Bob Blackler

May 24, 2003 (written at the end of the pre-synthesis research course)

I. My Report Shows that…

I. "MY SYNTHESIS PRODUCT SHOWS THAT..."

A. I can convey who I want to influence/affect concerning what (Subject, Audience, Purpose).

This report is clearly directed to an audience of Science teachers looking to transform their practice, specifically about teaching energy, by becoming aware of student preconceptions, and helping students to test these. All of this is aiming towards formulation and implementation of a conceptual change model of teaching science. However, I need to be sure that this is addressed directly.

B. I know what others have done before, either in the form of writing or action, that informs and connects with my project, and I know what others are doing now.

I have gathered research from seminal articles on children’s preconceptions about energy, Inquiry teaching, and conceptual change teaching. I feel like I have found a great deal that is relevant to my project but am not sure that I have adequately surveyed all that out there.

C. I have teased out my vision, so as to expand my view of issues associated with the project, expose possible new directions, clarify direction/scope within the larger set of issues, and decide the most important direction.

First, my concept map helped to me to tease out the need for students to test their own conceptual frameworks using inquiry activities, and to thoroughly map the interconnections between the sub areas. I still need to describe exactly how students will test their theories.


D. I have identified the premises and propositions that my project depends on, and can state counter-propositions. I have taken stock of the thinking and research I need to do to counter those counter-propositions or to revise my own propositions.

I feel that formulating my arguments, counter-arguments to these, and my responses, helped to structure my research by forcing me to respond to reasonable criticisms of my work, and develop a sensible progression to it. I need to be sure that all of these are specifically supported in the final report.

E. I have clear objectives with respect to product, both written and practice, and process, including personal development as a reflective practitioner. I have arranged my work in a sequence (with realistic deadlines) to realize these objectives.

I developed a research design to fulfill my research objectives, and was able to adhere to most of it but need to fill some gaps in my literature review.

F. I have gained direct information, models, and experience not readily available from other sources.

Carol Smith was an invaluable resource for providing models to gathering information about students’ preconceptions about energy, through class readings, assignments, activities, and conferences. Paul Jablon helped to clarify the nature of inquiry and the difficulty in implementing inquiry techniques without intensive training. I didn’t really stick to my interview questions with PJ, and as a result don’t feel that I used my interview time as efficiently as possible.

G. I have clarified the overall progression or argument underlying my research and the written reports.

I feel that my report clarifies my overall argument, but is stronger on the details of it, than on the transitional portions.

H. My writing and other products Grab the attention of the readers/audience, Orient them, move them along in Steps, so they appreciate the Position I've led them to.

I feel that I will need to go through a process of revision with reader feedback to really grab the audience. However, I feel that I have formulated my position using the steps in order to orient them.

I. I have facilitated new avenues of classroom, workplace, and public participation.

I have used this process to develop activities for my classroom to help students to acknowledge and to clarify their preconceptions, inquiry based activities targeted to facilitate shifts in thinking towards use of expert models. I feel that I need more formal training in inquiry teaching to really make this work.

J. To feed into my future learning and other work, I have taken stock of what has been working well and what needs changing.

In general I feel that I need to look at some of the literature again. I also don’t really have a system for organizing and managing the mechanics of this process. This will become more necessary as I begin the synthesis course.

I’m very happy with the activities for formulating theories. I acknowledge the need to clarify how to shift towards a more inquiry based classroom, Having students test their theories may be too ambitious. Perhaps a more realistic scenario is for the class to construct a cognitive model of what energy is, where it comes from, how it is used, and what happens to it after it is used, then to test this model, rather than have each student form and test his/her own model individual. I also feel that I need to firm up how to be sure that conceptual changes have occurred. perhaps I’ll design rubrics for assessing the labs and problems that take into consideration the criterion proposed by Strike and Posner.

II. DEVELOPING AS A REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER, INCLUDING TAKING INITIATIVE IN AND THROUGH RELATIONSHIPS

1. I have integrated knowledge and perspectives from CCT and other courses into my own inquiry and engagement in social and/or educational change.

I feel that generally speaking I have to a great extent assimilated the CCT perspective(s) into my thinking. I say “assimilated” and not “accommodated” because I really feel that due to my scientific/philosophical training, I was greatly sympathetic to the philosophical orientation of CCT. This in fact why I chose CCT rather than a more traditional M.Ed program.

2. I have also integrated into my own inquiry and engagement the processes, experiences, and struggles of previous courses.

I have been gradually incorporating ideas and techniques that I learned about in or researched through my CCT courses to improve my classroom practice. For example, My course with Carol Smith has formally introduced me to the idea that students have their own preconceptions before they are formally taught about a topic. I have incorporated this into my own teaching and it the seminal idea of my synthesis project. I have also used research from my Educational Evaluation course to improve student learning, i.e. concept maps. I feel that I would like to be more systematic in incorporated CCT techniques into my teaching However, I feel that there are so many CCT ideas that I have not tried to implement that would be fruitful in my class room.

