For June 13 Virtual Class (Due: noon June 18)...Flyvbjerg Chapters 1-2
We have reached the final segment of our two course sequence together...the Flyvbjerg book group! For today's blog, consider why he includes the somewhat lengthy discussion of the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model of expertise (Ch. 2). What does it have to do with making social science matter and what connections do you see between it and what we have been doing in 702-703?
In alignment with the Dreyfus model of expertise, I expect to have a more clear understanding of the author’s point once I move more towards the “expert” stage and I assume that it may take longer than the end of SEDP 703 to accomplish that. My initial thought comes directly from the simple (yet complex) art of thinking about ones’ thinking (meta cognition). I would argue that the BIG (with a capital “B”) takeaway from 702 and 703 is to be a more proactive thinker of one’s thinking (META-metacognition? An ant-eater, eater?) This reminded me of an activity that we did in my first anthropology class- reading the Body Ritual Among the Nacirema (Miner, 1956). Those who have read it will understand the connection, I won’t go any farther for those who haven’t (find it here: https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Miner-1956-BodyRitualAmongTheNacirema.pdf)
ReplyDeleteI found the example of the CPR study to be a helpful way to think about the Dreyfus model and also about teaching as a profession. It helped me to identify the role of “rules” and consider how my practice has either been aligned or disconnected from the. For example, I see the methods that I used to teach math when I first began as very rule-focused and I would most likely identify a student who is “good at math” as someone who could follow the rules (similar to how the instructors behaved in the CPR study). As I became more of an expert teacher (much, MUCH later) I was able to teach math in a more flexible, problem-solving approach and I encouraged different behavior within my students. I would now identify a student who is “good at math” as one who could apply flexible mathematical thinking to solve a problem (similar to how the CPR “Experts” identified another expert). To be honest, I’m still building how to translate this to my understanding of my research path and the research community as a whole, but there’s no surprise there since I’m barely a novice on my best day.
Nicole Peterson
As I read about the Dreyfus model I found that you must have experiences in order to reach the expert level. This aligns with many of our discussions from the course. We learn by doing. Yes, we can learn by observing others, but to be directly impacted and involved changes our perspectives.
ReplyDeleteLet’s focus on that word for a minute - perspective. The more I read through this model, the more I thought about how important it is to keep this model fluid. What I mean by this is that we must always remember what it feels like to be in each stage of this hierarchy. If we do not understand the perspectives of others, how will we ever lead? In addition, I believe that this must be a fluid model because if we are to grow, we must always make ourselves uncomfortable and constantly learning new skills. As we have also discussed, education is always changing. To be influential, we must change along with society. This means that we might be experts at times, but also novices at others.
The first part of the chapter reviews the various requirements of learners to progress through the 5 levels of the human learning process. I think it is very important to recognize these levels of learners in both practice and research. In practice, the learning level of students/learners will directly (or should) affect how educators deliver content and set expectations for said learners. In research, understanding the learning level of participants may affect research design, methodology or evaluation. Aside from defining the levels of learning, I think two concepts discussed in this chapter relate well to our in class discussions about the quadrants of science: intuition and rationality. Flyvbjerg discusses the concept of intuition, its uniqueness to each individual and how this affects the ability of defining it with the hopes of reproducing similar results from person to person. He also points out that the “rational mode of thinking” cannot be applied to every action humans make. Flyvbjerg states, “the position of intuition is not beyond rationality but alongside it, complementary to it” and to overcome a purely rational view on research one must incorporate the characteristics of higher levels of learning such as “context, judgment, practice, trial and error, experience, common sense, intuition, and bodily sensation” (p. 23). To me, intuition and rationality are equivalent to our axes of soft and hard science. You can have intuition and rationality separately, but you have to work really hard to achieve some proportion of both in your research.
ReplyDelete***Kayla
Chapter 2 opens with a concrete examples of the 5 learning levels. Before one can dig deeper I think it is important to think about the relationship/ alignment between social science and research as it relates to the 5 levels.
ReplyDeleteTo start I think there are levels of expertise to be reached in research however one must understand all of the moving part of research first. Research questions, hypothesis, methodology, etc. This information is different from one study to the next. With that said, there has to be a solid foundation. I wonder if individuals who are researchers professionally use the same methodical approach to discovering new information. Can they still be an expert if they employ shortcuts and short steps to initiate and complete a research project. In this case I think about PhD students as novice to competent performers. I would imagine that it would take year and contingent upon someone's background to reach proficient and expert. Perhaps you are tenured before that happens. ( Don't focus on that-- it was a random unexplored thought!)
