Reflections on Week 2

First, I did manage to get my copy of Phillips’ book this week and catch up on the reading.  This was particularly helpful in covering the components of the typical research article.  Phillips does explain these in some detail, which was helpful in completing the Research article review assignment.  The sections on “The Quality of the Presentation” and “The Trust Factor” also outline important considerations in those vital areas. 

I also thought that the first chapter will prove useful in locating relevant research literature with its listing of the number of websites that compile and list research studies and doctoral dissertations. 

In watching the videos, I was particularly struck by the young cellist in Dr. Duke’s video.  His very personal explanation of what he thinks “The Swan” is communicating is matched by the look of absolute pleasure on his face as he plays.  The follow up comment that this joy of expression is too often what is lost in the course of developing skill, in music or anything else.  If the student doesn’t internalize what is being presented, the teacher has not succeeded.  If it doesn’t go out of the classroom and get applied in some fashion, it has little value.  I also appreciated his emphasis on resisting the temptation to solve students’ problems for them rather than allowing them to solve them for themselves.  I also love the concept of creating “strategic confusion” in the minds of students to force them to learn to think for themselves.

I also enjoyed Dr. Mertler’s emphasis on self-examination as a major part of the reconnaissance process.  If we are not able to examine our own biases and tendencies, it becomes very difficult to accurately assess the problems in a situation and to come up with likely ways to correct them.  It also, though, helps point out the importance of gaining information from different perspectives to help overcome our own limitations and biases.  What we may not catch or understand may be caught and brought to our attention by someone else.

Mertler’s stages for action research outline (1. Planning; 2. Acting; 3. Developing; 4. Reflecting) makes a lot of sense to me. I relate to them in terms of how good teachers have always operated: Identify a problem – Come up with possible solutions – Try out the solutions – Analyze results to see what works/what doesn’t – Make adjustments based on that analysis – Repeat the process.  In fact, Phillips describes this as “trial and error discovery.”   

While I understand Mertler’s reasons for breaking those four basic steps down into the eventual 9 sub-steps, in some ways it makes things a bit more complicated.  The process will not always follow neatly in that same order.  At times it will prove necessary to repeat steps or rearrange the order as the various cycles develop over time.  In the example I gave from my early teaching experience, it could be said that I ran several cycles of the first two steps before ever moving on to the 3^rd and 4^th steps, yet the overall process was successful as evidenced by the steady improvement of the ensemble in this area over the course of a three year period.