How did Pring’s Ch. 1-3 and the Eisenhart
and Towne article leave you feeling about the possibility of educational
research to be scientific? What obstacles do you see to realizing the vision of
a scientifically-based ed. research and are they insurmountable?
My take away from the readings, and additional reading I have done on my own, is that educational research can be scientific (let’s use the 2002 ESRA definition for argument’s sake), and perhaps should be so if the research question demands it. Pring identifies challenges that the collective of educational researchers and educators must face that are both internal to the field (shared definitions of core terms and activities; issues of culture and approach to research) and external to the field (how government and other stakeholders view educational research). And there are more that we’ve yet to discuss, including when sound educational research fails to be adopted as policy. However, I believe that these challenges can be addressed and, with time, overcome.
ReplyDeleteThe Eisenhart and Towne article is one of hope. By chronically the evolution of educational research legislation, and describing current mechanisms that allow for input and change, they provide insight into the context for and nuances associated with educational research policy making.
It’s too easy for us to engage in general conversations about educational research that are rife with uncontested assumptions and bland and erroneous conclusions. It’s too easy for us to be so narrow as we focus on educational research that we forget every discipline is prone to biased, poorly conducted SCIENTIFIC research leading to erroneous conclusions that are sometimes widely adopted into belief and practice. Eggs were once verboten for those who had high cholesterol; today they are exemplars of natural and healthy sources of fat and protein. Childhood vaccines were once believed to cause Autism by some, and this belief still floats around despite the disreputation of the source study and researcher. Yet other important questions remain unanswered: are GMOs harmful to our health or not? What causes Alzheimer’s disease and how can we treat it? Still other research has endured the test of time and is slow to impact policy or change human behavior: climate research and impacts of smoking are examples. There are cases of good scientific research in education that, despite replicability and sound, enduring results, are just plain not adopted as policy. The Tennessee class size study, a randomized research study funded by the Tennessee state legislation to determine the effect of class size on student achievement, was hailed as an important educational investigation and has inspired other like studies since. Ultimately, or at least at the time, the Tennessee legislature rejected the recommendations and did not adopt policy reducing class size.
In our readings and class discussions, we are just scraping the surface of why and how educational research goes right or wrong. I do believe there’s a place for
...seems the last part of my comment was cut off, so here's the rest...
Delete...scientifically based research in education along with other types of research designs and studies that may not meet the current scientific criteria, but that are sound in methodology and meaningful in results. Dialogue that includes all stakeholder groups, that includes the nuances of detail, that allows us to question underlying assumptions, and that always sits within context, is key to problem resolution or amelioration, and forward progress.
As a STEM person, I have a strong belief in the value of data from research being clearly quantifiable, replicable, and reliable. Yet, as an Ed Psych student, I recognize the importance of “non-scientific” influences like context, family, religion, and culture. I feel that there is a time and place for both in educational research. Because education is based on human beings, it can be inherently subjective. Educational research can also be objective if hypotheses are tested on varied populations and the results are replicated across populations. As Dr. Clark mentioned in EDUS 710 last spring, we do not do enough replication in educational research. After recently reading an article on the failure of most social science research replications, lack of replications may not be such a bad thing (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results).
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned above, studying human beings with the myriad of cultural, social, and biological differences that exist would seem to create almost insurmountable obstacles, but I believe it is not impossible. By focusing on specific, quantifiable research questions, I believe that scientifically-based education research is certainly possible if the research moves in very tiny steps. Qualitative studies can be used to generate variables to model those “non-scientific” influences, and then those variables can in turn be used to generate quantitative studies to find out if the hypotheses are generalizable to any identified population. Artificial intelligence and biomedical research have allowed human behavior, such as choice-making and learning from experience, to be modeled and analyzed in a more objective manner. I feel that as science progresses, the scientific approach to educational research will also progress.
Just as educational research is quite different from research in other fields, so research can (should) operate differently in education. Although the evolution in guidelines described by Eisenhart and Towne provide some hope for meaningful changes in the requirements for federally recognized and funded research, any mandates at that level are likely to be narrow and limiting. When Pring discusses Dewey’s “educational and mis-educational activities,” and the meaning of education, he is describing an approach to teaching and learning that is difficult or impossible to measure. Education that is transformative and develops humanity does not lend itself to being quantified or generalized. It is possible that scientific research as it currently exists cannot provide information as a means to that end (humanity). As long as the goals at the state and national level are focused on producing tidy spreadsheets documenting percentages gained and lost by bullet and sub-bullet of curricular content, it is unlikely that the research methods used will budge far from the post-positivist approaches approved in the early 2000s.
