WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.439 Welcome back to the deep dive. Great to be here. 00:00:02.680 --> 00:00:05.379 So have you ever stopped to think about how you 00:00:05.379 --> 00:00:08.000 really understand something? I mean, is it just 00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:11.980 about piling up facts or mastering a skill? Or 00:00:11.980 --> 00:00:14.960 is it maybe something, yeah, something deeper, 00:00:15.119 --> 00:00:17.600 something that clicks personally? Exactly. Well, 00:00:17.600 --> 00:00:20.379 today, we're diving into precisely that, looking 00:00:20.379 --> 00:00:22.899 at naturalistic approaches to research and teaching. 00:00:23.100 --> 00:00:24.679 And we're drawing on some really interesting 00:00:24.679 --> 00:00:27.339 material. There's a post by Gary Ackerman over 00:00:27.339 --> 00:00:30.260 on hackscience .education. Right, and that itself 00:00:30.260 --> 00:00:33.079 connects back to a, well, a really foundational 00:00:33.079 --> 00:00:35.899 book, Naturalistic Inquiry, by Lincoln and Guba 00:00:35.899 --> 00:00:38.799 from way back in 85. Still incredibly relevant, 00:00:39.020 --> 00:00:42.700 though. Totally. So our mission today is first 00:00:42.700 --> 00:00:45.920 to unpack this fundamental debate about knowledge 00:00:45.920 --> 00:00:48.600 about research itself. And then the really exciting 00:00:48.600 --> 00:00:51.579 part, see how that philosophical view totally 00:00:51.579 --> 00:00:54.560 reshapes how we think about education, what learning 00:00:54.560 --> 00:00:56.820 and teaching actually mean. Okay, so let's get 00:00:56.820 --> 00:00:59.100 into it. Where do we start? Maybe with a traditional 00:00:59.100 --> 00:01:01.859 view. Yeah, the baseline. For a long time, a 00:01:01.859 --> 00:01:04.140 lot of scientific research, especially when looking 00:01:04.140 --> 00:01:08.519 at people, at society, has been based on, well, 00:01:08.620 --> 00:01:10.939 what are called positivist principles. That's 00:01:10.939 --> 00:01:13.280 been the dominant. model, right? The sort of 00:01:13.280 --> 00:01:15.739 classic scientific approach. Pretty much. And 00:01:15.739 --> 00:01:19.420 a key idea, a core tenet of positivism, is that 00:01:19.420 --> 00:01:22.579 there's one single objective reality out there. 00:01:22.680 --> 00:01:25.579 Just waiting to be found. Exactly. And we can 00:01:25.579 --> 00:01:27.719 understand it if we just observe it objectively. 00:01:28.260 --> 00:01:31.090 Think like the scientist in the white coat. totally 00:01:31.090 --> 00:01:35.269 separate from the experiment. And this view also 00:01:35.269 --> 00:01:36.769 suggests, doesn't it, that if you can figure 00:01:36.769 --> 00:01:39.450 out the causes. And control them. Then you can 00:01:39.450 --> 00:01:41.250 predict the effect. It's all very neat, very 00:01:41.250 --> 00:01:44.209 linear, like A causes B. Cause and effect, yeah, 00:01:44.329 --> 00:01:46.769 almost mechanical. And central to this whole 00:01:46.769 --> 00:01:48.930 picture is the observer, right? The idea that 00:01:48.930 --> 00:01:51.349 you can make independent observations. That your 00:01:51.349 --> 00:01:53.010 presence, your perspective, it doesn't actually 00:01:53.010 --> 00:01:54.650 change what you're looking at. You're just a 00:01:54.650 --> 00:01:58.090 detached eye. Yeah. invisible almost. Okay, so 00:01:58.090 --> 00:02:00.069 that's the traditional picture. But you mentioned 00:02:00.069 --> 00:02:02.950 limitations. Well, yeah, that's where things 00:02:02.950 --> 00:02:05.890 get really interesting. Because while that positivist 00:02:05.890 --> 00:02:08.909 approach works great for, say, physics problems, 00:02:09.449 --> 00:02:12.949 it starts to feel a bit, well, insufficient when 00:02:12.949 --> 00:02:15.590 you apply it to messy human stuff. Like education. 