I am presenting my research on both problem finding and reflexivity at The Qualitative Report Annual Conference, in Ft. Laduerdale, FL. Here are the resources for the presentation:

Reflexivity Paper |	Reflexivity Presentation |	Creative Student Scientists Paper |	Creative Student Scientists Presentation

My children and I had an exciting visit to the Norwalk Maritime Aquarium today. The girls enjoyed the seal feeding, shark tank, jellyfish tank (on of my personal favorites), and, of course, the festival of lights – lighthouse exhibit. However, I was drawn to the jellyfish work room. The room is equipped with a number of customized gear made of PVC pipes, customized tanks, and pump systems. I was drawn to a 5-gallon blue Crystal Rock water cooler bottle that was modified with a cut-off top and a huge air stone set upon a PVC structure/table. This “tank” was growing brine shrimp, sometimes in the common vernacular referred to as sea monkeys. These small macroscopic shrimp are used as planktonic food for the jellies.

I was excited to see this set up, because about 10 years ago when I was teaching marine biology, I had a similar setup in my classroom. The students and I used to construct devices and strategize ways to take care of our 55-gallon tanks. It was experiential learning at its best. We did our regular “curricular” things in that semester class, but my fondest memories were working side-by-side with the students finding ways to make our catches from Long Island Sound – our crabs, snails, mummichog fish, mussels, clams, and even the red beard sponge come alive in our classroom environment.

What was important was that we created the environment and made the tools to keep it running. Sure, we had pre-purchased some materials, but the art of the process was determining how we could build devices that made it our own.

I am proud to announce the release of my paper:  Online Dynamic Asynchronous Audit Strategy for Reflexivity in the Qualitative Paradigm, just published in The Qualitative Report. It was a long process to publication, but I am really excited about this work.  The data for the study originated here on this blog back in 2007.  This study is about this BLOG from 2007-2008.   I first presented the research concepts in 2009 at the Connecticut State University Faculty Research Conference, and then in 2010 at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting in Denver.  Feel free to read it and leave a comment below.

I facilitated a workshop several Saturdays ago for the Connecticut Science Fair.  The topic was:

Strategies for improving middle school science fair project quality.

The workshop was opened to students and teachers to learn about both the problem finding process.  I challenge the fold, quite frequently asking participants to challenge their own engrained biases to move students to a point where they value and understand the problem fnding process.

This workshop had an “interesting” participant:  an English teacher who felt that a special education student should be able to choose a project that would be deemed low quality by a panel of authentic judges.  This bothers me for several reasons.  The first, is because the teacher finds little to no value in the problem finding process. Problem finding is about exploring, questioning, and thinking to determine an idea and avoiding the hasty, non-invested, often irrelevant and value-lacking idea.  All students can learn about value by recognizing an authentic audience that would appreciate the student’s work.

Second, the teacher thinks that a special needs student is not capable of original, creative thought.  I also reject this idea with years of experience and many students who have challenged the fold to make a meaningful, relevant project.  Several of my identified (SpeEd or 504) students have developed and carried out projects that have been recognized at the NATIONAL level.  They are competing with some of the top students from around the world.  They have demonstrated that perhaps their learning style is different than some of their compatriots.  They learn in a different fashion, and when given the opportunity, shine masterfully.

We do any and all students a disservice when we classify or compartmentalize them based on perceived deficiencies.  We really need to recognize that every student, given motivation, appropriate scaffolding, and high quality mentorship can be successful

Though I spend my days working with high school students, I have a deep passion for open inquiry research and am lucky to have the opportunity to work with doctoral candidates in the Ed.D. Instructional Leadership Program at Western Connecticut State University.  This semester (and for the next 5,) I will be providing secondary advisement to two students and primary advisement to one. 

PART #1

Yesterday, one of my secondary advisees had her proposal defense.  A proposal defense occurs when the student has identified and defined his or her study (problem finding).  First, the student provides the advisors with a ~20-page document for review a few weeks prior.  We provide feedback, the proposal is modified, and then a presentation is conducted to share the design with the committee.   Yesterday was that presentation.  As we listened and subsequently discussed, I couldn’t help but consider some of the important behaviors and actions the student had undertaken.  My colleague, Krista Ritchie, and I are working on a paper about promoting  problem finding and our recent email discussions synthesizing our research have lead us to generate a teacher and student list of strategies.  Here are the student strategies, which I clearly saw on display yesterday (and part of our working list for the paper):

1. Identify and work with an authentic audience
2. Excellent written and oral communication skills
3. Know there is value
4. Novel approach
5. Focus on areas of personal interest.
6. Be a critical consumer of information.
7. Create a support system. 

