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?
I am very torn on all of this “education research needing to be scientific” argument. I do not think research that is hard/pure is better than that which is applied/soft. Like I brought up in class, so many disciplines do not have to deal with the various factors that educators do: free will of students, student demographics/backgrounds, funding, politics, state requirements (which vary depending on the state), and many more. This is why I think the majority of educational research HAS to be specific- you can’t generalize to every person. This is why No Child Left behind had such huge backlash- educational standards can’t hold everyone/every school the same because of so many factors that affect student achievement. I see this first hand from working in different types of schools (though I know Labaree would hate that I am using a personal experiential argument here). Especially since I am in the counseling world, I see how much individual factors affect the various parts of education, unlike a physicist working on constants that remain the same. To me, a mixed method approach that is ACCESSIBLE and easy to IMPLEMENT is the way educational research should steer.
ReplyDeleteIt’s Jodi…I agree with Robyn that the idea of science behind educational research makes me a bit uneasy but after reading the Executive Summary it opened my eyes to a new way of looking at the issue. “Science generates cumulative knowledge by building on, refining, and occasionally replacing, theoretical understanding.” This sentence says, to me, that we are doing the same thing as science because we build on areas of education as it changes over time in order to refine our teaching strategies or management strategies (or whatever you are researching) and we even replace certain understandings in the field. As we look over the history of education and the many changes in practice, policy, and classroom make up, we can see these areas of change that need to be reexamined once in awhile. We need to look at different areas through a variety of lenses to find out where we can improve and learn from areas of weakness in the education system.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in an earlier blog, it is frustrating to continue reading (and discussing) how “low on the totem pole” educational research falls. I continue to feel very strongly about advocating for education and working to research areas of weakness in hopes of making a change for children and teachers. It would be great to see more funding given to educational research that can make a difference for the educational system in a variety of ways.
At first, Pring left me feeling pretty depressed about the prospect of conducting educational research. Why engage in an enterprise whose ill-fitting norms afford it little impact or relevance in the real world? Imposing narrow “scientific” parameters for understanding value-laden, complex, and contested field like education is not productive, and probably even unethical. Requirements of generalizability or replicability seem inappropriate across the myriad contexts and personalities in the educational landscape. Research programs that employ the language of science or business (and result in national policy, curricula, and tests) “necessarily ignore (the) essentially moral character of education” (p. 30).
ReplyDeleteStrict medical-model definitions of ‘scientifically based education research’ eligible for federal funding were imposed in the 1990s. These standards were revised in the early 2000s to include a slightly broader range of research designs, a development which Eisenhart and Towne call “encouraging.” They credit this evolution in federal policy to public input and the scrutiny of the educational research community. Recent examples of progress resulting from pushback against an overly positivist approach to educational research and its application might include the opt-out movement’s gain in popularity and the reduction in the number of SOL tests Virginia students take from 22 to 17, but one might argue these are just baby steps.
In light of the resilience of scientifically-based education research policy despite challenges to its viability, perhaps it is better not to try to overcome it, but instead to seek alternate approaches. I feel somewhat less demoralized when Pring allows for the possibility for teaching to become a research-based profession (like medicine) by changing the focus of inquiry in education, saying “teachers would need to be involved… in identifying research needs, 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). While federal education research funding guidelines don’t allow for this shift away from the medical model, VCU’s mission seems to embrace it, and other less “scientific’ but potentially more relevant research programs are funded at the university (Community Engaged Research grants, and MERC’s Teacher Action Research cohorts, for example). Dr. McMillan frequently mentions something called Practice Embedded Education Research (PEER), calling it a promising trend. At the end of Chapter 3, Pring asks, “what status can (educational) research have unless it contributes to a growing public understanding of situations howsoever provisional and subject to further growth through criticism, upon which teachers, as learners, can draw in their ‘problem-solving’ and to which they might contribute in the light of experience and criticism?” (pp. 41-42). Perhaps a participatory research can exist alongside “science” as a way of better knowing the field.
Carolyn
Hi - it's Holly. Like most other things in my doctoral program thus far, reading the Pring chapters and the Eisenhart and Towne article left me feeling like things are much more complicated than I had ever considered them to be prior to this. In Chapter 3, Pring repeatedly points out the “hidden” cultural and moral values attached to concepts like education, teaching, and learning. He reminds us of the complexity of education, and how that complexity often cannot be adequately addressed by scientifically oriented research that seeks to simply figure out “what works.” Then I read the Eisenhart and Towne article, which highlighted the political process behind the development of the “scientifically based research” definition in public policy. There were no easy answers here either, but compared to Pring, theirs was a more hopeful message, with a belief in the ability of public scholarship to affect political policy.