00:02:15.930 --> 00:02:18.729 Exactly like education. Or any social science, 00:02:18.909 --> 00:02:21.449 really. This idea of a single objective truth 00:02:21.449 --> 00:02:24.900 or a totally detached observer. It just doesn't 00:02:24.900 --> 00:02:27.659 quite capture the complexity, you know? So that 00:02:27.659 --> 00:02:30.360 brings us to the naturalistic approach, which 00:02:30.360 --> 00:02:32.900 is, what, arguing against that traditional view. 00:02:33.199 --> 00:02:35.840 It's more like offering a different lens. It 00:02:35.840 --> 00:02:38.479 argues those positivist assumptions, while valuable, 00:02:38.539 --> 00:02:40.780 don't tell the whole story, especially about 00:02:40.780 --> 00:02:43.340 human experience. It challenges them, yeah. How 00:02:43.340 --> 00:02:45.460 so? What's the fundamental difference? Well, 00:02:45.520 --> 00:02:47.860 the big shift is that naturalistic researchers 00:02:47.860 --> 00:02:50.759 accept, actually embrace, the role of the individual. 00:02:51.080 --> 00:02:53.139 Both the person doing the research and the people 00:02:53.139 --> 00:02:55.719 being studied. How they create meaning. Precisely. 00:02:55.860 --> 00:02:57.960 In creating and understanding knowledge and meaning, 00:02:58.039 --> 00:03:00.319 it's not about finding the single truth out there. 00:03:00.400 --> 00:03:02.800 It's about understanding multiple realities. 00:03:03.360 --> 00:03:05.819 How different people, different groups make sense 00:03:05.819 --> 00:03:08.280 of their world in their own way. It's not one 00:03:08.280 --> 00:03:12.319 blueprint. It's many. Wow, okay. So... not just 00:03:12.319 --> 00:03:15.639 one right answer, but lots of valid ways of seeing 00:03:15.639 --> 00:03:18.800 things. That's huge. It's a massive philosophical 00:03:18.800 --> 00:03:20.900 shift, yeah. And what does that mean for cause 00:03:20.900 --> 00:03:24.180 and effect, the neat A causes B thing? Well, 00:03:24.419 --> 00:03:26.719 the naturalistic view suggests that, especially 00:03:26.719 --> 00:03:30.199 in human systems, causes are often really unpredictable 00:03:30.199 --> 00:03:33.780 and frankly uncontrollable. Makes sense. Think 00:03:33.780 --> 00:03:36.150 about a classroom. Right. trying to pin down 00:03:36.150 --> 00:03:38.509 one single cause for why students suddenly guess 00:03:38.509 --> 00:03:40.490 it or why they're engaged one day and not the 00:03:40.490 --> 00:03:42.530 next. It's impossible. There's so many factors. 00:03:43.030 --> 00:03:45.449 Sleep. What happened at home, a comment from 00:03:45.449 --> 00:03:48.610 a friend. The weather even, yeah. It's this complex 00:03:48.610 --> 00:03:51.490 web. Naturalism accepts that complexity instead 00:03:51.490 --> 00:03:53.409 of trying to force it into a simple equation. 00:03:53.569 --> 00:03:56.610 So no simple if, x, then, y in the classroom. 00:03:56.849 --> 00:03:59.210 We've all seen lessons go sideways because things 00:03:59.210 --> 00:04:02.069 totally outside the teacher's control. Exactly. 00:04:02.169 --> 00:04:04.210 And that ties right into the role of the observer 00:04:04.210 --> 00:04:06.509 or the researcher. Who isn't attached anymore. 00:04:06.699 --> 00:04:09.159 Not at all. The naturalistic researcher is seen 00:04:09.159 --> 00:04:12.080 as an active participant. They're in the situation, 00:04:12.580 --> 00:04:14.879 interacting, influencing it. And they acknowledge 00:04:14.879 --> 00:04:18.220 that. Explicitly. Their presence, their interpretations, 00:04:18.540 --> 00:04:20.839 their interactions. That's all part of the data. 00:04:21.199 --> 00:04:23.899 It's part of building the understanding. It really 00:04:23.899 --> 00:04:27.860 forces you to rethink what objectivity even means 00:04:27.860 --> 00:04:30.490 in this context. That really clicks. You