ReplyDeleteListening to Dr. Cornell West speak last week has led to some internal reflection. As I read the third chapter of Pring, I was reminded of the phrase Dr. West repeated throughout his speech, “what kind of human do you want to be?” As an educator, and educational researcher, I worry that a dependence on scientific research as it is currently defined will continue to relegate our children’s humanity below the status of their test scores. Or worse, try to measure their humanity with a standardized test.
As a biology major and science teacher, I have always advocated for “The Scientific Method,” and the superiority of the results to be obtained from using control groups and repeated trials and controlling variables and having measurable outcomes. Now I wonder, when we try to apply that to people and learning, is it all just smoke and mirrors? I’m not ready to abandon the ship of science just yet, but I’m curious about what else is out there.
In response to the second question regarding the obstacles to scientific-based research in education, I think much of it has to do with where educational research lies on the quadrant we formulated during our last session. I really like the example from Ch. 1 of Pring in which the medical field is used as an example. Essentially, doctors are able to diagnose the problem and prescribe the treatment. In order for educational research to reach its potential, teachers need to be involved in the entire process, "in identifying research needs, in formulating the questions which respond to these needs and in collecting the data to make it 'rooted firmly in the day-to-day professional practices'" (p. 3). But there are so many issues with educational research that I do not think it will ever become educationally-based. Some of those issues are discussed in Ch. 1 - like measurement. I think the bigger issue is the complexity of teaching and learning, highlighted in Ch. 3. There are so many variables and moving parts involved that make educational research too soft to ever be able to be scientifically studied. If anyone wants to place a bet, then we can discuss after our next class. Kidding, of course.
ReplyDeletePerhaps an even bigger problem is found in the report by Eisenhart and Towne. I was quite humored by the fact that the report listed such specific standards of what it would accept as quantitative and qualitative research. On p. 32, the authors state that "the NRC was formally asked to assemble a committee of education researchers to investigate what constitutes scientific research in education." I will let that statement speak for itself and move on to another fascinating outcome of the attempted improvement of educational research which announced that "75% of its funded research addressing causal claims should use random assignment by 2004 (p. 34). As an outsider, I may be naive or missing something in all of this, but the more I read, the more I agree with our talented professor that the more educational research that is done, and the more that we attempt to improve it, the farther we get from the ultimate goal.
Susan Dudley again. (I need to figure out why my WordPress is not recognized.)
ReplyDeleteAs I stated in the previous blog, being a fearful writer, I read at least one blog before writing my post. I read Mark’s blog, and I loved the way he was short and to the point. I am going to try to mimic that style for this response.
When I read the Eisenhart and Towne article, all I could think of was something I read for the other class. It stated that in the 1965, the US was number one in education, but dropped to 24th when “formal policy and research” became a main component to finding solutions (Fullen, 2001). I felt like this illustrated the point and the problems of all of the rules of research Eisenhart and Towne mentioned. I felt that the authors tried to be positive, as they stated in the end that “it is encouraging that some changes to federal policy can and do occur in accord with public input and scrutiny form the education research community” (p. 37). I personally was amazed yet not really surprised that the precise definitions and explanations about what constituted quantitative and qualitative research. I thought that the authors were trying to put a positive spin on what must feel like (as I have not entered this world yet) a very frustrating situation.
I don’t think that the obstacles are unsurmountable, but I do think that you must find a way to write and propose the research you wish to do in the language and research style that the government wants for that time period. In other words, you probably have to “play the game”. I also wondered if anything has changed since this the article was written in 2003.
Pring’s first chapter seemed to illustrate how universities “played the game” in Great Britain. Learning this made me a bit fearful that the same situation could arise in the US. I had a year of education in the UK in higher ed, and I found the professors to be amazing. I learned more in depth in that one year than one and half to two years in the US. The standards were high, and the professors were brilliant at what they did—teach. Learning that the focus was so heavily weighted on research and the funding that occurred (or did not occur) when research was not at the level preferred, I wondered about students’ experiences in university now in the UK.
