A complex system analysis of practitioners' discourse about research.(Report)

The recent past has seen an increasing frequency of calls for teachers to implement "evidence-based" practices (Davies, 1999; U.S. Department of Education, 2002). At the same time, it has been noted that teachers see research as largely irrelevant to practice (Lester & William, 2002; Steen, 1999). If one accepts the premise that research holds value for educational practice (Margolinas, 1998; NCTM Research Committee, 2006; Silver, 1990), it is important for teacher educators to develop instructional experiences that bring teachers into the discourse surrounding educational research. At the present time, communities of teachers and researchers are often largely separated by communication-related barriers (Sowder, 2000; Silver, 2003).

Lesh and Lovitts (2000) observed the following about the relationship between research and practice:

 
    In mathematics and science education, the flow of information 
    between researchers and practitioners is not the kind of one-way 
    process that is suggested by such terms as information 
    dissemination. Instead, to be effective, the flow of information 
    usually must be cyclic, iterative, and interactive (p. 53). 

An implication of this statement is that a "transmission" view of familiarizing teachers with research is naive, just as mathematical pedagogy based on such a view is misguided (Kline, 1977). Lesh and Lovitts (2000) went on to state, "Although simpleminded, 'delivery-and-reception' metaphors are recognized widely now as being inappropriate for describing the development of students, teachers, or other complex systems, these same machine-based metaphors continue to be applied to the development of programs of instruction" (p. 57).

Teachers' Conversations as Complex Systems

Complexity science provides a framework for designing and analyzing the types of complex systems for the development of teachers mentioned by Lesh and Lovitts (2000). Davis and Simmt (2003) provided a discussion of the implications of complexity science for mathematics education. They defined complex phenomena in the following manner:

 
    First, each of these phenomena is adaptive. That is, a complex 
    system can change its own structure ... Second, a complex phenomenon 
    is emergent, meaning that it is composed of and arises in the 
    complicated activities of individual agents. In effect, a complex 
    system is not just the sum of its parts, but the product of the 
    parts and their interactions (Davis & Simmt, 2003, p. 138).