The terms "data-driven" and "research-based" have become standard Buzzword Bingo items that we might as well call them the "free space." However, often teachers blast the concept of "research" while rarely offering a critique of how we view, analyze and implement research-based strategies.
Problem #1: A Narrow Definition of Science
In my last post, I told the story of my children learning mathematical concepts through making music. It sounds insane. It sounds like hippie schools. I get it. However, we also play mental math games and use dominoes and skip count in order to learn patterns. I realize that it's unscientific. I can't "prove" to you that they're mastering math beyond simply asking them to perform mathematical computations and talk about mathematical concepts.
But that's my first issue with educational research. It begins with a bold assumption that teaching is not only a science, but it is a science in the realm of engineering and medicine. Often, the research is only valid if it begins at the highest, university level. This is often followed by anger and shaking of fists that teachers roll their eyes or complain of elitism at the claims "research-based" teaching.
So, back to the back yard. I know my children are learning, because I can ask them what they learned. I can watch their conceptual understanding increase in the moment. Call it formative assessment. Or call it "being a pretty geeky dad."
Is it research? Probably not. I doubt that any educational journal would want to publish the results of my three-child, multi-age study of water-based fractions and mental math games in the car. Is it science? In its purest form, yes. It is the art of observation. It is the testing of a hypothesis and drawing an honest conclusion.
I read the comments section again. I'm not sure about the "ample evidence" or "lack of ample evidence" suggesting that constructivism works. I read up on education theory. I have stacks of professional books that I underline and ear-mark. I enjoy educational journals enough to read them with a skeptical mindset.
I'm not anti-data. It's just that I value data enough to view the term "data-driven" with a critical eye. I've learned that research is like the Bible. People can use it to say anything they agree with ahead of time. Viewing research through some neutral, apolitical lens is disingenuous.
I want to know the bias of a source when I hear someone quote it. I want to know if the claim that ActivBoards will work in classrooms has anything to do with the money a researcher received from Promethean. I want to know the political, economic and social forces that went into an educational research project.
Problem #3: Context Matters
Children are humans and not variables in an experiment. I teach people with real stories that exist in a world outside of my classroom. There are so many layers to the classroom context that it can feel overwhelming at times.
I'm not suggesting that we ignore what works. I want to hear about research-based strategies. If someone has a strategy that works, I want to know not only the research involved, but the specific reason why the strategy works.
However, as amazing as research may be, I am still the ultimate expert on my classroom and my students. Call it narrow-minded. Call it parochial. However, if "data" is the bottom line, this process has been working pretty well for my students.
Where Does Research Belong?
I'm not against research. I actually think it has its place in schools. However, I think it is one of several factors that should inform classroom (along with a solid philosophy of education, shared values and a sense of context).
- Teachers need to have the time and the training to engage in their own research. When teachers mock research, they often do so because they don't get a chance to engage in research. I would love additional time to work on researching best practices.
- We need to be honest about the political and economic sources of research. We need to see that it is not something neutral that occurs in a political and social vacuum.
- Schools need to be research-informed rather than research-based. This is why ultimately, I will allow research to inform my approach to teaching. However, I will let the context, the relationships, the immediate environment around me, drive instruction.
I never heard of the concept of teaching as being exclusively "science" - it is an intersection of many fields where pedagogy, psychology, learning theories meet. I think Daniel T. Willingham's video explains it quite well here - Is teaching an Art or Science? http://tinyurl.com/73rmc8f
Secondly, any pedagogical theory or research-based conclusion has its limits and should never be read otherwise. They tell what works in a given educational setting or under certain circumstances, and invite you to consider certain aspects of your work that might benefit from these results.
In as much as I adhere to the idea of sharing personal insights into education in order to enrich our teaching experience, I can't dismiss research. I often find, for instance, that educators get overexcited after "finding" a certain teaching method which, had they been reading research and pedagogy, existed long before they came across it.
That context matters is self-evident and no researcher implies otherwise. As a matter of fact, many caution educators to understand that laboratory experiments do not translate 100% in a classroom setting precisely because there are many variables to consider (class size, age, group dynamics, culture etc). In that respect, I think schools are research-informed not research-based. Even if you wanted the latter it would be an impossible task (albeit unwanted one) due to the factors listed above.
I really don't see much of a disagreement here. With regards to art/science, I've written about this before. I think it's both. I love the second point you make and I don't see any real contradiction there with what I wrote. My issue isn't with using research but in claiming that things are "research-based" in a condescending tone.
I see. It is, indeed, a form of elitism and denial of what might work. The fact that is not research-based does not exclude its potential.