know, 00:04:30.589 --> 00:04:33.250 have you ever tackled a problem where just having 00:04:33.250 --> 00:04:36.269 the facts wasn't enough? Where you felt it needed 00:04:36.269 --> 00:04:39.410 a deeper, maybe more personal grasp, acknowledging 00:04:39.410 --> 00:04:42.189 different viewpoints? All the time. That's exactly 00:04:42.189 --> 00:04:44.250 the kind of situation where this naturalistic 00:04:44.250 --> 00:04:47.410 thinking shines. But let's be practical. For 00:04:47.410 --> 00:04:50.430 a teacher, in a school system that often seems 00:04:50.430 --> 00:04:52.310 obsessed with standardized tests, measurable 00:04:52.310 --> 00:04:55.529 outcomes, How easy is it to actually use this 00:04:55.529 --> 00:04:57.589 approach? Isn't there a tension there? Oh, absolutely. 00:04:57.730 --> 00:05:00.029 That's a huge tension. And it forces us to ask, 00:05:00.230 --> 00:05:02.709 what do we actually mean by success? What counts 00:05:02.709 --> 00:05:06.339 as learning? So... For an educator adopting a 00:05:06.339 --> 00:05:09.300 naturalistic stance, it means first recognizing 00:05:09.300 --> 00:05:12.120 that learning isn't the straight line. It's messy. 00:05:12.620 --> 00:05:15.019 Lots of things influence how a student progresses 00:05:15.019 --> 00:05:17.439 or doesn't. Right. Not just input -output. It's 00:05:17.439 --> 00:05:19.920 more like an ecosystem. Exactly. And that view 00:05:19.920 --> 00:05:22.319 changes what you even count as evidence of learning. 00:05:22.519 --> 00:05:25.759 It broadens the definition of data. Beyond test 00:05:25.759 --> 00:05:28.300 scores. Way beyond just test scores or easily 00:05:28.300 --> 00:05:31.360 quantifiable stuff. So what else counts as data 00:05:31.360 --> 00:05:33.550 then? How does a teacher capture that? The course 00:05:33.550 --> 00:05:36.149 material is quite specific here. Naturalistic 00:05:36.149 --> 00:05:39.290 educators definitely look at performance on tests, 00:05:39.509 --> 00:05:42.350 you know, the ostensibly objective measures. 00:05:42.610 --> 00:05:44.930 OK, so they don't ignore those. No, but critically, 00:05:44.990 --> 00:05:47.829 they also include students' experiences, the 00:05:47.829 --> 00:05:50.870 stories students tell about learning, their reflections. 00:05:50.990 --> 00:05:53.250 Ah, the qualitative side. Yes, and crucially, 00:05:53.389 --> 00:05:55.569 the meaning they make of it all. Does it connect? 00:05:55.670 --> 00:05:58.149 Does it matter to them? Is it just performing 00:05:58.149 --> 00:06:00.709 a task, or have they actually integrated it somehow? 00:06:00.870 --> 00:06:03.180 That connects to that really powerful from the 00:06:03.180 --> 00:06:07.300 source. Hang on. Yeah. The naturalistic educator, 00:06:07.620 --> 00:06:09.360 there is no difference between a student who 00:06:09.360 --> 00:06:12.319 can't solve a problem and one who solves it, 00:06:12.439 --> 00:06:15.100 but for whom it has no meaning. That hits hard, 00:06:15.279 --> 00:06:17.699 doesn't it? It completely reframes success. It 00:06:17.699 --> 00:06:19.300 really does, and a student can jump through the 00:06:19.300 --> 00:06:23.279 hoops, get the A, but the knowledge is just inert, 00:06:23.639 --> 00:06:25.180 like it doesn't connect to anything for them. 00:06:25.220 --> 00:06:27.720 Is that real understanding? It's a profound question. 