Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:26:46 +1000 (EST)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:26:46 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: IFETS-DISCUSS Digest - 19 Oct 1999 to 20 Oct 1999
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Martin Owen wrote:
> It is quite possible to also categorise reflexive practice as research and
> as a research methodology. Sometimes it is referred to as "Action
> research", but I think the definition is broader. There is a qualitative
> difference in practice, purpose and audience. I claim no superiority here.
> I just think it is not the same thing as what I and my researching
> colleagues do for a living. Lumping the two together does not help either
> activity (or does it?... I don't think I know).
i.e. Matin draws a difference between theoretical and practical pedagogic
research. But look below:
> I am increasingly depressed by the academic machine in the "ed. research
> variety", it makes very little difference to anything. I am increasingly
> interested in finding things that do make a difference. I hypothesise this
> tends to be in "practice". I have no easy answers...
Now, my humble experience tells me that again at fault here may well not
be the machine (haven't I said that before?):-)
Rather at fault may be the very intellecual premises which on the one hand
make Martin think that there is theory and there is practice and on the
other hand, he is depressed by the very outcomes of tis dichotomy: ie for
him, educational research makes little difference in the real world of
practice.
Now all I can only say the following: it takes time, courage, will and
support from the few who share your insights, to rethink the situation and
possibly subvert the current intellectual trends which, when spoken
fluently, sound so convincing. But when we look back at the consequences
of this smooth and convincing ZPD, IED, KBG, BVD, you name it, what do we
find out?: the reality. And reality is not that there is practice and
there is theory. But that there is theory that shys away from practice and
which leaves teh problems of practice (at least in the field of second
langauge pedagogy) to the so called practitioner: the one who gets
his/her hands dirty.
Action research, as long as it is confined to theoretical principles of
ZPD, BVD, KGB, MPD (for those who do not know, BVD etc.. do not exist
but they will, just give it a time when ZPD fails to delive BVD may come
handy).... i.e. to principles which do not derive from the problem of
practice, is nothing else but legitimisation of the division put in place
but those who have access to smooth talking and leave the bumps of
the harsh road of practice to others to solve.
This is why I spent my time continually asking: what is it that we are to
do? What are the questions that generate our reserach in the form of
'answers' that we are to make available. Answers to what and whose
questions?
Ania Lian
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri 22 Oct 1999 - 01:50:08 MEST