ReplyDeleteAt present, my most cogent thoughts on this topic are “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” While recognizing that the educational research pendulum has swung too far towards “hard” science research methods emphasizing randomized clinical trials and a quest for “effective” practices, I don’t think we should abandon scientific methods altogether. Rather, I think that educational research can and should acknowledge the hidden values underneath the surface while also using careful, systematic inquiry and data collection – in a variety of forms – to ask and seek answers to important questions about teaching and learning. The obstacles lie in figuring out how to do all of this all together, and what that might look like in research practice and publishing. More context-specific, localized research? Experimental studies that explicitly acknowledge cultural and moral assumptions? More collaboration between researchers who operate from different theoretical perspectives? More participation by educational researchers in the policy-making process?
Hey Holly,
DeleteYour post really resonated with my feelings about these readings this week, especially the part regarding babies and bath water. Last week in class when we were talking about feminism, a cord was struck within me, why should we try to be like other disciplines when we ought to be different, we ought be unique, we ought to be creative, we ought be artists, not scientists. As western civilization moved towards modernity, we didn’t just move away from religion towards science, I think we actually replaced religion with science. We simply created a new authority that could not be questioned, similar to how leaders of the Catholic couldn’t be questioned during the Inquisition. But shouldn’t we question it? Isn’t it our jobs as thinkers or as public intellectuals to question it? As Ph.D. students, I think it is our job to be the gadflies that bite and sting the heels of society, culture, and education. I think it should be us, we should be the ones that drive it forward and make it question its practices, becoming the Galileo Galileis, and the Martin Luthers of our times.
I was reading an article this morning about an honor killing that occurred in Pakistan yesterday, feeling very distraught about how something like this could come about, I called and spoke to a friend who studies comparative religions. She spoke with me about how the ideas of familial shame and familial honor are deeply rooted in some cultures, yet are fairly absent from American culture (we’re much more into the idea of self-determination and manifesting our own destiny), and that is the reason why it was so difficult for me to wrap my head around this idea. As critical thinkers, we should be questioning all aspects of life, accepting nothing as Truth, and furthering our understanding of knowledge outside of the confines of society and culture. Easier said than done though.
Hey, it’s Laurie. Hope everyone’s having a good day.
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t figure out why I was struggling with this issue. I think it’s because this is the exact sort of thing that probably should bother me, but does not. In my head, based on the previous discussion in which I learned that hard and pure sciences have more status and get more funding, I understand that the SOE’s position in the VCU pecking order is important. In my heart, though, the same personality quirks that led me to love being an overworked and underpaid teacher make me pretty sanguine about our image and our place in the school’s hierarchy.
On a personal level, trying to be something you’re not almost always leads to problems; but using your unique strengths and abilities in a way that is meaningful to you often makes you happier, more productive, and more fulfilled – even if it doesn’t automatically lead to money and status. I think that’s true professionally, as well. We aren’t like the other fields. To quote Pring, we’re trying to help practitioners “[nurture] distinctively human qualities and capacities” (Pring, 2015, p. 28). We aren’t trying to find the solution to some arcane math problem no one else could possibly understand or design the Foldimate so sad, lazy people never have to fold their own clothes again. What we do is important. It matters far more than whether people in other fields see the SOE’s research as sufficiently hard or pure.
Pring describes many different ways teaching can occur (p. 34); research can occur in similarly diverse ways. The Eisenhart and Towne article recounts efforts to ensure the legal definitions of educational research expanded to include a variety of methods. All these different styles of and approaches to research combine to create an elaborate, abstract picture – probably an optical illusion that varies according to the viewer’s perspective – of what education is and what it could be. And, slowly, those disjointed efforts pay off. Think of all the things teachers don’t do any more: dunce caps and corporal punishment; teaching students to fear authority and memorize by rote; and always, always lecturing because anything else would just be spoon feeding. The current, ostensibly unscientific, system for research seems to move the field forward – admittedly via a circuitous path littered with fads and trends, but forward, nonetheless.
Today, based on educational research, we differentiate instruction, trying to teach to each student’s strengths and abilities. We should do the same for our field, respect our own strengths and abilities, and not worry so much about whether we look and act like mathematicians or engineers. It sounds to me as if one of our obstacles is our own insecurity about who we are, what we want, and how we should go about getting it. (Maybe we just need a hug or a cookie or a really big grant to make us feel better.)
See you in class!
This is Elizabeth.
ReplyDeleteI found these chapters interesting, since I had not known the difference between educational and social science research. It's becoming clearer why the field of educational research is often viewed as weak in terms of a defined discipline. The biggest obstacle I see from Pring is that although educational research is on what researchers deem as worthwhile to learn, different researchers define "worthwhile" differently from others; therefore, it is difficult as a discipline to hold firm to shared beliefs that would earn respect from researchers and practitioners in other disciplines.
The biggest obstacle I see from the Eisenhart and Towne book is that research findings are always changing. The problem that this has with educational research is that if a finding shows that a certain practice promotes learning, then a program may be designed for its implementation. Then when the next finding shows that the first was incorrect or that the practice is actually ineffective at promoting learning, what do you do with the program? Many education programs continue to run even after follow-up studies do not support the findings of the first.