3. I have developed efficient ways to organize my time, research materials, computer access, bibliographies, etc.

I have structured all of these however, I have not been as systematic as I will need to be in order to finish on time with a superior product. Therefore for the spring semester, I will adopt the following:
A. I will adopt the binder system suggested by PT, to organize articles, as of now they are in manila folders.

B. I typically write notes on the page margins of books and articles, but need to develop a more easily referenced means of commenting on others’ work.

C. I have computer access at home, at work, and at UMASS.

D. I need to commit time during the week (Tuesday evening) and a few hours on Saturday, with at least 4 hours on Sunday.

E. I need to look at my bibliography and edit it to be sure that I have a consistent and standard method for documenting sources.

4. I have experimented with new tools and experiences, even if not every one became part of my toolkit as a learner, teacher/facilitator of others, and reflective practitioner.

I have experimented with new tools and experiences for example the propositions and counter propositions exercise was very useful for considering reasonable objections and responding to them. Seeking out expert advise from people rather than simply books was new and quite useful. The Research Design was a helpful way to structure the remainder of the semester, I wish that I had been systematic in using it. I have used free-writing with my students, concept maps, and designed activities to gather their prior knowledge about particular scientific concepts. These are only a few examples of new tools

5. I have paid attention to the emotional dimensions of undertaking my own project but have found ways to clear away distractions from other sources (present & past) and not get blocked, turning apparent obstacles into opportunities to move into unfamiliar or uncomfortable territory.

I’ll admit that I have not consciously paid much attention to the emotional aspects about this process. However, the urgency of my task has driven me on in spite of being overwhelmed at times, become entangled, and having trouble maintaining motivation.

6. I have developed peer and other horizontal relationships. I have sought support and advice from peers, and have given support and advice to them when asked for.

I have developed peer relationships that have been reciprocated and we have helped support each other through the process informally as well as through the peer editing process. What I found most beneficial was the enormous help and support that I got from my synthesis advisor before she even agreed to be such. She was proactive at providing resources and ideas. Last but not least my department chair and frequent instructor has been an enormous support, and a tremendous resource, although I didn’t use him formally as often as I probably should have.

7. I have taken the lead, not dragged my feet, in dialogue with my advisor and other readers. I didn't wait for the them to tell me how to solve an expository problem, what must be read and covered in a literature review, or what was meant by some comment I didn't understand. I didn't put off giving my writing to my advisor and other readers or avoid talking to them because I thought that they didn't see things the same way as I do.

I wouldn’t say that I’ve dragged my feet but I wouldn’t say I’ve taken the lead either. My instructors comments were generally clear to me, if not I cleared them up in class or in conference. My advisor initially provided some references that made it progressively easy to research my topic. When I’ve been slow about presenting my writing it wasn’t because of fear of criticism, rather entangled multi-tasking. I have found my instructor’s criticism to be generally helpful and at times quite illuminating, particularly, in helping me to anchor my often idealized goals into the everyday reality of implementing these with my students in the classroom.

8. I have revised seriously, which involved responding to the comments of others. I came to see this not as bowing down to the views of others, but taking them in and working them into my own reflective inquiry until I could convey more powerfully to others what I'm about (which may have changed as a result of the reflective inquiry).

I have always made it a technique to incorporate what is useful from others into my own work. The dialogue process is one of our greatest resources for improving both the clarity and the soundness of our views. I often have found that epiphanic moments are catalyzed by dialogue with others, and the comments of instructors (particularly in this program) to be unusually fruitful in this regard.

9. I have inquired and negotiated about formal standards, but gone on to develop and internalize my own criteria for doing work—criteria other than jumping through hoops set by the professor so I get a good grade.

I have my own rationale for proceeding through academic work, I always find some purpose to which I can put what am taught-now or later. However, I admit that the more encumbered I feel (by work and school) the more like hoop-jumping the process feels. Fortunately, this program gives me more flexibility to direct the tools taught towards my own ends, and it is oriented towards the open-minded, multi-perspectival dialectic thinking to which I aspire.

10. I have approached the CCT synthesis course and the CCT program as works-in-progress, which means that, instead of harboring criticisms to submit after the fact, I have found opportunities to affirm what is working well and to suggest directions for further development.**

As always, I found the tenor of the course and the program as a flexible, dynamic, dialectical process, necessitating full ownership by students as well as instructor, to fulfill the high minded needs and wants of both high. I am continually impressed by the instructor’s ability to internalize as well as to convey constructive criticism. Although I strongly suspect that like myself this is not his natural inclination. I can not emphasize enough, that this new teaching, student as full partner is a risky process on both sides, but has given me the most fruitful educational experiences of my educational life.