I completely agree with the research-informed rather than research-based statement. I have found that many research based strategies just do not click with my immigrant students. I refuse to abandon what my common sense and empathy tell me for what my books tell me. That said, common sense, despite its name, can often be way off, so it's important to question and second guess common sense as much as we second guess the research.
Perhaps research data and the resulting conclusions are useful. The immediacy of our experience with the process of our students learning remains primary to most of us. Formal education is indeed a blend of disciplines. The discourse of research-based teaching influences us to question the messy, fuzzy, qualitative nature of teaching, and embrace some sort of labratory design. We begin to think the uncontrolled variables in our classroom are the problem. The research-based strategy would work if we could transform our students and contexts into those of the exemplar given in the research. Harry Wong would work for me if I could just be like his wife!
Ultimately, empowering teachers might help get over this sense of elitism, though.
After reading your post, it sounds like are advocating for (hold on, another edu-buzzword) 'action research." Are you familiar with it?
http://actionresearch.altec.org/
My master's project and thesis were based upon a combination of quantitative data and action research. I would love to see schools move in that direction.
I think you nailed it, Alan. Research-based strategies help me see past my own context and prevent me from making excuses.
"Research" does not equal "Scientific method", and any such positivist suggestion that it does is about 120 years out of date. I'm all for Research-based schools, provided the research base if broad enough; ethnographic studies, ideas from TeachMeets, action research, Ed Psych input, philosophical conceptualsations... the list goes on, and rarely is a numerical method seen.
Also, I don't mind if my school is data-driven, my classroom practice is not, it's 'professional-judgement-driven'. At the end of the day YOU'RE the one at the chalkface, and as one of Lipsky's 'street-level bureaucrats' what happens in that classroom is up to you.
This all makes sense. And I applaud your self-critical thoughts that you may be narrow-minded or parochial. Far too many educators fail to admit that their own bias or perspective could be wrong.
The original discussion was about why people resist change. You commented people resist change out of fear, which is likely true in some cases. But I would propose that some teachers resist change because there is a large body of evidence, both personal and research-based that suggests they should resists the change, that what they are doing now has better outcomes than what they change or new idea would.
Additionally, if a school was run exactly as you proposed, and I came in and told you to do something new, you would be the one who was afraid of change. You would be the resistor. Especially with the way fads and ideas and movements run through schools (Again see Larry Cuban.) Shouldn't the default be to doubt new things?
I'm just trying to imagine the sad world where my supervisor comes in to observe a lesson. Then, when it's over, asks me to cite the research that backs the approach I used for the lesson. --- Shudder...
Great post!
Good post - I think I agree. For me, there are a couple of things that often seem to get entangled: science and craft.
I love learning about the science of teaching, thinking about how it could apply/help me in my classroom. I suspect I'm probably prone to the very common "neuro-science" bias, where anything that sounds well-researched and has words like cognitive in it gains more importance. I also rely on a lot of the science for scale and fairness. I cannot repeat the scale of e.g. a Visible Learning or the fairness of any experiment in my classes. The numbers are too small and the children are too different. If I tried it it would simply be bad science.
So I'll read all that science and research but how I apply that in my teaching has to be craft. Just as I learn from colleagues by watching them teach or discussing how to teach a module or lesson, I will discuss research with them and use it to refine what we do or to inspire new projects.
I agree. I actually think that science and art are the song and dance of craft. They're both necessary. However, I'd rather have science informing the art than art simply following the science. Cyclical, yes, but let it start with the art.
I shudder at that thought, too.
I'm with you on the idea of being a resistor. I'm with you, too, on being a skeptic. I'm actually a big fan of Larry Cuban's research. I came into education reading a ton of Neil Postman. I still have a Luddite streak in me.
I love the way you broaden the definition. Thanks for the reminder.
I am skeptical of "research-based" when it doesn't seem to fit my reality and my context. For example, I didn't buy into multiple intelligences and I still don't. Finally, the research has come around saying that it just doesn't make that much of a difference.
John - I hear what you are saying... And I always appreciate the balance you bring to educational issues/debates.
My big concern is when research overwhelmingly favours/opposes something but then is ignored by some. For topics like grades/assessment, retaining students, and zero-tolerance policies - we need to listen to what researchers (like Hattie) says about the long term impact some decisions have on kids.
Much like parenting, we need to be informed by what others have observed and also use out own judgment and research to determine an evolving optimal practice for us.
Because I know what you stand for and how informed and reflective you are, I have no problem with you questioning some research. What I have issue with is when those, who may be less reflective, question research that opposes the pedagogy in his/her class and simply state "I know better".
The question is: how do we balance our own classroom research with that of people like John Hattie?
Yes I agree with your points... Research based schools should be develop for future purpose.
research education requirements