Professional Learning
Professional Learning
Professional learning is key to the development of diversity awareness, inclusion and improving social justice in schools and communities. Breakspear (2017) supports the development of agile leaders who improve learning and teaching and can navigate change. He urges professionals to be responsive, quick to spot problems and work in short, iterative cycles of inquiry. He supports 3 stages within cycles of inquiry.
1. Clarify- Pursue less but better. Aim for the smallest number of necessary changes with the desired impact on learning. Consider time, human resources, financial and human capital. Then, decide on the evidence to make informed changes.
2. Incubate- Search for solutions. Engage in a search and discovery journey of designing short, disciplined experiments to test and adapt solutions to unique contexts. This links to teams developing, refining and testing new approaches.
3. Amplify- Get more of what is working. As effectiveness and usability increases, start to expand and upscale it.
Breakspear provides a useful model for professional inquiry. This coupled with inclusive leadership practices can create professional learning communities who can bring about positive changes for all students.
1. Clarify- Pursue less but better. Aim for the smallest number of necessary changes with the desired impact on learning. Consider time, human resources, financial and human capital. Then, decide on the evidence to make informed changes.
2. Incubate- Search for solutions. Engage in a search and discovery journey of designing short, disciplined experiments to test and adapt solutions to unique contexts. This links to teams developing, refining and testing new approaches.
3. Amplify- Get more of what is working. As effectiveness and usability increases, start to expand and upscale it.
Breakspear provides a useful model for professional inquiry. This coupled with inclusive leadership practices can create professional learning communities who can bring about positive changes for all students.
Emotionally Responsive Professional Learning
How can professional learning experience be improved? Too often professional learning is decontextualized and does not address the personal and professional needs of educators and other professionals. This systematic review (Goolcharan, 2017) explores teacher identity, positive and negative patterns of emotion, reflection and praxis, and implications for professional learning programs. To improve emotional relevancy, professional learning must connect to learner identities and context, utilize differentiation strategies by acknowledging and developing all learners' knowledge, skills and abilities to achieve successful praxis, connecting theory to practice. To support emotional engagement, emotionally responsive professional learning explicitly addresses interactive professional learning context with the change process and learner emotions. To improve emotional motivation, it also focuses on helping learners develop a growth mindset by cultivating self-awareness, and personal and collective reflection. Promoting personal as well as professional well-being is critical to teacher/learner and school community development. Further to improve emotional relationship building in professional learning, empathy among administration, teachers and students must be central as well as developing shared, transformative leadership.
Developing Research Designs for Educational Improvement
As social justice plans are in development, implemented and being revised, conducting research, especially in professional learning communities, can be an important step to achieving a more inclusive, improved education system. Research should not only be used by “researchers” in laboratories who use methods predominately in the positivist paradigm. Instead, research should also include individuals in the field and participants who are directly affected by the problem under investigation. For this reason, a wider range of methods and data collection techniques are necessary to gather and process more relevant data. For instance, art-based research provides researchers and participants with opportunities to express their ideas through extra-rational knowledge and can bridge cultural differences (Lawrence & Cranton, 2012). This methodology is one example of alternative research design that can provide rich descriptions that were previously inaccessible to researchers. Those involved in research can extend their knowledge to move beyond traditional forms of research for better designs, implementation and results. Typically, it helps to understand how knowledge is constructed, the unique characteristics of each paradigm and their associated methodology and data collection techniques to better apply and incorporate data in cycles of inquiry and other professional learning efforts.
The three main research paradigms are positivist, interpretive and critical. Later the pragmatic paradigm was introduced to address mixed method research. An understanding of research paradigms can lead to better research designs including relevant methods and data collection techniques. Creating effective research designs can more effectively answering research questions, including those related to diversity, inclusion and social justice. One way researchers can ensure research designs are effective is being more deliberate when planning research designs using research paradigms as well as frameworks that explicitly orient studies for more relevant outcomes (Cranton & Merriam, 2015).
Inclusion Canada defines research paradigms as shared beliefs among all researchers. Research paradigms assist in conceptualizing research designs, but they are frequently misunderstood. There are other paradigms that are often overlooked but equally valid such as Indigenous ways of knowing which must be considered. Learn more about Indigenous perspectives and ways of knowing here. Patton (1988 as cited in Morgan, 2007, p. 50) believes research paradigms are frameworks to help researchers think about research design, data collection and measurement and the amount of researcher involvement needed whereas Schwandt (1989) views research paradigms as “worldviews,” related to beliefs about reality, knowledge and values. Morgan (2007) examined several definitions of research paradigms including those supported by Patton and Schwandt and finds researchers “treat paradigms as shared belief systems that influence the kinds of knowledge researchers seek and how they interpret the evidence they collect” (p. 50). He acknowledges that paradigms can be viewed from a philosophical stance, although when creating research designs, it may be more beneficial to view them as shared beliefs among groups of researchers.
The three main research paradigms are positivist, interpretive and critical. Later the pragmatic paradigm was introduced to address mixed method research. An understanding of research paradigms can lead to better research designs including relevant methods and data collection techniques. Creating effective research designs can more effectively answering research questions, including those related to diversity, inclusion and social justice. One way researchers can ensure research designs are effective is being more deliberate when planning research designs using research paradigms as well as frameworks that explicitly orient studies for more relevant outcomes (Cranton & Merriam, 2015).