We are going to elaborate on each of these as well as provide a “teacher list.”

PART #2

After the defense, in the adjacent lounge, the professors then gathered for one-on-one meetings with primary advisees.  This was a great time for each professor (4 of us) to meet individually to discuss ideas, goals, and progress.  What was more striking to me, though, was the culture.  Student sitting with advisor, advisors and students sharing information both between the two and among the group.  Meeting dynamics that went from one-on-one, briefly to small group, back to one-on-one.  There was an underlying sensation of inquiry permeating the room.  Deep, specialized learning occurring without the traditional walls, desks, or blackboards.  Learning for learning’s sake, bidirectional knowledge flow, challenging ideas – wow!  This is what learning is supposed to be like.  As we constantly consider educational reform we really need to think of ways to make authentic inquiry the bedrock of learning.  This is where growth really occurs.

Earlier this year, I was asked to participate (as a subject) in a research study examining teacher’s expertise as it relates to pedagogy, subject expertise, and inquiry (research) skills.  During an interview, I was asked to recall a meaningful experience that influenced my teaching.  I have orally told this story many times, but the researcher was recording and transcribing.  I was fortunate to receive a copy of the transcript and am sharing it below:

Question:  Can you recall what experiences informed your understanding of science teaching?

My response:

Yes! I can very much pinpoint the event that really helped focus and change my perception of myself as a science teacher. And it took place in March 1998. I was working with a teacher and he said, Frank you would really like this event, is called the Junior Science and Humanities symposium.  It takes place at UConn and I really encourage you to go. I think you are going to get a lot out of it.  Take a couple of students if you would like, and by the way, can you take my son too.  He’s at the right age and I think it would be good for him to go. So I went to this symposium at the University of Connecticut.  What I found were students presenting results from their research. It took place in 15-minute platforms: they did 15 minute talks followed by questions and answers from the audience.  I was sitting in the audience utterly mesmerized by these students – how well they were presenting.  I sat back and said what a fool I had been. As a neophyte teacher, I was teaching the way I was taught.  Here I had my mind opened to remind me what really made a very positive influence in my development as a scientist and that was working in a research laboratory.  Watching those students I realized what was meaningful to me – what made me a good student of science.  It was not the didactic book knowledge but rather the meaningful exploration of science as a way to develop knowledge. So I walked away from that event saying this (authentic, applied research) is what I should be doing.  From that point, I really started to shape my philosophy of education.  At that point I did not know what inquiry meant or perhaps I had not defined it as well as I do today, but I understood the value of doing authentic research.  The Junior Science and Humanities Symposium really shaped my whole philosophy of teaching – that we needed to move students towards the individualization and the authentic opportunities for them to do meaningful science. So I can confidently say that was the most important experience in my professional career to date.

There is so much more to the story too.  At that symposium there were also students presenting posters.  I went up to one of the students who has developed this device and it was basically a homemade spectrophotometer:  it’s a device used to measure interference of light.  He was using it for photosynthesis or some whatever reason. He was very proud of himself and I was chatting with him and his teacher happened to be there. The students was from Greenwich High School, which was the next town from where I was teaching.  I met this teacher, we really got on very well, and he became a mentor for me to inculcate me to doing science research process with students.  He really was a wonderful teacher and it was an amazing experience in the sense that I recognized what I valued in my education and also I met someone who shared the same values as I did.  We both had extremely positive experiences doing research with students.  He became a mentor for me.

The trustworthiness of a qualitative study can be increased by maintaining high credibility and objectivity. A research definition of trustworthiness might be: “Demonstration that the evidence for the results reported is sound and when the argument made based on the results is strong.” In order to maintain high trustworthiness in a qualitative study, Krefting (1991) suggested four criteria to ensure valid interpretation of data: truth value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality. In the qualitative approach, truth value is measured by credibility: having an adequate engagement in the research setting so recurrent patterns in data can be properly identified and verified. Applicability is established with transferability: allowing readers to be able to apply the findings of the study to their own situations. Since a qualitative researcher’s perspective is naturally biased due to his or her close association with the data, sources, and methods, various audit strategies can be used to confirm findings (Bowen, 2009; Miller, 1997). Therefore, trustworthiness of (a) interpretations, and (b) findings are dependent on being able to demonstrate how they were reached (Mauthner & Doucet, 2003).

