Inquiry Stance- I have inquired, but I cannot yet take a stance.
Posted by Morgan Buonanno at Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:24:48 PM EST
In the excerpts of Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation, Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan L. Lytle (2009) critique the assumption that pedagogical knowledge is generated from the "outside-in" by researchers, policymakers, school-based leaders, politicians, and parents. Only then is the knowledge imparted by educators in the schools; furthermore, in arguing for the validity and necessity for practitioner research, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) reject the current power hierarchies--"inquiry as stance" is...called a counterhegemonic notion" (p.3)--about teaching, learning, and practice. Thus, at the heart of "inquiry stance" is the teacher and other practitioners. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) identify the teacher "as the linchpin of educational reform" (p.1). According to the course syllabus, "the [critical teacher research] movement...respects teachers as agents and intellectuals that have something to offer to the educational discourse" (Johnson, 2012, p.1); according to the article, "practitioners are...expected to be the gatherers and interpreters of school and classroom data as part of larger intiatives to improve school achievement" (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009, p.1). The parallel is evident.
In Part 1 of Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation, the authors 'take the temperature' of the current educational climate. These "tryng times" (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009, p.5) are marred by the policies of No Child left Behind, test-based accountability, and annual school progress reports--all threats which undermine the pedagogical agency of educators. (Side note: As a parochial school teacher, I am not held to NCLB. Aside from discussions and commentary in graduate school, my work as an educator has never been dictated by public policy. I empathize with the angst of my public school compatriates, but I truthfully cannot comment on the full impact of NCLB.) Thus, in order to counteract the menacing threats, Cochran-Smith and Lytle suggest that rather than leaving decisions in the hands of policymakers, educators play key roles in the design, implementation, and evaluation of educational reforms. As a result, practitioner research should be considered vital for the success of large-scale reforms as well as for the development of teacher knowledge and practice. The authors posit that at the foundation of "inquiry as stance" is educators' learning, knowng, and doing in order to be part and parcel of broader movements for social change; thus, presenting best practices.
Moreover, what does this all mean for me, a novice educator in a parochial school? To be candid, due to my teaching circumstance, I feel a slight disconnect, and I cannot fully answer the question. Nevertheless, I am confident that I will achieve clarity and a personalized understanding that are applicable to my current school of employment. Thus, I must function as a researcher and gather information--I can reflect upon my classroom, but I know that it will be advantageous to be an observer and witness to the classrooms of my fellow graduate students. Initially, it may seem that I am taking a more pacify role, but I believe that starting the conversation on "inquiry stance" with dedicated public school educators is an irreplaceable asset to truly understanding the pedagogical process outlined by Cochran-Smith and Lytle.
I must concur with the authors that practitioner research is instrumental in questioning our fundamental assumptions about teaching and learning--an anecdote that transcends the school, but how? Thus, in seeking advice, I pose the questions to the class: Does "inquiry stance" work in a parochial school which is exempt from public policy initiatives? I see the potential for social change in either school sector; therefore, how do I make this function in my classroom?
In Part 1 of Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation, the authors 'take the temperature' of the current educational climate. These "tryng times" (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009, p.5) are marred by the policies of No Child left Behind, test-based accountability, and annual school progress reports--all threats which undermine the pedagogical agency of educators. (Side note: As a parochial school teacher, I am not held to NCLB. Aside from discussions and commentary in graduate school, my work as an educator has never been dictated by public policy. I empathize with the angst of my public school compatriates, but I truthfully cannot comment on the full impact of NCLB.) Thus, in order to counteract the menacing threats, Cochran-Smith and Lytle suggest that rather than leaving decisions in the hands of policymakers, educators play key roles in the design, implementation, and evaluation of educational reforms. As a result, practitioner research should be considered vital for the success of large-scale reforms as well as for the development of teacher knowledge and practice. The authors posit that at the foundation of "inquiry as stance" is educators' learning, knowng, and doing in order to be part and parcel of broader movements for social change; thus, presenting best practices.
Moreover, what does this all mean for me, a novice educator in a parochial school? To be candid, due to my teaching circumstance, I feel a slight disconnect, and I cannot fully answer the question. Nevertheless, I am confident that I will achieve clarity and a personalized understanding that are applicable to my current school of employment. Thus, I must function as a researcher and gather information--I can reflect upon my classroom, but I know that it will be advantageous to be an observer and witness to the classrooms of my fellow graduate students. Initially, it may seem that I am taking a more pacify role, but I believe that starting the conversation on "inquiry stance" with dedicated public school educators is an irreplaceable asset to truly understanding the pedagogical process outlined by Cochran-Smith and Lytle.
I must concur with the authors that practitioner research is instrumental in questioning our fundamental assumptions about teaching and learning--an anecdote that transcends the school, but how? Thus, in seeking advice, I pose the questions to the class: Does "inquiry stance" work in a parochial school which is exempt from public policy initiatives? I see the potential for social change in either school sector; therefore, how do I make this function in my classroom?
No comments:
Post a Comment