Welcome back to the deep dive. Great to be here.
So have you ever stopped to think about how you
really understand something? I mean, is it just
about piling up facts or mastering a skill? Or
is it maybe something, yeah, something deeper,
something that clicks personally? Exactly. Well,
today, we're diving into precisely that, looking
at naturalistic approaches to research and teaching.
And we're drawing on some really interesting
material. There's a post by Gary Ackerman over
on hackscience .education. Right, and that itself
connects back to a, well, a really foundational
book, Naturalistic Inquiry, by Lincoln and Guba
from way back in 85. Still incredibly relevant,
though. Totally. So our mission today is first
to unpack this fundamental debate about knowledge
about research itself. And then the really exciting
part, see how that philosophical view totally
reshapes how we think about education, what learning
and teaching actually mean. Okay, so let's get
into it. Where do we start? Maybe with a traditional
view. Yeah, the baseline. For a long time, a
lot of scientific research, especially when looking
at people, at society, has been based on, well,
what are called positivist principles. That's
been the dominant. model, right? The sort of
classic scientific approach. Pretty much. And
a key idea, a core tenet of positivism, is that
there's one single objective reality out there.
Just waiting to be found. Exactly. And we can
understand it if we just observe it objectively.
Think like the scientist in the white coat. totally
separate from the experiment. And this view also
suggests, doesn't it, that if you can figure
out the causes. And control them. Then you can
predict the effect. It's all very neat, very
linear, like A causes B. Cause and effect, yeah,
almost mechanical. And central to this whole
picture is the observer, right? The idea that
you can make independent observations. That your
presence, your perspective, it doesn't actually
change what you're looking at. You're just a
detached eye. Yeah. invisible almost. Okay, so
that's the traditional picture. But you mentioned
limitations. Well, yeah, that's where things
get really interesting. Because while that positivist
approach works great for, say, physics problems,
it starts to feel a bit, well, insufficient when
you apply it to messy human stuff. Like education.
Exactly like education. Or any social science,
really. This idea of a single objective truth
or a totally detached observer. It just doesn't
quite capture the complexity, you know? So that
brings us to the naturalistic approach, which
is, what, arguing against that traditional view.
It's more like offering a different lens. It
argues those positivist assumptions, while valuable,
don't tell the whole story, especially about
human experience. It challenges them, yeah. How
so? What's the fundamental difference? Well,
the big shift is that naturalistic researchers
accept, actually embrace, the role of the individual.
Both the person doing the research and the people
being studied. How they create meaning. Precisely.
In creating and understanding knowledge and meaning,
it's not about finding the single truth out there.
It's about understanding multiple realities.
How different people, different groups make sense
of their world in their own way. It's not one
blueprint. It's many. Wow, okay. So... not just
one right answer, but lots of valid ways of seeing
things. That's huge. It's a massive philosophical
shift, yeah. And what does that mean for cause
and effect, the neat A causes B thing? Well,
the naturalistic view suggests that, especially
in human systems, causes are often really unpredictable
and frankly uncontrollable. Makes sense. Think
about a classroom. Right. trying to pin down
one single cause for why students suddenly guess
it or why they're engaged one day and not the
next. It's impossible. There's so many factors.
Sleep. What happened at home, a comment from
a friend. The weather even, yeah. It's this complex
web. Naturalism accepts that complexity instead
of trying to force it into a simple equation.
So no simple if, x, then, y in the classroom.
We've all seen lessons go sideways because things
totally outside the teacher's control. Exactly.
And that ties right into the role of the observer
or the researcher. Who isn't attached anymore.
Not at all. The naturalistic researcher is seen
as an active participant. They're in the situation,
interacting, influencing it. And they acknowledge
that. Explicitly. Their presence, their interpretations,
their interactions. That's all part of the data.
It's part of building the understanding. It really
forces you to rethink what objectivity even means
in this context. That really clicks. You know,
have you ever tackled a problem where just having
the facts wasn't enough? Where you felt it needed
a deeper, maybe more personal grasp, acknowledging
different viewpoints? All the time. That's exactly
the kind of situation where this naturalistic
thinking shines. But let's be practical. For
a teacher, in a school system that often seems
obsessed with standardized tests, measurable
outcomes, How easy is it to actually use this
approach? Isn't there a tension there? Oh, absolutely.
That's a huge tension. And it forces us to ask,
what do we actually mean by success? What counts
as learning? So... For an educator adopting a
naturalistic stance, it means first recognizing
that learning isn't the straight line. It's messy.
Lots of things influence how a student progresses
or doesn't. Right. Not just input -output. It's
more like an ecosystem. Exactly. And that view
changes what you even count as evidence of learning.
It broadens the definition of data. Beyond test
scores. Way beyond just test scores or easily
quantifiable stuff. So what else counts as data
then? How does a teacher capture that? The course
material is quite specific here. Naturalistic
educators definitely look at performance on tests,
you know, the ostensibly objective measures.
