Practitioners often view education research with a jaundiced eye, experts in the research community admit. Many teachers and administrators believe research findings are inconclusive and contradictory, and doubt that research can really inform their practice. "There's a big tendency to be very skeptical about education research," says Bruce Joyce of Booksend Laboratories, who finds the "norm in the field" is to doubt the existence of a knowledge base. Yet despite this negative attitude, experts say, education research is a rich source of information for practitioners—one that they can, and should, make better use of.
One reason practitioners may ignore or dismiss research is that it is not readily accessible to them. Unlike other professions, education has no "information infrastructure" to translate research findings into a form suited to users, says Douglas Carnine of the University of Oregon, who directs NCITE, the National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators. Furthermore, when practitioners track down references cited in an article, they often find they're really opinions or "someone quoting someone else," says Jeffrey Fouts of Seattle Pacific University, co-author of Research on Educational Innovations. "It's hard to get to primary sources."
Another reason for skepticism is that much research doesn't meet practitioners' needs. Practitioners want solutions, but most research today yields a greater understanding of problems, Carnine says. Too often, researchers offer only "rich descriptions of extensive failure." Although the ultimate goal of researchers may be to find solutions, "it's taking too long to get there," Carnine says. "The story's getting old."
The kinds of questions teachers ask—such as, which of several models for teaching middle school math is best?—are rarely addressed by research, experts note. In fact, researchers tend not to study whether particular models work, says Robert Slavin, an education researcher from Johns Hopkins University. Because academia rewards only research that contributes to theory, researchers examine variables they can isolate neatly (such as time on task), rather than complex models that blend many variables. Scholarly journals often reject research on complex models because it does not address any one theory, Slavin says.
Yet another reason practitioners haven't embraced research is that it has been used to disempower them. The preface "research says ..." has often been used as a pretext for imposing institutional authority, says Denise McKeon, director of outreach for the American Educational Research Association (AERA).
Practitioners may also be intimidated by research findings, with their abstruse statistical analyses. As a result, educators may not even attempt to evaluate research critically; they either "buy it whole hog or reject it cynically," says Chris Dwyer of RMC Research, which provides technical assistance to the National Diffusion Network.
Assessing Research
Although education research has its limitations, practitioners should stop turning a cold shoulder to it and begin to learn from it, experts agree.
The first step is to understand the three levels of research, Fouts says. Level 1 research is pure, basic research on learning and behavior. Level 2 research examines whether a program or method works when tested experimentally on a small scale. Level 3 research shows whether a program works when implemented at the school or district level.
Most educational innovations are derived from Level 1 research and are therefore touted as "research based," Fouts says. (The Hunter model, for example, was based on psychological research on reinforcement and motivation.) However, most innovations are backed by little Level 2 research and are therefore not "research proven," Fouts says. Innovations such as whole language, learning styles, and the teaching of thinking skills fall into this category: Little empirical evidence that they work exists. However, this doesn't mean that they don't work, Fouts points out.
In assessing research, educators should consider the source. "If something is published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, you can assume a certain level of quality control," McKeon says. The content and methodology of such research has been "checked and double-checked."
Because studies can be contradictory, practitioners should look at "the total literature" on a topic, says Herbert Walberg, research professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. They should consult meta-analyses and syntheses of research, which summarize studies "in a concise, pointed way, with concrete implications." And they should definitely avoid basing decisions on a single study.
Walberg also advises educators to look for practices that show the largest, most consistent effects, and that work in most contexts. "Some findings are very, very consistent," he says—citing the positive effects of homework, parent support, and acceleration of the curriculum for abler students.
Practitioners should find it "relatively easy" to assess research, Slavin believes. Most important, they should insist that researchers have compared the program in question to an equivalent control group over a reasonable period. Other critical questions are whether teachers and students were assigned randomly to experimental and control groups, and whether the control group tried to achieve the same goals the program sought.
Research can provide "compelling evidence" on many questions of importance to practitioners, Slavin says. For example, most researchers agree that Reading Recovery and cooperative learning (if done well) work, and that most ability grouping is not beneficial, he says. But even when answers are not clear-cut, reviewing the research can raise awareness of important issues to consider.
Research findings cannot replace teachers' own judgments, experts concede. But research can "bring valid and reliable information to bear," to balance teachers' own impressions, Carnine says. Research can serve as "a baseline by which practitioners can evaluate their own experiences," allowing them to exercise "informed judgment," Slavin adds.