00:06:27.819 --> 00:06:30.759 But then how do you assess meaning? Especially 00:06:30.759 --> 00:06:32.759 when teachers are already stretched so thin, 00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:35.620 that sounds difficult. It is more demanding, 00:06:35.620 --> 00:06:39.040 no doubt. If meaning is the goal, we have to 00:06:39.040 --> 00:06:41.420 rethink assessment. It's not just about recall 00:06:41.420 --> 00:06:43.459 or procedures anymore. So what does that look 00:06:43.459 --> 00:06:46.439 like? It means asking different questions. How 00:06:46.439 --> 00:06:48.959 do students internalize this? How do they connect 00:06:48.959 --> 00:06:51.819 it to their world? Do they use it? So maybe things 00:06:51.819 --> 00:06:56.009 like journals. Yeah. Or projects. Exactly. Reflective 00:06:56.009 --> 00:06:58.910 journals, portfolios showing growth, open -ended 00:06:58.910 --> 00:07:00.470 discussions where they explain their thinking, 00:07:00.750 --> 00:07:03.290 project -based work where they apply ideas, even 00:07:03.290 --> 00:07:05.589 just observing how they tackle problems or talk 00:07:05.589 --> 00:07:07.850 about the topic. Methods that try to get into 00:07:07.850 --> 00:07:10.029 the surface. Right. It takes more interpretation 00:07:10.029 --> 00:07:12.170 from the teacher, definitely, but it gives you 00:07:12.170 --> 00:07:15.370 a much richer, deeper picture of what's actually 00:07:15.370 --> 00:07:17.290 going on for that student. That makes a lot of 00:07:17.290 --> 00:07:23.319 sense. It feels more whole, more human. And does 00:07:23.319 --> 00:07:26.060 this philosophy also shave how you actually structure 00:07:26.060 --> 00:07:28.980 the teaching? Absolutely. It leads directly to 00:07:28.980 --> 00:07:31.620 this idea of emergent design. Emergent design. 00:07:31.680 --> 00:07:33.860 What's that? Well, think back to the naturalistic 00:07:33.860 --> 00:07:36.500 researcher. They don't just follow a rigid plan. 00:07:36.920 --> 00:07:39.899 They adapt based on what they find. Right. An 00:07:39.899 --> 00:07:42.579 educator using emergent design does the same. 00:07:42.879 --> 00:07:44.959 They aren't just delivering lesson plan A from 00:07:44.959 --> 00:07:46.920 start to finish no matter what. They're reading 00:07:46.920 --> 00:07:49.410 the room. Constantly. They're watching engagement, 00:07:49.610 --> 00:07:52.290 listening to questions, noticing where the confusion 00:07:52.290 --> 00:07:54.829 is, seeing sparks of interest. And then adjusting 00:07:54.829 --> 00:07:58.509 on the fly. Exactly. Modifying the lesson, changing 00:07:58.509 --> 00:08:01.329 the activity, maybe even shifting the immediate 00:08:01.329 --> 00:08:03.810 goal for that session based on what's actually 00:08:03.810 --> 00:08:05.589 happening right then with the learners. It's 00:08:05.589 --> 00:08:08.420 responsive. That emergent design. It sounds like 00:08:08.420 --> 00:08:10.439 maybe a great chef. You know, they have a recipe. 00:08:10.699 --> 00:08:13.420 But they're tasting, smelling, adjusting the 00:08:13.420 --> 00:08:15.480 seasoning based on the specific ingredients they 00:08:15.480 --> 00:08:17.839 have that day. Maybe what the diners seem to 00:08:17.839 --> 00:08:21.199 want. They're not just blindly following steps 00:08:21.199 --> 00:08:23.540 one, two, three. That's a fantastic analogy. 00:08:23.959 --> 00:08:26.339 Yes. The goal isn't just executing the recipe. 00:08:26.439 --> 00:08:28.040 It's creating something delicious, something 00:08:28.040 --> 00:08:30.819 meaningful in that context. So the teacher is 00:08:30.819 --> 00:08:33.460 adapting to create that meaningful learning experience, 00:08:33.740 --> 00:08:36.320 not just checking off lesson objectives. Precisely. 00:08:36.440 --> 00:08:39.159 They need to be really attuned to the students, 00:08:39.299 --> 00:08:41.379 the energy, the questions, the breakthroughs, 00:08:41.379 --> 00:08:44.159 the struggles. They're co -creating the learning 00:08:44.159 --> 00:08:47.000 experience with the students in real time. That 00:08:47.000 --> 00:08:50.419 sounds much more dynamic, fluid. It is. The classroom 00:08:50.419 --> 00:08:53.480 becomes less predictable, maybe, but potentially 00:08:53.480 --> 00:08:55.779 much more authentic and effective for deep learning 00:08:55.779 --> 00:08:58.120 because it's responding to actual needs and interests 00:08:58.120 --> 00:09:00.259 as they emerge. And that must change the whole 00:09:00.259 --> 00:09:02.700 teacher -student relationship too, surely. Oh, 00:09:02.700 --> 00:09:04.299 completely. It's less about the teacher being 00:09:04.299 --> 00:09:06.539 the soul stage on the stage. just delivering 00:09:06.539 --> 00:09:10.220 information. More like a guide on the side, a 00:09:10.220 --> 00:09:12.679 facilitator, maybe even a co -learner sometimes. 