Week 3: Research Assumptions using Gowin's Vee
It is impossible to separate the personal and lived experiences of an educator from the way he/she interacts with students, knowledge and content within a classroom setting. This notion forms the basis for Sun’s case study of Wenying, a Chinese language teacher teaching in New Zealand. Undertaken over the course of two years, the researcher set out to understand how the lived experiences, personal beliefs and cultural heritage of the participant framed the way Wenying managed her classroom, taught content and knowledge. Sun’s “World View” and “Philosophy” (Gowin’s Vee) seemed to be linked to the idea that a teacher's knowledge and answers about practice are intricately tied to notions of identity and belonging. Sun cites many studies that support this notion of teacher knowledge and teacher identity being linked to conduct within the classroom. The theoretical assumptions underlying this case study are that educators cannot divorce their professional lives from their personal lives and deeply ingrained conceptions of identity and belonging. This leads to the two research questions for the case study:
(1) What are the characteristics of these teachers’ personal practical knowledge?
(2) What factors shape their personal practical knowledge?
The phrase “personal practice knowledge” was never directly defined, leading me to wonder about the potential interpretations of such a vague phrase. The researcher’s understanding and guiding principles about the definition of “personal practical knowledge” was implicitly understood by the reader, but an exact definition or set of guidelines would have further clarified the focus questions. Although Sun did state that “Clandinin and Connelly have shown that personal practical knowledge ‘need not be clearly articulated and logically definable in order to exert a powerful influence in teachers’ lives,’” (Sun, p.2) it would have been helpful in clarifying the definition for the purpose of this study. It is interesting to note that some of the events and objects of the case study were left out of the article. The article states that three participants were included in this case study, yet the only one named is Wenying, and all events and objects seem to be focused on her “personal practical knowledge”(Sun) and her experiences within the classroom. While her experiences are valid and support the researcher’s theoretical and philosophical assumptions that educators bring more than just content into the classroom, I wonder why the findings and interviews of the other participants were not noted. Did these events and objects not support the assumptions? Records taken included interviews, and some artefacts of the educator such as lesson plans, worksheets, and other materials, although it is stated that only the interviews were thoroughly analysed. The findings of this case study supported Sun’s theoretical assumptions that an educator’s sense of identity and values affects his/her construction of a professional identity, and that perceptions of society and a desire to be accepted permeate an immigrant teacher’s ways of teaching. Sun concludes the article by calling for more cross-cultural studies to assist immigrant teachers in making “a smooth transition to their new cultural contexts” (Sun, p. 7).
Sun’s interviews and findings were focused on one participant (Wenying) and seemed to support the theoretical and philosophical assumptions of the study. Would the validity of the study have been greater had Sun discussed the different experiences of all three participants, or is Wenying’s experience enough to base the value claims on? In our own research, how do we ensure that our assumptions do not lead us to actively prove what we believe, but rather let the research guide us to an answer that may or may not support our assumptions?
Hello Sarah.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your very in depth analysis.
In answer to your questions - I am torn in terms of my answer to the first. In one sense, I would argue that yes, the research would be more valid if the other participants had been discussed. It would provide Sun with opportunity to make comparisons and highlight differences. However, detailed 'up close and on the ground' analysis of one teacher's experience can be incredibly rich. I
When considering our own research I think the challenge lies in the focus questions - these need to be suitably fine-tuned in order for research findings to be useful but also wide enough in scope to provide opportunity for exploration. A difficult task lies ahead!
I am hoping that this comment gets through to you!
ReplyDeleteBeing the only Chinese teacher in a New Zealand school provided Wenying with the challenges of her feeling of being an outsider in the school . I expect that her teaching style may have contributed to that feeling with her students...different teaching styles from one country are often huge. It would have been more interesting to compare the experiences of each of the 3 teachers...on can never underestimate the personalities of each of the teachers.
My son taught English in a Japanese juku (cram school) for 5 years and he was very successful according to the principal. Part of it was that he was a very enthusiastic teacher but the other part was that his style of teaching was what he had learned in Vancouver classes which included much student participation and involvement--not characteristics of Japanese teaching style.
He also had a very good understanding of Japanese culture having lived in homestays during a year of Japanese language study there. How important it is to understand culture!