I saw the following comic strip and thought that it was worthy to share from the qualitative paradigm philosophy. Confirmability (confirming the thoughts/biases/results) is critical in qualitative research. Let it go and the findings are suspect at best.

Two students and I received a request to appear on Phil Mikan’s Corner Radio Show.  Phil’s show broadcasts from Middletown, CT and is heard on WLIS and WMRD. 

Phil asked us to join him to talk about our successes at the Connecticut Science Fair.  Both of my students were finalists and won some significant awards.

One of the most interesting comments about the experience came after we left when one student said, “Boy, I never knew all fo the things I would get to see because I did a science fair project.” 

How true.  Authentic experiences breed other authentic experiences.  I wrote about those unique experiences last year as well.  There is something magical about doing real work (in this case, science research that has an authentic audience), because “real” people want to hear about it.

Listen to the show here:

This past Wednesday, I hosted my annual science symposium at my school.  The students who conduct year-long applied research projects participate by presenting a 10 to 15-minute oral with PowerPoint related to their topic. I try to make the experience as authentic as possible.  Students send a written invitation to their parents, and I always ask them to select a teacher in the building and send them an invitation as well.  One teacher attended, and provided me with the following email.  My response to her follows.  I think this written discussion we had indicates the nature of the power of authentic learning and its ability to affect student achievement:

Hi there,

I really was so impressed with you and your students last night.  What a successful event!  It’s astounding to see what our kids are working on, Frank.  And my goodness, you have taught them well in terms of presenting themselves, creating sound powerpoints, and articulating their projects.  I kept thinking about the millions of questions you must be asked on a daily basis.  I was incredibly impressed! 

What I especially enjoyed was the practicality of the applications.  That is something that isn’t lacking necessarily, but isn’t so evident in English.  So that was incredible for me.  Certainly, I had difficulty understanding much of what they were doing, but truly remarkable nonetheless. 

You are an asset to this building (any building) and I just wanted to congratulate you.

Corey

 Corey,

Thanks for your kind words.

 About 12 years ago I realized that to really, really improve student achievement there had to be a sense of authenticity to the work that students do. It couldn’t be “LIKE REAL LIFE,” it had to be “REAL LIFE.” It couldn’t be learning for the sake of learning only, but rather inquiry learning in context, with applicable value. There had to be a real audience (in my case, practicing scientists and engineers) that would evaluate their work – not just me as the teacher. This made my role very different – the teacher as the facilitator instead of the didactic knowledge disseminator. Ultimately the students are going to be evaluated (judged) outside of the building, so it is in our collective best interest to work collaboratively, with me assuming the role of the mentor.

 I started doing research with students, primarily because I found that a problem/project-based learning strategy was a method that worked very well for me as a learner. I also realized that in education we often scenarioize-to-death our perceived authentic assessments and projects, which I think takes away value. We also primarily use visual/auditory teaching and learning strategies with students, which often doesn’t meet the learning styles of all students. Some students are more global and tactile with their successful learning strategies.

 I also believe in concept-based learning – “big ideas” as the focus of learning objectives – and teaching students to making connections between their knowledge. Project-based learning is inherently concept-based. If we improve the 21st-century skills of students (problem finding and solving, creativity, oral and written communication) using the content or project as the vehicle for skill development, then I think we really develop the learning potential and achievement in students.

As I constantly straddle the realms of educational research and the role of a practitioner, I find myself trying to define my interests.  Today I describe my research interests in somewhat of a mission statement. I am doing it in plural form as, although I operate as an autonomous researcher, I have collaborators and someday hope to be directing my own social science lab.  I currently direct a high school natural science and engineering lab, and there is much more diversity in my interests and their interests:

Mission:

We try to relate analytic thinking with creative thinking, which calls for multi-focused domain and divergent thinking. We are trying to promote synergic relationships between analytically and creative-oriented minds. Our research tries to bridge analytical with creative-oriented efforts, convergent with divergent thinking, to develop domain-specific expertise from non-focused or multi-focused generalism.

Research Interests:

By using appropriate qualitative and quantitative methods, we seek to better understand what promotes scientific thinking in young adults.

 Threads for study:  

• The examination of problem finding and problem solving in authentic settings
• Habits of mind for open inquiry
• The impact of authentic inquiry opportunities on teaching and learning
• The intersection of creative and logical/analytical behaviors in a situated cognitive learning setting
• The development of 21^st-century skills in conjunction with scientific content acquisition
• The development of higher order thinking skills in science classrooms
• The role of Web 2.0 interactive technology to improve critical, creative, and reflective thinking