Terry — I am intrigued (on many levels) with your posting that describes your work with Paul. I see myself as a practitioner of teaching and also of organizational change, management, and leadership — with a focus on primary/elementary literacy. One of the thoughts that occurred to me as I read the steps and strategies you used with Paul and the results of their use is that this is what sounds like grounded research. That is, you were working with a child, sharing strategies and reporting on outcomes. This kind of grounded research seems to fit the ethnographic or anthropological methods of research more than the type of research that comes out of the natural sciences. My take is that this type of research is helpful to practitioners whereas much of the educational psychology research that utilizes the methods of natural science are of very little help to me as a practitioner (teacher, principal, consultant, coach, etc.). On another note, you have documented a case where certain strategies, concepts, and instruments did not work with a child who appeared to have some intellectual disabilities. In my postings on The Emotionally Healthy Literacy Classroom newsletter I will attempt to share some specific strategies that I believe can help children like Paul. I have tested these strategies in real classrooms and will report ion them. Thanks for sharing your experiences, insights, and ideas. Lastly, I also enjoyed the Vygotsky reference although I did not completely understand how it applies to a practitioner’s situation — but I do very much appreciate Vygotsky’s observation that what a child can do with help today, he will be able to do on his own tomorrow (or soon). Thanks again for sharing.
You’re referencing the zone of proximal development where the distance between the expert and the novice determines the intensity of appropriate help. Too much help steals the learning. Too little help foils the learning. So you have to observe in the moment to know what to do. Vygotsky gave me new eyes. When I read his book Thought and Language, it completely changed the way I looked at my classroom. I was teaching middle school and taking doctoral courses at the time. His influence on me came not in small waves—a new strategy here, a modification there. It was a tidal wave. I wouldn’t know anymore what to do on Monday morning without the zpd. There’s nothing more practical than a good theory.
In ‘Paul’ I use the term “mixed methods research” in the paragraph just before the quote from the Diagnostic Manual. You’re on the money with your comments on grounded vs. natural science research. Having studied ethnographic research methods as part of my doctorate, I found it immediately useful. That said, I learned that qualitative research is just as scientific as any other method. It requires asking a researchable question, collecting relevant and reliable data, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. For me, research of any sort must be carried out scientifically. My post about Paul is an example of neither science nor research. But it is not fiction. I see it as a piece of historical writing.
Thanks so much for that explanation, Terry. The impact Vygotsky had on you in your teaching is awesome. I agree with the usefulness of good theory — and attempting to apply theory or successfully applying theory is admirable. Thanks for your take on the issue of scientific research. That is helpful as well. Back to theory applied to organizational change — I have been a big believer and “user” of Kurt Lewin’s Force Field Analysis. His “life space” concept is also intriguing. Thanks again.
Terry — I am intrigued (on many levels) with your posting that describes your work with Paul. I see myself as a practitioner of teaching and also of organizational change, management, and leadership — with a focus on primary/elementary literacy. One of the thoughts that occurred to me as I read the steps and strategies you used with Paul and the results of their use is that this is what sounds like grounded research. That is, you were working with a child, sharing strategies and reporting on outcomes. This kind of grounded research seems to fit the ethnographic or anthropological methods of research more than the type of research that comes out of the natural sciences. My take is that this type of research is helpful to practitioners whereas much of the educational psychology research that utilizes the methods of natural science are of very little help to me as a practitioner (teacher, principal, consultant, coach, etc.). On another note, you have documented a case where certain strategies, concepts, and instruments did not work with a child who appeared to have some intellectual disabilities. In my postings on The Emotionally Healthy Literacy Classroom newsletter I will attempt to share some specific strategies that I believe can help children like Paul. I have tested these strategies in real classrooms and will report ion them. Thanks for sharing your experiences, insights, and ideas. Lastly, I also enjoyed the Vygotsky reference although I did not completely understand how it applies to a practitioner’s situation — but I do very much appreciate Vygotsky’s observation that what a child can do with help today, he will be able to do on his own tomorrow (or soon). Thanks again for sharing.
You’re referencing the zone of proximal development where the distance between the expert and the novice determines the intensity of appropriate help. Too much help steals the learning. Too little help foils the learning. So you have to observe in the moment to know what to do. Vygotsky gave me new eyes. When I read his book Thought and Language, it completely changed the way I looked at my classroom. I was teaching middle school and taking doctoral courses at the time. His influence on me came not in small waves—a new strategy here, a modification there. It was a tidal wave. I wouldn’t know anymore what to do on Monday morning without the zpd. There’s nothing more practical than a good theory.
In ‘Paul’ I use the term “mixed methods research” in the paragraph just before the quote from the Diagnostic Manual. You’re on the money with your comments on grounded vs. natural science research. Having studied ethnographic research methods as part of my doctorate, I found it immediately useful. That said, I learned that qualitative research is just as scientific as any other method. It requires asking a researchable question, collecting relevant and reliable data, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. For me, research of any sort must be carried out scientifically. My post about Paul is an example of neither science nor research. But it is not fiction. I see it as a piece of historical writing.
Thanks so much for that explanation, Terry. The impact Vygotsky had on you in your teaching is awesome. I agree with the usefulness of good theory — and attempting to apply theory or successfully applying theory is admirable. Thanks for your take on the issue of scientific research. That is helpful as well. Back to theory applied to organizational change — I have been a big believer and “user” of Kurt Lewin’s Force Field Analysis. His “life space” concept is also intriguing. Thanks again.