I would agree with the closing argument around context, intuition and experience. All of which are necessary to good research. I think in earlier years it was easier to dismiss the role of context and intuition and experience but as of late I think researchers need this to better analyze their work. I think about this in relations to those who design and lead new schools. For example the charter school movement. Before traditional schools, i think were aligned to the 5 levels in terms of staff and administration. The curriculum was void of creativity and innovation until the 90s when charter schools began to launch. I think then did we consider more (not completely) context, experience and the role of intuition into learning. I don't think the cycle of human learning can fully manifest without the consideration of all of the moving pieces. The notes from 22-24 really challenged my initial stance but helped me to consider all of the moving parts together and not just individually. It was like taking an holistic view of human learning and applying it to social science and research.
Flyvbjerg asserts that in order to move to level four from level one, one has to be able to make the jump from analytical thinking (problem solving) to “genuine, human experience.” This can be problematic for those who believe that thinking only occurs in a logical, analytical manner. The connections are spelled out by Flyvbjerg who says that only focusing on the first three levels stifles understanding of intelligent action, which is bigger than just analytics. He presents a solid argument about the challenge with discounting intuition and judgment and not recognizing that thinking and intuition go hand in hand. I see this discussion as a natural progression of the conversation that we started in 702. Thinking and analyzing are great, but the two are not isolated actions or reactions. This speaks to the research that is conducted and the need to assess qualities that are not objectively quantifiable, such as the use of intuition. The example of the study with the paramedics speaks to this. The model helps us to further understand the perspective of individuals based on their level of learning.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought about the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model was in conjunction with our career development plans that we had to write about at the beginning of this course. The model discussed the human-learning process and I thought directly back to the skills and competencies that you asked us to address. The model explains the skills and competencies that are developed as knowledge is acquired but it is also something that never ends, even though there is an "expert" level, we are never truly an "expert." We all continuously gather knowledge, and specifically in the social sciences improve practice or apply theory.
ReplyDeleteI think based on this model we are better able to understand the idea putting theory into practice, that is sometimes difficult to interpret in the social sciences. It really emphasizes the process of gaining skills from the big picture or broad scope and then being able to better put those skills/knowledge in to practice. However, I didn't think the learning process they described included anything about reflection or assessment which I think are critical aspects. As social scientists, if we are trying to implement our work in real situations I think we do have to spend time reflecting on what has been accomplished and if it's truly meeting our outcomes. Where does that fit in their model? Again, I think it would emphasize the idea that we are never truly experts, I think we could have an expertise but new information could always be gathered.
Allison
For decades I have been defending the vigor and value of the arts to those who presume they are soft, easy, superfluous, or lacking in real intellectual activity. I’ll set aside for now the false presumption that the arts are for those who are either averse to or incompetent in what are seen as the more intellectually rigorous disciplines such as science and math. (Don’t get me started…) What I will address are certain limiting Western habits for conceptualizing human thought that support these claims and that can have dangerous consequences for how we think about and value learning and research – consequences that not only impact the arts but also students of the U.S. educational system and, as Flyvbjerg illustrates, those whose research falls in quadrant three of the Stemhagen Grid of Research Classification™.
ReplyDeleteThe longevity of damaging Cartesian dualisms like rationality/irrationality, mind/body, and science/nature can be seen in the hierarchical structuring of human thought that scientific rationalism continues to uphold. We see this hierarchy and its attached value judgments play out in arenas like The Science Wars, research funding, educational policy (especially evident in last week’s readings), and attacks on liberal arts education, to name just a few that have been discussed in 702 and 703. The notion that scientific rationality embodies the most advanced or sophisticated thought limits so much of what the human brain is capable of and, as dramatic as it may seem, what it means to be human.
The stages of phenomenological learning proposed by the Dreyfus model upend Enlightenment fixations on rationality as the apogee of human intellectual activity. Particularly compelling is the Dreyfus brothers’ proposal that perhaps there should be no hierarchy at all, that human thought is not made up of discrete, compartmentalized, hierarchical parts or rules that can be described, delineated, and reproduced with machine-like precision. Rather, thought and learning is made richer and more multi-dimensional by the integration of different ways of learning and knowing, as Flyvbjerg states, “ the position of intuition is not beyond rationality but alongside it, complementary to it” (p. 23). Continuing to privilege rationality both in schools and in research means we are limiting the range of human thought and learning by our insistence that one kind of thinking is better than another and that different cognitive processes operate in isolation of each other. Not so! I would argue that social science research is doing exactly what the human brain naturally tends toward: integrating knowledge with experience, intuition with expertise, curiosity with trial and error, and creativity with experimentation. Maybe that is what makes social science so complex, unpredictable, and endlessly intriguing.