00:09:13.220 --> 00:09:15.700 Their expertise isn't just knowing the content, 00:09:16.139 --> 00:09:18.139 but knowing how to create the conditions where 00:09:18.139 --> 00:09:20.220 students can make meaning for themselves. Asking 00:09:20.220 --> 00:09:23.220 the right questions, prompting reflection. Yes, 00:09:23.539 --> 00:09:25.220 helping students navigate their own learning 00:09:25.220 --> 00:09:28.580 process, interpret their experiences. It requires 00:09:28.580 --> 00:09:31.539 a lot of presence, a lot of responsiveness. But 00:09:31.539 --> 00:09:34.779 the payoff can be huge in terms of genuine understanding. 00:09:35.039 --> 00:09:37.139 OK, so let's try and pull this together. We've 00:09:37.139 --> 00:09:40.220 seen how this naturalistic idea really challenges 00:09:40.220 --> 00:09:43.250 the old school positivist view. Right, by saying 00:09:43.250 --> 00:09:46.450 reality isn't just one thing, meaning is co -created, 00:09:46.929 --> 00:09:49.549 causes are complex, and the observer, the teacher, 00:09:49.909 --> 00:09:52.409 is part of the picture. Not detached. And then 00:09:52.409 --> 00:09:54.509 we saw how this thinking flows directly into 00:09:54.509 --> 00:09:57.909 education. Moving beyond just the objective scores 00:09:57.909 --> 00:10:00.490 to really value student experiences, the meaning 00:10:00.490 --> 00:10:03.649 they make. And pushing for teaching that's adaptable, 00:10:03.909 --> 00:10:05.909 emergent, responsive to the learners in the room. 00:10:06.320 --> 00:10:08.460 aiming for understanding that actually sticks, 00:10:08.740 --> 00:10:10.700 that resonates. Yeah, learning that has meaning. 00:10:11.019 --> 00:10:13.120 So connecting all this to the bigger picture. 00:10:13.919 --> 00:10:16.500 The source mentions, knowledge is most valuable 00:10:16.500 --> 00:10:19.679 when understood and applied. That leads to a 00:10:19.679 --> 00:10:21.940 final thought maybe for you, the listener. Yeah, 00:10:21.960 --> 00:10:24.460 think about it. We live in a world that often 00:10:24.460 --> 00:10:27.399 really pushes for speed, for easily measured 00:10:27.399 --> 00:10:30.360 results, for ticking boxes. Standardized everything. 00:10:30.440 --> 00:10:34.230 Right. So. If you consciously tried to adopt 00:10:34.230 --> 00:10:37.789 more of this naturalistic lens in your own life, 00:10:38.899 --> 00:10:41.659 How might that challenge you? How might it make 00:10:41.659 --> 00:10:44.419 you redefine what profound learning actually 00:10:44.419 --> 00:10:47.000 looks like for you? Or how you mentor someone 00:10:47.000 --> 00:10:49.399 or approach your work or even just figure things 00:10:49.399 --> 00:10:51.820 out day to day. Exactly. What could you gain 00:10:51.820 --> 00:10:54.480 by intentionally slowing down sometimes to actually 00:10:54.480 --> 00:10:56.720 find the meaning in an experience instead of 00:10:56.720 --> 00:10:59.100 just rushing to the next quantifiable outcome? 00:10:59.379 --> 00:11:01.039 Something to really chew on there. Definitely. 00:11:01.179 --> 00:11:02.620 Well, thank you for taking this deep dive with 00:11:02.620 --> 00:11:04.539 us today. We hope it sparked some curiosity. 00:11:04.679 --> 00:11:07.179 Keep exploring these ideas in your own way. Until 00:11:07.179 --> 00:11:07.679 next time.