In class today, one thing we will do is work
to summarize Pring’s position on what educational research should be like. We will also talk about how/whether we agree with him. Let's start this conversation by blogging a bit on this topic...a related bonus question that you can choose to tackle, if you wish: Can we be too applied?
I believe that education could be applied since education draws from a lot of other disciplines as well. Perhaps one of the things we focus too much about education is trying to make it conform to scientific standards and sometimes we look for generalizability across the board. However, as we say in class, all individuals are different. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to generalize educational research to all applied settings. Therefore, in essence, all educational research can really only be thought of as theory. But, the theory is based upon the practice of research. It's kind of like a big paradox.
ReplyDeleteIt's also interesting because the field of education is "accessible" to the general public. Unlike other field such as mathematics, computer science, or chemistry where there is a certain "aura" of limited access, education has been experienced by pretty much everyone. Therefore, it is a field where everyone can contribute.
Kendra - Pring highlights many long standing critiques and criticisms of educational research. He calls into question what should be considered research, while wrestling with the notion that perhaps what is happening within and around the field of education, is actually not research at all. His criticism in rooted in historical context that positions education within outside of the most frequently used and understood research structures. The crux of the argument is that educational research, as it currently exists, is not actually meeting public or private needs. There is a disconnect between the more practical and applied teaching that gives shape to learning and what education has been fundamentally deemed to be. The relationship between policy, research and the act of educating, do not seem to function in a coherent model where each is impacted and driven by the others. He does note that the interdisciplinary nature of education and its functioning within learning spaces are par for the course in some ways. The work of educating is fluid and remains flexible to meet shifting and varied needs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pring on this point. It is difficult for educational research to have a singular context with regard to anything other than a commitment to learning and development. The nature of education is so complex and multi-tiered that it feels almost impossible to conceive of a one dimensional approach to research. In and of itself the field of education has so many sub-categories that focus and conceptualize of learning and development in vastly different ways. I am not arguing that education is the only multi-dimensional field of study, I am arguing however; that it shifts more rapidly than some fields and the impact of such shifts take longer to bear fruit.
I do not think educational research is too applied, perhaps its not applied enough. In my short time as a doctoral student, I have read tons of empirical research articles, and wonder why hasn’t a change been made within education. Countless scholars have committed years to developing “quality” research, however, politicians, administrators, and teachers tend to rely more on practice than research. It is almost as if the world somehow thinks they know all about education. The low status of educational research definitely contributes to this conclusion. Politicians often have their own education agendas from the time they assume office, and I imagine they would hate to change their position based on some cutting-edge research out of the school of education. Administrators and teachers may not have proper access to the enormous body of educational research that could change their practice, and may feel their own experience is the answer. This may have been the case once upon a time when teachers had more autonomy over the curriculum, however today, teachers must learn to rely on educational research so that it can maintain the status of being applied. - Evandra
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 1, Pring lists four reasons (or, rather, paraphrases four reasons that someone else came up with) re: why educational research fails to impact practice. The two that struck me as being most closely related were 1) the inaccessibility of educational research and 2) the seeming incapacity of the educational system to make decisions based on research. It seems fairly obvious that if the research is inaccessible (e.g. locked behind paywalls that no sane teacher would willingly pay to circumvent), then people won't make decisions based off of this research. Because they haven't read it. Certainly, there is some really arcane and esoteric research out there. But I think part of the fault in why ed research isn't more relevant isn't so much because the research itself is irrelevant but rather that the channels of publication and dissemination are researcher-centric rather than practitioner-centric.
ReplyDeleteThis probably comes as no surprise from an ed psych person, but I think we can absolutely be too applied. I recognize that people and contexts differ, etc, but this argument doesn't preclude developing useful theories that are broadly (though not universally) generalizable. Theories aren't, and don't purport to be, the word of God. Unlike laws of physics (objects in motion, etc.), which proclaim unassailable natural truths, psychological theories provide useful structures in which to think about complex phenomena that seem to apply to most people.
I'm not trying to toss my grappling hook all the way over to where the philosophers hang out, but I do believe if ed research dwells too much in the applied realm, we lose a lot of our autonomy. That is, if ed research only responds/reacts to problems of practice, which Kendra points out change pretty quickly, then it will be forever playing catch-up to the policymakers and teachers.
I should have refreshed before I posted!
DeleteI think Kendra does a nice job of summarizing the main points that Pring makes regarding the criticisms of educational research. One of the main criticisms of this research is the lack of relevance to classroom contexts and teachers’ practice. During my time as a reading specialist working directly with teachers, I heard many concerns that “research-based strategies” or “best practices” did not apply to teachers’ classrooms, so I understand the concern regarding research moving too far from application. However, (and as a doc student still struggling to move beyond my identity as a practitioner, this is weird for me to say) I do think that research can be too applied. I absolutely believe that research should be applicable to teaching and learning, but it often feels like we are so busy researching the buzzword, hot topic of the day, responding to the many needs of schools and classrooms instead of doing work that gets at the theoretical heart of education and what it means to be educated. I haven’t fully fleshed out this line of thinking, so forgive me for making a bold statement with no real support. Maybe Labaree would argue that I am moving from an experiential worldview to a more theoretical worldview, but I don’t really think that’s it. I guess I just see the value in having theory to support the work that is done. Perhaps I will have a more substantiated argument by class time.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that research must be applied. I also agree that the theory behind the practices is important as well. We do need to focus on what it means to be educated, but also on what it means to be a teacher.