OK, so they don't ignore those. No, but critically,
they also include students' experiences, the
stories students tell about learning, their reflections.
Ah, the qualitative side. Yes, and crucially,
the meaning they make of it all. Does it connect?
Does it matter to them? Is it just performing
a task, or have they actually integrated it somehow?
That connects to that really powerful from the
source. Hang on. Yeah. The naturalistic educator,
there is no difference between a student who
can't solve a problem and one who solves it,
but for whom it has no meaning. That hits hard,
doesn't it? It completely reframes success. It
really does, and a student can jump through the
hoops, get the A, but the knowledge is just inert,
like it doesn't connect to anything for them.
Is that real understanding? It's a profound question.
But then how do you assess meaning? Especially
when teachers are already stretched so thin,
that sounds difficult. It is more demanding,
no doubt. If meaning is the goal, we have to
rethink assessment. It's not just about recall
or procedures anymore. So what does that look
like? It means asking different questions. How
do students internalize this? How do they connect
it to their world? Do they use it? So maybe things
like journals. Yeah. Or projects. Exactly. Reflective
journals, portfolios showing growth, open -ended
discussions where they explain their thinking,
project -based work where they apply ideas, even
just observing how they tackle problems or talk
about the topic. Methods that try to get into
the surface. Right. It takes more interpretation
from the teacher, definitely, but it gives you
a much richer, deeper picture of what's actually
going on for that student. That makes a lot of
sense. It feels more whole, more human. And does
this philosophy also shave how you actually structure
the teaching? Absolutely. It leads directly to
this idea of emergent design. Emergent design.
What's that? Well, think back to the naturalistic
researcher. They don't just follow a rigid plan.
They adapt based on what they find. Right. An
educator using emergent design does the same.
They aren't just delivering lesson plan A from
start to finish no matter what. They're reading
the room. Constantly. They're watching engagement,
listening to questions, noticing where the confusion
is, seeing sparks of interest. And then adjusting
on the fly. Exactly. Modifying the lesson, changing
the activity, maybe even shifting the immediate
goal for that session based on what's actually
happening right then with the learners. It's
responsive. That emergent design. It sounds like
maybe a great chef. You know, they have a recipe.
But they're tasting, smelling, adjusting the
seasoning based on the specific ingredients they
have that day. Maybe what the diners seem to
want. They're not just blindly following steps
one, two, three. That's a fantastic analogy.
Yes. The goal isn't just executing the recipe.
It's creating something delicious, something
meaningful in that context. So the teacher is
adapting to create that meaningful learning experience,
not just checking off lesson objectives. Precisely.
They need to be really attuned to the students,
the energy, the questions, the breakthroughs,
the struggles. They're co -creating the learning
experience with the students in real time. That
sounds much more dynamic, fluid. It is. The classroom
becomes less predictable, maybe, but potentially
much more authentic and effective for deep learning
because it's responding to actual needs and interests
as they emerge. And that must change the whole
teacher -student relationship too, surely. Oh,
completely. It's less about the teacher being
the soul stage on the stage. just delivering
information. More like a guide on the side, a
facilitator, maybe even a co -learner sometimes.
Their expertise isn't just knowing the content,
but knowing how to create the conditions where
students can make meaning for themselves. Asking
the right questions, prompting reflection. Yes,
helping students navigate their own learning
process, interpret their experiences. It requires
a lot of presence, a lot of responsiveness. But
the payoff can be huge in terms of genuine understanding.
OK, so let's try and pull this together. We've
seen how this naturalistic idea really challenges
the old school positivist view. Right, by saying
reality isn't just one thing, meaning is co -created,
causes are complex, and the observer, the teacher,
is part of the picture. Not detached. And then
we saw how this thinking flows directly into
education. Moving beyond just the objective scores
to really value student experiences, the meaning
they make. And pushing for teaching that's adaptable,
emergent, responsive to the learners in the room.
aiming for understanding that actually sticks,
that resonates. Yeah, learning that has meaning.
So connecting all this to the bigger picture.
The source mentions, knowledge is most valuable
when understood and applied. That leads to a
final thought maybe for you, the listener. Yeah,
think about it. We live in a world that often
really pushes for speed, for easily measured
results, for ticking boxes. Standardized everything.
Right. So. If you consciously tried to adopt
more of this naturalistic lens in your own life,
How might that challenge you? How might it make
you redefine what profound learning actually
looks like for you? Or how you mentor someone
or approach your work or even just figure things
out day to day. Exactly. What could you gain
by intentionally slowing down sometimes to actually
find the meaning in an experience instead of
just rushing to the next quantifiable outcome?
Something to really chew on there. Definitely.
Well, thank you for taking this deep dive with
us today. We hope it sparked some curiosity.
Keep exploring these ideas in your own way. Until
next time.