Inclusion Canada defines research paradigms as shared beliefs among all researchers. Research paradigms assist in conceptualizing research designs, but they are frequently misunderstood. There are other paradigms that are often overlooked but equally valid such as Indigenous ways of knowing which must be considered. Learn more about Indigenous perspectives and ways of knowing here. Patton (1988 as cited in Morgan, 2007, p. 50) believes research paradigms are frameworks to help researchers think about research design, data collection and measurement and the amount of researcher involvement needed whereas Schwandt (1989) views research paradigms as “worldviews,” related to beliefs about reality, knowledge and values. Morgan (2007) examined several definitions of research paradigms including those supported by Patton and Schwandt and finds researchers “treat paradigms as shared belief systems that influence the kinds of knowledge researchers seek and how they interpret the evidence they collect” (p. 50). He acknowledges that paradigms can be viewed from a philosophical stance, although when creating research designs, it may be more beneficial to view them as shared beliefs among groups of researchers.
How can you use paradigms in professional learning and research?
Let's Begin: Selecting a Research Design *
If you have decided on your research question and context, you can begin to create your research design. Your particular research paradigm is depending on your question and context. This will help in selecting appropriate research methods and data collection techniques.
To help you determine your research design, each paradigm has a concept map that outlines its characteristics. Below the concept map is a flowchart to assist you in determining your research design within a specific paradigm. First, look at the characteristics of each paradigm. Then, when you have found which paradigm your research question and context falls into, you can use the flowchart to lead you to an effective research design. The flowcharts are simple yes and no questions related to your research question and context. If you choose the wrong paradigm, the flowchart will direct you to explore one of the other paradigms.
*All original Goolcharan concept maps and flowcharts updated 2018.
To help you determine your research design, each paradigm has a concept map that outlines its characteristics. Below the concept map is a flowchart to assist you in determining your research design within a specific paradigm. First, look at the characteristics of each paradigm. Then, when you have found which paradigm your research question and context falls into, you can use the flowchart to lead you to an effective research design. The flowcharts are simple yes and no questions related to your research question and context. If you choose the wrong paradigm, the flowchart will direct you to explore one of the other paradigms.
*All original Goolcharan concept maps and flowcharts updated 2018.
The Positivist Paradigm
1. Characteristics of the positivist paradigm
2. Selecting a research design in the positivist paradigm
The Interpretive Paradigm
1. Characteristics of the Interpretive Paradigm
2. Selecting a research design in the interpretive paradigm
The Critical Paradigm
1. Characteristics of the Critical Paradigm
2. Selecting a research design in the critical paradigm
Relationships between Paradigms
The positivist paradigm, interpretive paradigm and critical paradigm have many similarities. Each paradigm is based on theory and incorporates a variety of methods and data collection techniques. The most important thing to understand is that they all encompass shared beliefs about research and each one relates to the development of a particular kind of knowledge. The similarities between the positivist and critical paradigms are both use quantitative data, deductive reasoning and objectivity. However, the critical paradigm is actually more similar to the interpretive paradigm because they share a key attribute. Both contend that reality is socially constructed and both incorporate contextual and social understanding in their research. Moreover, the critical and interpretive paradigm use inductive reasoning, qualitative data and subjectivity. On the hand, the two paradigms with the most differences are the interpretive and the positivist paradigms. They both have the capacity to develop theory but are mostly dissimilar. For more information see Figure 1. The way research is conceptualized and conducted with changes with the needs of society. In the past, the positivist theory was introduced as a way to expand knowledge beyond religious means. Later, the interpretive paradigm included the idea of social constructivism, and eventually the critical paradigm included the need for democratization, ways to address oppression and direct application for improved practices. What conceptualization of research will be next? For now, researchers should familiarize themselves with research paradigms and their many characteristics for knowledge development. |
Figure 1: Similarities and Differences between Paradigms
|
REFERENCES
Breakspear, S. (2017). Embracing agile leadership for learning –how leaders can create impact despite growing complexity. Australian Educational Leaders, 39, 68-71.
Cranton, P., & Merriam, S. B. (2015). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults (3rd ed.). Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.
Decision Information Resources, Inc. (2015). Designing and conducting strong quasi-experiments in education (2nd ed.). Houston, Texas: Scher, L., Kisker, E., & Dynarski, M. Retrieved from Eric Database (ED561293).
Ellis, C., Adams, T.E., & Bochner, A.P. (2010). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung: Qualitative Social Research, 10, 1-18. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101108
Kincheloe, J.L., & McLaren, P.L. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Y. Zou and E.T Trueba (eds.) Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education (pp. 89-138). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Lawrence, R., & Cranton, P. (2012). Mentoring arts-based research: A Tale of two professors. In D. Clover & K. Sanford (eds.) Arts-based education, research and community cultural development in the contemporary university: International perspectives (pp. 128- 152). Manchester University Press.
Morgan, D.L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodology implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48-76. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
Cranton, P., & Merriam, S. B. (2015). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults (3rd ed.). Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.
Decision Information Resources, Inc. (2015). Designing and conducting strong quasi-experiments in education (2nd ed.). Houston, Texas: Scher, L., Kisker, E., & Dynarski, M. Retrieved from Eric Database (ED561293).
Ellis, C., Adams, T.E., & Bochner, A.P. (2010). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung: Qualitative Social Research, 10, 1-18. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101108
Kincheloe, J.L., & McLaren, P.L. (1994). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Y. Zou and E.T Trueba (eds.) Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education (pp. 89-138). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Lawrence, R., & Cranton, P. (2012). Mentoring arts-based research: A Tale of two professors. In D. Clover & K. Sanford (eds.) Arts-based education, research and community cultural development in the contemporary university: International perspectives (pp. 128- 152). Manchester University Press.
Morgan, D.L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodology implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48-76. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
© Copyright 2017 Inclusion Canada All rights reserved
Created, Designed, Developed and Written by L. Goolcharan
Created, Designed, Developed and Written by L. Goolcharan