DeleteApplied research has meaning. In order for research to be translatable to the classroom, it must be shared. So often teachers are handed a protocol or a practice without any of the underlying information that is necessary for understanding. A quick how-to lecture is not sufficient for mastery of a teaching strategy or method. Demonstration, coaching and other evidence based practices in teaching must also be applied when teachers are learning new research. -Paige
Pring starts the chapter by discussing the criticisms included in the Hillage Report. It seems these same criticisms could be applied to educational research in the U.S. as well. Clear and direct communication between researchers and teachers would be a good first step at producing impactful research. My background is not in the P-12 setting. Why can’t there be committees of teachers that communicate regularly with researchers? The teachers that serve on the committees could rotate out yearly so as to provide variety on the schools that are being represented. Does this already exist?
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the possibility of research being too applied, I think that it is possible. I also believe that the result of research being too applied ties into the Hillage Report’s criticism of it being too fragmented- “lots of bits and pieces which, though often addressing similar questions, start from different positions or use different samples, not creating a coherent and reliable basis for practice or policy…”. I realize there are no universal solutions to issues within education. However, if a reasonable answer to a problem can be established, then individual teachers should be permitted to apply their creative approach to tailor the solution as they see fit. After all, the teachers know their students best.
Amy
I am finding myself agreeing with that perhaps the disconnect lies in the language in which educational research is communicated which makes it inaccessible to teachers, parents, the public, and policy makers. Perhaps there is also either too much focus on researching practices at the expense of theory, or theory at the expense of practical application which further complicates communication of educational research purposes and findings, and leaves the general impression that educational research is of "lesser quality" than research from either the hard sciences or social sciences. -Michelle
ReplyDeleteAccording to Pring, there is a disconnect between education research and practice. Pring states that there is some skepticism towards research when it is not conducted by practitioners, or at the very least, include the consultation of a practitioner. I agree with this in part. This is some of what we discussed in small group last class. When teachers feel as if they are part of the research, they are more likely to buy into it. There is sometimes a pushback from research coming from a researcher who has never been in the field. Practitioners who are researchers often base their research on what they see on a daily basis. Practitioners would be more likely to use research to gain knowledge on information that can be applied to daily educational practices. Those who are strictly researchers may not know all of the situations that arise in a school and may have more of a broad range area of research that is more theoretical. Practitioners may not find this type of research as useful and research that can be applied in schools daily. Although all research has the potential to expand our knowledge of the field, if the practitioners and researchers were to integrate, research would be more widely used and possibly yield greater results.
ReplyDeleteThese two chapters have left me at a lose as to where do I start. Starting a book with criticisms seems very purposeful and hints or screams loudly at his position on the subject. One of the things that struck me the most in both chapters is felt like Ed researchers could not win in Pring, or anyone's eyes. I believe he sees major problems with Ed research and wants to question it from every angle to try and make it stronger. As a teacher I rarely heard about or read research unless I was in a class of my own or had to for some PD, so the inaccessibility of Ed research stuck out to me. As well, on the bottom of page 6 and onto page 7 Pring discusses the possible role that teachers play in not using or implementing Ed research. I think Chapter 1 can be summarized in one phrase from the quote by Lagermann on page 4, “studies of education tend to get no respect.”
ReplyDeleteI am all for using words correctly and making sure there is a shared understanding about the definition of words but at what point is questions it too much. If researchers try to live by the standard set in Chapter 2 their entire paper will be explaining and outlining word usage. I think he needs to reign it in a little, as context can play an important role is word choice, usage, and definition.
Simply put, can we be too applied; Yes. As anything can be too much, so can focusing too much on application. This is coming from someone who is very pragmatic in almost everything I do, but I also know the danger of going too far. If we stay in applied land we miss deeper, more contextual spaces that need to studied and addressed. What i fear with too much application is becoming boxed in and limiting the growth and change that can and should happen in education. Where I often land and has become a place of peace for is this idea of both and, we can not go to one extreme or the other but need both to make education and Ed research stronger.
Marsha:
ReplyDeletePring offers valuable arguments regarding the dismissiveness of educational research. However, I find the reasons given very disheartening. This article validates the tumultuous state of education today. The fact that educational research is less valuable due to lack of funding, although true, makes those of us in education continue to question the future of the field. Often policies and systems that are put into place such as the RAE has good intentions, but ends up doing more harm than good.