Pring exemplifying in Chapter 3 what happened at the Department of Education at the University of Chicago illustrates the importance of connecting theory to practice in instruction. The example at the end of this chapter about the primary school that has ‘caring’ as a main component of its program demonstrates the need to look at what each area and the students in that area need most to help them be successful in their education and life. The fact that children experience such hurtful events is painfully distressing. Providing the students with a place to share these experiences and be nurtured with empathy is invaluable.
I do not think that I was very concise here....Oh well.
Eisenhart and Towne’s (2003) account of the possibility of educational research to be “scientific” left me feeling disheartened. I do not see a place for my research interests to fit into the paradigm. Additionally, “education” does not seem to include institutions outside of P12, such as adult basic and continuing education, according to these authors. But, maybe that’s the point. The American Public is focused on the ways P12 education must save us from “being left behind” or “not being number one in math” or “keeping up with China.” I prefer to [bracket] those feelings as much as possible. Our discipline is highly politicized.
ReplyDeleteTaking a different approach to the discussion, Pring raises the dualism—the false dualism—of competing research paradigms. He touches on “warring” epistemology in the kinds of knowledge resulting from different research methods and their appropriateness to addressing the questions and purposes of researching people. Do we measure human behavior or do we observe and describe it? Why are both not equally valid?
Pring also takes up ontology when he says “a quite different tradition of educational research has prevailed, one which purports to reveal the understandings and perceptions of the subjects of research, namely, ‘the phenomenology’ of the mind” (p. 45). I take issue with his description of the philosophy as a study of the “thinking life” or “the mind” of a person. I hear the mind-body distinction in that description, and that is the antithesis of phenomenology. I’m also not sure to what degree the philosophy has “prevailed;” however, I’m thrilled that phenomenology gets mentioned.
Pring concludes his argument by saying this false dualism, created by the different research methods and their focus either on the objective world or the subject-human “permeates so much of research writing” (p. 45). These are not warring differences, but that we have fallen into the Cartesian trap. I see it, and couldn’t agree more.
However, Pring’s argument, indeed THE argument surrounding educational research seems to be predicated on the assumption that tensions and differences are not good for, or are somehow peculiar to, the discipline. I’m probably trying to position myself as an outsider here, but it has been my experience that tensions and differences are not unique to education. One notable field fraught with tension is linguistics / second language acquisition research. Here we have another discipline that studies the mind—the language ‘module’ of the brain—and people’s language-in-use. There is indeed a “war” in SLA research.
I suppose my simplistic argument is this: why are tensions and differences not desirable? Why are they so often framed as bad for education? Why do we (educators, researchers, politicians, the Public) seek to “unite” research paradigms when we claim to reject logical positivism, a transcendental Truth, Cartesian mind-body dualism, a theory of everything? Why is “one way” of doing science desirable at all? Philosophy shows us that science is the second-order way of being: a way people make sense of the world from their perspectives, their funds of “common sense.” We can’t generalize this sense-making; of course our ideas about sciences—especially human sciences—will always be fraught with tensions and differences. The differences and dualisms are of our own creation. That is the nature of our ontology; why do we not apply it to ourselves in the case of “science”?
As a doc student and future steward of the discipline, I want to ask new, first-order questions about the human endeavor of teaching and learning.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post!
While I was reading Pring I found myself nodding my head in agreement a lot. To echo Anita, educational research is about people and most situations/problems involving people have a lot of context that must be taken into account when attempting to understand or explain behavior or outcomes. With that being said, I do think certain problems/questions raised in education can be explored with methods that fit the 2002 ESRA scientifically based research standards. I think it’s more realistic to obtain data through observations (qualitative or quasi-experimental) rather than through randomized designs. Randomization in educational research could raise a lot of ethical issues. Educational practice is too contextualized to make causal claims anyway. I believe the expectation of causal claims is an insurmountable obstacle, not for researchers, but for those who are placing demands on educational researchers (e.g. the government, general public). But that’s something that they’re just going to have to accept. Educational research findings may not be able to produce the definitive answers about what works that some “outsiders” think is fundamental to good research, but it can (and has) offered much information about what isn’t working for large numbers of students. As Pring stated in chapter 1, part of the problem surrounding education research is the “inability of unwillingness of teachers or policy-makers to heed the findings of [it]” (p. 6).