As I read Flyvbjerb’s work, especially his explanation of the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model of expertise, I began comparing it to my what will be my journey through the doctorate program. As I take my classes, I feel as though I am a novice. I have experiences as an educator encouraged me to pursue a doctorate, but I still feel like a novice. As an educator, my experience is limited to a specific population of students with disabilities and the issues that impact this specific group of students and the educators who work with them. When I decided to apply to VCU, my personal statement was mainly about those issues that I wanted to address. At that particular point of my career, I considered myself somewhere between a proficient performer and expert. However, as I started my coursework through School of Ed, I am exposed to other issues that are prevalent in the special education world but I have had tunnel vision. As I learn about additional areas of focus, I realize that I am a novice in relation to the new areas of interest that I have developed. I believe that as I complete my coursework and go through the process of writing my dissertation and eventually defending it, I will work my way through the model of expertise. Although I don’t believe there is a finite ending point to the model, I believe that in order to be a successful researcher and academic you need to strive to reach that level of expertise. As our day to day world evolves, our practices, needs and issues within the field of education will evolve to. As educators, we will never hang our “hat” at the end of the day thinking, “I know everything that I need to within this subject” and therefore believe that the final destination of being an “expert” is elusive.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated how Flyvbjerg likened the knowledge acquisition process to a person learning to drive a car. Personally, I would be more comfortable being a passenger in someone's car who had a longer history with driving than I would be if I were to ride with an inexperienced driver; I would trust the seasoned driver just *Knows* more. I think the same can be argued for making social sciences matter. If it hasn't yet become obvious, I always google words and phrases to make sure I am defining them correctly. True to form, I googled social sciences and the definition I found said, "the study of human science and societal relationships." Based on that definition alone, one might think that in order for someone to do work around or provide commentary around social occurrences they have to have some type of insight or past experiences that guide their work. I think a person's past experiences offer them a type of capital or authority, which could support the dissemination and acceptance of their work across audiences. One caveat to this would be that I don't believe social sciences support one universal truth, which renders a lot of people's past experiences as nontransferable or nongeneralizable. This belief raises even more questions about the role of theory in social sciences. I think Flyvbjerg included this model to emphasize how murky social sciences can be... kind of like the quadrants we often refer to in class.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Flyvbjerb wanted to make sure his readers understood the importance of stepping beyond classical rules and the way we traditionally view knowledge and intellect. I especially appreciated the chess example given by Flyvbjerb that put my, at times, slow responses into perspective. He made me connect the fact that mathematical minds, which tend to reason and problem-solve, may not be as quick to move and make decisions in unfamiliar situations. The Dreyfus and Dreyfus model of expertise was very enlightening. At first, I was unable to understand why the resuscitation instructors were not able to recognize the experienced paramedic. However, the model made the outcome of the experiment make perfect sense. The Dreyfus model along the supporting examples showed the necessity of experience and action. As we have learned in 702 and thus far in 703, true knowledge is created through action. One can follow rules and steps, but this is not necessarily knowledge. It is simply working off of memory that may not be feasible in all circumstances. The more experience with action, the more knowledge gained for future action. Thus, it takes more than just the learning of natural science. Social science matters because it takes us further into truly understanding how beings interact with others and their environment as opposed to simply learning what those before us have learned and discovered. We are able to make discoveries of our own through our daily experiences.
ReplyDeleteThe first part of the chapter talks about the levels of the leaner process. As I reflect on 702 and our discussions in 703, I think back to conversations about “knowledge.”
ReplyDeleteFlyvbjerg discusses the way learners to progress through the five levels of the human learning process and how unique impact individuals. I think Dreyfus and Dreyfus model of expertise is important to remember as our expertise greatly impacts our practice and research.
I approach special education research and practice from a very particular lens and I’ve learned a lot about that in 702 and 703. I think it’s important to reflect on this lens to examine how it is impacting my work and taking into consideration how another lens may be useful. As I advance in life/school/work my lens will change as a result of society, culture, experiences, exc.
While reading about the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model, I found it easy to read and I appreciated the examples that were given. It helped me place where I am in the stages and reflect upon the career plan that we did at the beginning of this class. Even though I teach full-time, which provide numerous amounts of real-life experiences, I don’t think that I can place myself in the ‘advanced beginner’ stage. At this time in my academic career, I feel that I am in the novice stage. Through the classes I have taken and are taking, I am learning the ‘facts and characteristics’ of a situation and what the rules for action are. Through this learning process, I have obtained a higher level of skills and continuing improving on how to apply that skill. While it is not the same, I think the ‘rules of action’ can be related to what we have learned in 702 and 703. We have learned that through action, knowledge is gained. As we have discussed in class and through readings, there is not a “one-size fits all” learning process… I think that this is what Flyvbjerg was getting at with this model and the social sciences.
