This is the work: The problem with how we understand what counts as good research

My eighth grade son is in an advanced Science class. What makes his section “advanced” is that they must do a research project. To my surprise, my son decided to explore a classroom based research question. He is wondering if the use of games will promote more engagement in practicing math skills and thus produce higher test scores. As much as I am pleasantly surprised that he is asking a question like this, we almost immediately realized how much easier his life would be had he just decided to observe a seed or a plant.

His project is very much based in a positivist view of research and knowledge. Within ten minutes of talking this through with him I fear that his project is more about method than meaning. Then again, is that so bad at this level? They are learning the process, right? Well, yes and no.

To be sure, learning the research process and not worrying about achieving groundbreaking findings is a good thing. However, this project requires setting up a traditional experimental design. This kind of design requires experimental and control conditions that are not realistic for the kinds of inquiries that concern classrooms. Unfortunately, approaches like this often do not take context into consideration. In a classroom study, the weather, who is absent or present, the seating arrangement, whether recess was inside or out, what special was that day, and so many other variables are working on children’s experience and reality for that day. My son has completed his data collection and is now in the analysis phase. I do not know how he will be assessed. But, my fear is that his classmates who chose to study variables that are more predictable will be assessed more favorably. This leads me to the class I begin teaching tomorrow.

Tomorrow I will begin teaching a course on teacher research. I expect this group to be much like previous groups that I have taught. They will likely come in with a bias against qualitative research. They will say it is not
“real” research, not empirical. My son’s project helped me see that, from an early age, we teach control group thinking and that finding certainty is more important than authenticity. When pre-service teachers enter my research course, they experience disequilibrium as they are asked to reimagine what counts as research.

I have seven days to convince them that the knowledge they can generate in their classrooms can be just as, if not more, meaningful than what they might learn from educational research found in an academic journal. I will encourage them to collect artifacts from their classroom to analyze and they will ask about setting up experimental and control groups. I will encourage that they keep a journal of observational notes and they will want to design pre and post tests. Some of them will find that teacher research speaks to them deeply. Others will give me the side eye and eventually just do what I ask because they need to get through the class.

I hope that they see that seeking understanding and knowledge about themselves and thier students can be powerful. Authentically looking closely at our practice and our students and trying to make meaning of what we see is important in the development of teachers. It is the work that we do in our heads while we drive home from work or take a shower. All good teachers are constantly involved in thinking about their practice. The act of researching just requires formalizing that natural process a bit. Making is systematic, intentional and consistent.

Wish me luck:)