After reading these articles I firmly believe that educational research can be scientific, once we get a clear definition of scientific research. Until there is a consensus of the precise meaning of the phrase “scientific research”, it will be difficult for any discipline to consider its research as scientific. However, based on currently accepted standards educational research can be seen as scientific. Now that a variety of research designs are being accepted as scientific, education can make use of these designs to validate the plausibility of conclusion derived from the research. There are some obstacles to realizing the vision of scientifically- based educational research. Some of the complications I see are; a clear definition of scientific research and the threat of focusing so strongly on theory that we fail to recognize the relevance of practice.
ReplyDeleteAs stated previously, there is much debate regarding the specific criteria for scientific research. As stated in Eisenhart and Towne the various definitions “provide leverage for altering the meanings of scientifically based research and educational research”. This “gray area” provides the opportunity to define scientific research in manner that is certain to include educational research. Society typically views hard/pure knowledge as scientific, but the complexities of the enterprise of education and the need to apply the knowledge obtained from studies often prevents educational research from being viewed as scientific. I believe it is possible to change the minds of the scientific community, as well as the general public’s view of the importance of the soft/applied knowledge obtained through educational research and its relevance to shaping how students are taught and nurtured in schools.
In order for education research to be viewed as more scientific perhaps it should be placed in schools of psychology, sociology, or philosophy. While this may assist in perceiving education as scientific the research must relate to the practice of education. Education cannot allow theory to distance itself from practice. The purpose of educational research is to improve the quality of instruction of teachers and the development of someone as a person. Failure to keep this in perspective could render the research useless and impractical.
Vivian here...
ReplyDeleteLike Carolyn, I too felt pretty depressed after reading Pring’s chapters and have been discouraged with the negative views that exist. In reading Pring, I was left with the impression that the value of education research is measured along standards that are not aligned with the education. I am aware of the issues that may have led to the negativity, but I believe that ignores the positive aspects of education and does not acknowledge the unique features and challenges of the field of education. That being said, not having standards by which to measure the value of educational research is not a better alternative.
Eisenhart and Towne discuss the definition of “scientific based research” and the impact of federal policy in the development of a measure of quality. Scientific Research in Education’s principles used to define scientifically based research are encouraging and provide guidelines that are less likely to exclude research methods that are more appropriate for many education related studies. In reading Eisenhart and Towne, it is clear that there are advocates of educational research who understand the unique features of educational research and there has been a positive move in the right direction, it still appears as if the focus is on fitting practices in educational research into pre-existing practices. It also makes me think that, unless educational research looks like (or at minimum, resembles) research in other fields, there will always be doubt in its value.
Tonya here:
ReplyDeleteI never realized that we would one day add “scientifically based” to the long list of dirty words! Who knew that there were so many definitions and the motivations behind them. I now also appreciate the power of language and its role in shaping policy and decisions about education. The implications for educational research are great. The nuances and nature of education are so unique that it really is up to the community of education to claim a stake in determining a common definition that allows for a broad understanding and a diverse representation . The definition is what ultimately shapes the research. Therefore, there is hope that the National Research Council committee has provided recommendations to this effect. I agree that “scientifically based research” should be based on guiding principles, not research methods. The obstacles are in fact determining a definition that can be agreed upon by our tribe. The next hurdle would be in gaining buy in by the policy makers and government entities which typically fund research. This is not insurmountable as evidenced by Eisenhart and Towne’s article showing how public input can open the door to change.
Our discussion in class and the readings opened my eyes to the complexity of educational research. The challenges to having scientifically-based research are many. First, you have societal values intertwined through the many stages/areas of education. Meanings may not be clearly defined or understood. Second, you have complex relationships. Student to teacher, teacher to parent, parent to student, teacher to administration, etc… Each play a role in the educational process. Each member is unique and every relationship is different. The variability is high. Finally, the context of education is every changing. The setting, time, and current events play a role in what society sees as relevant research. Unfortunately, it seems the world of education at times tries to keep up with the latest “fashion”. What’s the buzz word this week? I feel that these obstacles are not insurmountable but need to be taken into careful and deliberate consideration. I do question why we must be like every other field. Why can’t we be our own unique enterprise? Define our own measures and constitute what we know is important.
ReplyDeletePring’s Ch. 1-3 and the Eisenhart and Towne article indicate that much of educational research is dismissed as of poor quality. As a result, what is funded is made to fit within strict definitions of educational research that is usually designed in accord with quantitative standards. Within this context, effective schools are seen to be those which produce scientific outcomes. I believe that using narrow scientific definitions to investigate specific educational issues may be unproductive as the research questions asked may not be relevant. Eisenhart and Towne article calls for an inclusive definition of scientific research which includes both qualitative and qualitative methods.
ReplyDeleteI agree that research in education should be “scientifically based”. There are, however, subtle differences of meaning of scientifically based research which affect what we mean by educational research. For me, as explained in Pring’s Ch. 1-3, educational research is about systematic investigations of learning transactions where student capacities and understandings are developed. To go far in educational research, it is important to define the nature of knowledge investigated and to clarify how key terms are used through theories of philosophy. Philosophical theories provide some sort of guidelines or principles that define scientifically based research so that people know what it means and how to conduct scientific studies.