ReplyDeleteThe Dreyfus and Dreyfus model discussion is important for social sciences and all we have discussed in 702-703 because, in my opinion, it illustrates that "mastering" social science and effectively communicating research out into the public will inevitably require us to break the "rules" of research and theory. At some level, it may be impossible for those without a "mastery" of social science principles to understand research according to the D&D model, however since we, as practitioners, are "masters," we are conceivably able to break down what is known research into information that is translatable to those with proficient or amateur understanding. This sounds elitist, even patronizing, but for us the answer is true. At some level, we must have a multi-level D&D understanding of social science in order to disseminate information to the public if we want to fill the role of the public intellectual. D&D also helps us to understand how we reached where we are now as social science researchers, the journey, in my own mind, is somewhat a blur, but the long discussion reminded me of the many levels of learning I had to go through to get to whatever level I am at now. D&D also illustrates how not every person will use the same methods to reach mastery, but that mastery looks about the same for each person once achieved.
ReplyDeleteI was reminded through the opening paramedics study about our discussions in class last semester; what does it mean to do research as an outsider (academic) instead of as a teacher in the classroom? What is the connection between research and practice? Is this where meaning can be found for research in the social sciences? The Dreyfus and Dreyfus model of expertise seemed to give a voice to the expertise experienced by a seasoned educator who does not used rules but is able to use his/her experience to approach teaching using intuition and a holistic frame of reference. It likewise seems to put up caution signs to the researcher who attempts to work in a silo without connecting to other research or practice.
ReplyDeleteThe importance placed on context through the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model is also related to our discussions about the purpose and place of educational research. Their model seemed to remind us that if social science research is to matter, it must celebrate and use its context-specific place (tier 3) as an advantage and not see it as a disadvantage because we are comparing it to research in natural sciences. In light of the first chapter, Flyvbjerg seemed to be rewriting the placement of what it means to do research using Dreyfus and Dreyfus to set the standard of what it means to be an expert. Becoming an expert does not mean having Truth but having a context-specific ability to see a “problem, goal, plan, decision, and action” in one effortless motion.
I think Flyvbjerg includes the discussion about the Dreyfus & Dreyfus model of expertise because we cannot rely on rational thinking and acting alone. The model connects to why social science matters as it relates to thinking about how to bring our constantly increasing/changing intuition, context, and experience to the table. Flyvberg also mentions Nietzsche, who thinks that more people should embrace including knowledge and instinct in their reasoning and acting. The model also acknowledges that our knowledge construction is a building process, which takes into account different influences; this is also reflected in social science. In relation to our class, I think that we are also engaging in this process in terms of building our understanding of educational research. We are bringing our different backgrounds and experiences to the table with this new knowledge and applying it in instinctive ways.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe connections between making social science matter and the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model is what I think to have a psychological measure of growth. It is something to reflect on as we think about our knowledge base. I think the learning process may not happen as easily as the model suggests and it is not suppose to. The stages just remind of the degrees we work toward. While these stages can be applied to any part of our lives for learning, the academic stages in my life makes this more reflective. I think my awareness was more passive and monitoring. Then I build more competence as I grew as a learner from bachelors to now. Flyvbjerg's perspective of gaining knowledge and disseminating is how he thinks we make our science more relevant. It makes us more in touch with what we know and our experiences. However, sometimes by the time we acquire this knowledge I think we lose some practicality if we search knowledge in the elite institutions and don't make the connection back to the people it will or can effect.
Amber B
DeleteIn Chapter 2 Flyvbjerg spends a fair amount of time on the Dreyfus and Dreyfus model of expertise. In the first three levels, there is a focus on examining and applying rules and models to create plans for action. Then, there is a “qualitative jump” to the last two levels, where prior experiences allow those who are “proficient” to combine intuition and analytical evaluation prior to moving to the expert level which is, “characterized by flowing, effortless performance” (21). I think Flyvbjerg included this to help increase feelings of value surrounding experience, and intuition. This inclusion furthers the belief that social science matters, because despite leaps made across more “scientific” fields, it is not currently possible to reproduce human experience, conceptualization, and intuition by programmable means. (Similar to the discussion last week about self-driving cars and the simultaneous impossibility/necessity of machines making moral decisions.)
ReplyDeleteLooking back, I am able to draw a connection between this model and what we’ve been working toward and discussing in 702 and 703. Specifically, I see this book as coming to the defense of the residents of quadrant three. This chapter puts forth that there is deep value in recognizing, reflecting on, and documenting the messiness of the human experience, which further supports and validates the future of social science research.