In regards to the question posed, “Can there be knowledge without understanding?” My first reaction is yes. Although I will be interested to hear this discussion play out in class. I agree with Pring that defining the terms researched are of importance to the understanding and applicability of the research. I’m not sure that universal agreement is needed. My thought is that there is a choice in whether you believe, follow, and/or adhere to policies, practices, ideas offered through the research. If your belief system or knowledge base aligns with the research then what difference does it make if there is universal agreement? Of course this is speaking in broad, generic terms. I think Pring is referring to the problem of universally defining education, which is a bit more challenging. In addition,if we cannot adequately define education then how can we appropriately conceptualize educational research so that is understood by all.
Pring’s ultimate position on educational research is still hard for me to pin down. He certainly has a comprehensive understanding of all the various criticisms of educational research (summarized well by Phillips on page 11) and has strong feelings about the role of philosophy in educational research, but I did not get a complete sense of where he thinks education should be going. In tackling all of the criticisms (irrelevance, poor quality, inaccessibility, and incapacity to make decisions) he ends up in a space where he seems to want to “have it all.” He wants educational research to have a robust body of cumulative knowledge that is similar in rigor to medical research, but easily synthesized and made accessible for teacher, administrators, and politicians as well as applied in nature so as to maintain its relevance to the practice of teaching and learning.
ReplyDeleteCan educational research be too applied? When funding gets tied to specific applied practices, I think applied educational research can become problematic. When only certain topics in educational research are valued (through funding accessibility), many topics fall by the wayside that need to be explored on both a theory level and an applied level. So, in other words, it is important to do applied research, but we can’t become too narrowly focused on certain applications, such as finding methods to increase test scores.
Tom here--better late than never..
ReplyDeleteI'm discouraged. Based on what we have read so far, there is general agreement that education practitioners don't pay much attention to research--for a variety of reasons. I particularly like Eric's point that no teacher is going to pay $39.95 to access a single research article through google scholar. The institution of academia (translation: the promotion & tenure process) reinforces the situation. Researchers are encouraged to publish in established journals .. which we know won't be read by teachers.
Further, Pring's arguments come from the 'researcher' side of the divide. He's not writing about a practical teacher focus group discussion that identifies strategies to close the gap. He offers a philosophical argument about language and meaning .. that probably resonates with the research community at the expense of the teacher community.
I'm discouraged by a few basic beliefs:
1. Hardworking educational researchers have conducted studies for decades.
2. Hardworking teachers desperately want their students to succeed.
3. The gap between teachers and researchers remains very wide.
To summarize: I'm discouraged.
Stephanie - In chapters 1 and 2, Pring discusses the disconnect between researchers and practitioners. Working in K-12, I find that teachers rarely participate in formal educational research. Additionally, most of the time, research is dispensed at PD sessions that may or may not relate to what teachers are experiencing in the classroom. Most teachers appreciate meaningful PD and are excited to learn something that may have a positive impact on their teaching and classroom. When given choices of PD sessions to attend, teachers are generally more engaged and more likely to try what they learn in their own classroom. (Humorous aside: Several years ago, a school division was promoting their new PD plan in which teachers would be asked to log in to the PD website and choose their PD sessions. However, when the teachers logged in to make their “choice” they found out that there was only 1 session to “choose” from.) I also agree with Tom and Eric that paying for an article is not likely to be appealing to teachers. However, I think that time is also a factor. I work with several teachers who would love to read articles, but can’t find the time. There are many teachers who do all of their grading and lesson planning at home because they are covering classes, attending grade level and content meetings, and tutoring students during their planning as well as after school. After several hours of work at home after a full work day, reading an article is pushed to another day. If we want to find a way to connect research and practitioners, I think we need to alter teachers’ responsibilities to give them time to meet with researchers and fully engage in the research activities.
ReplyDeleteA few folks have pointed out that a major obstacle to practitioners and researchers working together is the literal inaccessibility of educational research. Given that this seems to be a widely acknowledged issue in the field, I'm going put my librarian hat on temporarily and say that while it is by no means a comprehensive repository of all ed research, ERIC includes the full-text of millions of peer-reviewed articles which are freely available to the public (including P-12 teachers).
ReplyDeleteWhich leads me to believe that access is not, in fact, the real barrier between researchers and practitioners. The mind-numbing descriptions of statistical analyses? The intentional writing in 'academese' rather than in layman's terms? Perhaps.
I wonder, though, at the seeming superiority on both sides--that scholarship/service which takes place too far outside the academy is not only not worthy for inclusion in a promotion dossier, but may actually have negative consequences; and that any research which hasn't been conducted by someone with teaching experience with that EXACT problem cannot be trusted or relevant. Practitioners are indeed busy, but what about those '3 best things about being a teacher'? Ed research is simultaneously too applied and disregarded by practitioners. It seems to me that these practitioner/researcher biases are the true barrier here.