Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:52:13 +1000 (EST)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:52:13 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Action research
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, Helen Beetham wrote:
> An observation: whether or not you agree with the anti-positivists, there
> have been enough contributions from them (us) on this list over the last
> couple of months to suggest that there is more than one opinion
> about the validity and 'objectivity' of empiricism as a methodology, and
> more than one story about how cultures including academic cultures determine
> what is useful and what is true.
so whose opinion should count and what makes it more valid, or objective
should I say? What is the answer?
> 'behaviours' studied are always already theorised and laden with
> meaning by the individuals who engage in them. This is generally
> treated as a problem by research traditions which seek 'objectivity',
> but a strength by traditions such as action research which seek an
> enriched picture of human activity in order to empower the
> participants and/or to change things for the better.
you mean, we expose learners to many opinions? I will show you a rather
drastic extreme of this line of thinking. My husband had a Chinese PhD
student who wanted to introduce an "eastern" element to L2-pedagogy.
Considering that there are so many opinions on how to teach a language,
the student's solution was: to keep harmony, give them all. When asked by
me, he kind of agreed to a method of, say, 2 minutes for each idea. SO we
do repetition drills for a few minutes, then grammar exercises, then a bit
of modified talk then a bit of TV, then a bit of scaffolded ZPD, then a
bit of....
> And a third: behind the supposed 'objectivity' of most subject-based
> research is a procedure known as peer review. I'm not sure how this
> differs from the procedure Martin suggests we adopt for evaluating our
> teaching practice, but here in the UK at least no-one dares to call it
> 'talking shop'!
Can you expand this comment?
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 - 02:07:07 MEST