ReplyDeleteAs I have been known to frequently do, I am arriving late to the party and issuing a bold declarative.
ReplyDeleteEducational research is scientific.
Oh, snap.
What strikes me from the readings, and my lingering thoughts from last class, is the identity crisis of good ole Ed Research. Eisenhart and Towne’s (2003) depiction of the P12 landscape is a salient example of both the desire to mold educational research into a model of inquiry that looks and feels like a more serious (read positivist) and the internal backlash against that movement as a weird translation from other disciplines. We want to know who we are. We want to be perceived as rigorous and scientific and secure in our research. And we really love talking about what we should and should do to become the all-encompassing and inspiring ed research scientists we know deep down that we are. I think we are too torn up about our lack of a fully integrated and actualized identity. We are projecting that insecurity onto ourselves and those around us, including our letsjustsay well-intentioned but less-than-well informed policy makers. Our issue is not that we don’t have a scientific identity, it is that we are not comfortable with the complexity of our scientific identity. Without a basic level of comfort with the diversity of valid scientific, educational research internally, we cannot expect those around us to have confidence in our work as a community. Then we internalize what those around us are projecting back to us. It’s a viscous cycle. Someone should make an empowering Dove commercial about it.
I don’t exalt the current state of ed research by any stretch. I’m also a conscientious objector to rendering any suggestions about how to integrate and pasturize the complex landscape of ed research. Especially as it related to P12. When Pring talks about fragmentation and lack of meta-analysis (p. 11), that seems like a fun jumping off point to better integrate our identity. Let’s do that. But let’s not beat ourselves if we don’t identify a panacea by the end of the semester. Let’s just identify some themes that may apply to our individual circumstances, then take some deep breaths and rewatch the Dove commercial.
Ed research. We’re big. We’re complicated. In our bad moments, we sometimes fail to do the right thing empirically. But in spite of our complexity, diversity, and even flaws- I think we’re scientific.
Hope you enjoyed the party, and next time I promise there will be more dancing.
Reflecting on the Pring (2015) and the Eisenhart & Town (2003) readings, they both demonstrated the history of the public debate surrounding educational research in the United Kingdom and the United States respectively. Both readings identified the role government plays in educational policies and funding education research, which partially addresses what society deems important in education research. For this reason I appreciated Pring and Eisenhar & Towne’s approach to critiquing ed research, as together they provided a more holistic framework for the focus of ed research and what quality research in education could look like.
ReplyDeletePring's (2015) identified two criticisms of education research; first, education research fails to address what works and second, it tends to be disconnected to the professional practices and addressing teacher needs. Pring (2015) stated the term education, and the way in which the term education is applied, needs clarification. He then challenges the reader on the acceptability of social science research methodology in researching educational phenomena. Acknowledging the complexity of social settings, Pring outlines his perspective of what the meaning of education is and the key concepts within education. He concludes by stating the central areas of education research should be on investigating what it means to learn and the interaction between teacher and student in the learning process.
Eisenhart and Towne (2003) explained the public debate surrounding the questions: What constitutes “scientifically based” research in education? and Is scientifically based research the only or the best approach to meaningful studies of educational phenomena? Like Pring (2015) who stated the need in defining the term “education”, Eisenthart and Towne (2003) focused on the need to define the term “quality”, as it pertains to research in education. Perhaps the main argument of Esenhart and Towne (2003) is the majority of funding for education research is heavily based on positivist approaches, as exemplified with the DOE’s strategic plan giving 75% of funds to projects using random assignment by the year 2004. Due to public input, Eisenhart and Twone (2003) explained the evolution in defining scientifically based research.
After reading Pring (2015) and Eisenhart & Towne (2003), I find value in pursuing research on teacher and student interactions in the learning process and demonstrating quality research using various methodological approaches. Perhaps it is time to redefine education research by demonstrating the range of data and information that can be gained by interviewing teachers and students on the learning process and observing the teacher-student interactions occurring during the learning process. Currently, the focus of education research is on the end product - student achievement, and perhaps the focus should be on the process and growth of student learning. Researchers working in tandem with educators can assist in developing appropriate research questions that yield findings having some practical application for the context of the study. Building a body of knowledge and allowing others to determine if the results are applicable in their unique socio-cultural-economic context.