The case study instructions were to read the case study, and to write a few paragraphs about possible biases the researcher may have expressed in this case. While I technically agree with the concept that a chair or workplace is not needed for every child, it causes one to feel that students are shortchanged if they do not have a seat or workplace for study. However, if you consider the possibility of more than one lunch period, physical education class, and study hall, which is likely held in the library, it could be possible to have less chairs or workplaces across all classrooms within the school. While I expected to read an article debating and presenting arguments for and against the requirement of a chair for every student using a microinterpretation approach, I found that the researcher turned the paper into a macrointerpretation analysis focused on concerns related to the theory and practice of primary education. I found the author began his research with the premise that a shift in educational thinking had occurred, and this shift led to the reduction in chairs or workspace for students. …show more content…
I can understanding asking the question, when did this thought about chair quantity first occur and what was the basis for this proposal? However, the researcher seemed to already reach a conclusion that a shift in educational thinking had occurred and was the cause for fewer chairs. Perhaps the origination of this thought was simply unique to one school and one specific situation, but the researcher initiated his questioning with a formed conclusion that a shift in educational thinking had occurred. This bias is further demonstrated in the author’s conclusion that less emphasis was being placed on class and jotter-based teaching. I do not believe the author provided sufficient evidence that a conclusion of less emphasis on class and jotter-based teaching is substantiated. Secondly, the researcher assumed the shift in educational thinking led to a conclusion that fewer chairs were needed. Again, this seems to eliminate the possibility that the number of chairs was reduced for other reasons (e.g., financial constraints, class schedules and the actual need for chairs based on student utilization rates, changes in the student population or expected population for future classes, or other possible reasons). I would have expected the researcher to first ask several open ended questions like what, why, when and how, to develop an understanding of the history of chair reductions, and then compare, or contrast if these reasons were the same for the case study school. This bias prevented the researcher from identifying the origin of the chair debate. He referenced two studies, and then considered that this thought may have come for an international region. This lack of evidence seems to confirm the original bias or false assumption that a shift in educational thinking actually occurred. Even though the reason(s) for fewer chairs was not identified or confirmed, the researcher proceeded by working under three assumptions for this change. Two of the assumptions appear to be common sense and relevant assumptions to confirm or deny through research, but the first assumption focuses on the individual child versus the entire class, which again relates to the previous statements about the author’s conclusion that a shift in educational thinking has occurred. The author again