to provide consultations to the child. The consultation that will help the child to reach whatever destination s/he needs to go. I am in favor of this teaching and learning approach. I see myself in this role while teaching my courses. I create experiences and put myself in the background to watch and admire as my students create their own meaning from the experience.  In conclusion, I see the value on both ideologies and I tend to borrow the goods from both in my praxis.

Reference

Schiro, S. M. (2013). Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns ((2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 

A Reflection on Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design

On By Shaaban Fundi, Ph.D.In Perspectives1 Comment

While reading through chapter three of the book Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, Creswell raised two points that I found to be very informative in conducting qualitative inquiry.  The first point was that there are varied designs that can be used to frame a qualitative inquiry. Creswell, however, finds it useful to design a qualitative inquiry following the scientific method; an approach to which I agree. I work better when I have a set of guidelines to follow. I believe the scientific method provides the skeleton onto which I can anchor the meat of my research – from stating the research questions and hypothesis, through data collection and analysis, to discussion of the implications of the findings. While I prefer the scientific method to anchor my research, it is up to the individual researcher to choose the design that best fits his/her philosophical framework. On the other hand, as I read chapter two of the book Strategic Themes in Qualitative Inquiry I came to realize that maybe seeing the world as one, my own, may not be enough. Therefore I need to learn and become familiar with the multiple realities of the world I live in and the varied qualitative research designs that will help me understand those worlds better.  Having an open mind will help me to study the real world situation “without interjecting predetermined constraints on the findings” (Patton, 2002a).

Secondly, Creswell states that qualitative researchers need to be sensitive to vulnerable populations and to take great care not to place participants at risk from imbalanced power relations (Hatch, 2002; as cited in Creswell, 2012). I find the advice to be very useful especially for a beginner researcher like myself. As I continue to learn the ethical issues related to conducting qualitative research, I must also learn to be mindful of the nature of power balances I might find at my research site. Respecting the native culture and whatever power relationship they have within themselves and the wider community is paramount. A qualitative researcher, therefore, must tell the multiple stories they find in their research in a way that does not compromise the power relationship found in vulnerable populations. Our research should not in any way compromise and/or jeopardize further the relationship and power imbalances our participants are already experiencing. However, critical pedagogy and critical theory as described in Part II of the book Paradigms and Perspectives in Contentions, (Olesen as cited by Denzin and Lincoln, 2011), argues that “getting mad is no longer enough.”  Qualitative researchers need to learn to act and expose the injustice and power imbalance in marginalized societies so that hegemony can be stopped.

In chapter four, Creswell discusses the five approaches to qualitative inquiry.  I am relatively new to most of the approaches i.e. narrative approach, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case studies.  There are many similarities and differences amongst the five approaches. I will however, reflect on one of these approaches namely the case study approach. I was introduced to the case study approach when I was taking a classroom management course for my graduate degree in education. I have used the case study approach before to study whether utilizing an inquiry method for learning lessens incidents of misbehavior in my classroom. When I started teaching in the Baltimore City Public Schools, I had major problems with classroom management stemming from students’ misbehavior. As a way to lessen the incidents (i.e., fighting, classroom disruptions such as table banging, and lack of participation in class activity) I developed two inquiry based unit plans geared to helping students create their own meaning of concepts and topics. It was a case study approach and I tracked the number of incidents in each period while using the inquiry learning approach. I realize now after reading Creswell’s chapter four that my case study approach was lacking in many levels. I only used one method of collecting data which was observing the type and frequency of disruptive incidents. Creswell suggests using several methods of data collection including interviews, audiovisual, documentation, and artifacts to capture data that will help to develop a detailed analysis of the problem. Thus, reading these two chapters has broadened my understanding of the various approaches, designs, and ethical issues related to qualitative research.

Reference

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, T. S. (2011). Paradigms and Perspectives in Contention. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 91-94). New York, NY: SAGE.

Patton, M. Q. (2002a). Strategic themes in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

A Reflection on Curriculum Theory

On By Shaaban Fundi, Ph.D.In Perspectives1 Comment

Reading the first two chapters of the book entitled Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns I gained three major ideas that I will discuss in this reflection. In chapter one, Schiro briefly discusses the beliefs that people have about the American school curriculum and the four curriculum ideologies namely: the scholar academic, the social efficiency, the learner centered, and the social reconstruction. Even though Schiro did not offer an in-depth introduction to the four curriculum ideologies in the first chapter of the book, I was able to identify myself with both the scholar academic and the social efficiency curriculum ideologies. I agree with the premise that curriculum should foster the acquisition of knowledge and provide students with the experiences, skills, and traditions needed to become practicing professionals. Anything short of that is a disservice to students. In other words, when I teach Chemistry, I strive to provide students with the experiences, skills, and traditions needed to become actual chemists if they so choose.

Despite my firm beliefs in the scholar academic ideology, I also find myself being in favor of training students in the skills and procedures necessary for the workplace, home lives, and in meeting their democratic functions to society. This belief of mine is in line with the social efficiency curriculum ideology. In addition, I tend to side more with the views that the classification system that categorizes educators into one of four distinct groups (i.e. academic, social efficiency, learner centered, and social reconstruction) is flawed. I believe that many educators, myself included, have a strong affinity to one of the curriculum ideologies, but may also have an affinity to elements of the other types of curriculum ideologies. Therefore, we may be considered eclectic in how we align ourselves with the curriculum ideologies.

In chapter two of the book, Schiro discusses the scholar academic ideology in detail. I will mainly reflect on the teaching methods used by educators who subscribe to the scholar academic ideology. The three teaching methods Schiro discusses in this chapter include didactic discourses, supervised practices, and Socratic discussions. I find myself using almost all of these teaching methodologies in my teaching.  As I develop my 5E lesson plans, I normally think of the best ways and/or teaching methods I can employ efficiently and effectively to convey concepts to students.  For example, I may ask myself “is guided practice the best way to present this material to my students” or “will power point presentation (didactic) or Socratic questioning be more helpful?”.  Teaching is more than knowing the content; it also involves knowing the pedagogical processes of presenting the information to students who naturally have varied interests, abilities, and backgrounds. Thus, to effectively teach students new concepts, you have to constantly think about the best way to present the information.

In conclusion, chapters one and two were very informative. I gained a lot of new information including the different curriculum ideologies, the problems associated with classifying educators into these ideologies, and the teaching method and evaluative tools associated with the scholar academic ideology.

Reference

Schiro, S. M. (2013). Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns ((2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.