Education Research and Educational Research

Linking back to last week’s post where I was thinking about the process of researching and having attended the Scottish Education Research Association (SERA) conference in Aberdeen this week, I and now grappling over questions relating to research and teacher research.

A useful distinction in starting to think about research is between research which is generated through ‘insider’ researchers (practitioners researching their own work) and ‘outsider’ researchers (which are researchers carrying out research in a place beyond their employment situation), these definitions coined by Cochran-Smyth & Lytle (1993). However, Foreman-Peck & Winch drawing on Elliott’s work use a distinction between ‘education research’ and ‘educational research’, with ‘education research’ being research “on or about education” (p32) and ‘educational research’ being carried out by practitioners in their own setting.

Drawing on Chapter 3, ‘What is Education Research Anyway?’ of Foreman-Peck & Winch’s book ‘Using Educational Research to Inform Practice’ I have outline below the differences they describe between education research and educational research;

Education Research	Educational Research
Uses scientific (technical or theoretical) terms	Is common sense theorising, characterised by a critical stance toward problematic situations
Has law-like generalisations	Supports a better understanding of the situation and their likely consequences
The explicit intention is improving practice or policy by those engaged in the practice	The explicit intentions is to improve practice within their own setting
The purpose is to contribute to a disciplinary body of knowledge and education and educational topics	The purpose is bases on a ‘felt dissatisfaction in current state’
There is no immediate or explicit practice or policy improvement intention (no particular interest in the pedagogical implications of the research)	Is conducted to solve problems or become better informed about practical problems
May inform policy decisions, but this is not necessarily the prime motivation for the research	Is distinctively practical in orientation, reflection and reflexive and bound by ethical norms

These differences can be explained by the ‘stance’ of the researcher. The education researchers are contributing to the discourse about education but is not directly involved in the pedagogical implementation of theory or findings, whereas, educational researchers are interested in solving problems or becoming better informed about their practice. However, this does not mean that practitioners who engage in educational research are “merely concerned with efficiency” (p33) by making things better but are more likely conducting a ‘professional noticing’ or ‘intervention’ that is underpinned by theory to improve outcomes for young people.

Educational researchers also have a different view from education researchers in terms of values. Since educational researchers are part of the system that is being researched then “they need to be aware of their own values and pre-suppositions” (p33) and thus they are “inevitably concerned with ethical or normative concepts” (p33) which is not always the case with education research. Since any intervention will require young people to be the subjects of the research all educational research must be both “morally and educationally defensible” (p33).

Since teaching and thus educational research are situational and these settings are “complex and unpredictable” (p40), to have ‘street credibility’, the research must be conducted in a systematic and critical way. To become more than ‘common sense theorising’ educational research, which “is characterised by a critical stance towards problematic situations” (p35), must be underpinned by theory. This is where education research can support educational research to help practitioners to “reframe problems” (p37) and “to fulfil its promise of building an educator’s professional and pedagogical judgements in a credible way” (p37). For research to be more than ‘common sense theorising’ there must also be reference to the current discourse about the topic the practitioner has made ‘problematic’. Using literature in educational research can support practitioners to produce ‘quality data’, which can then be analysed and interpreted, and lead to changes in practice that have positive outcomes for young people.

In discussing the dichotomy of education research and educational research I have polarised the situation which may in practice be more fluid. However these two distinct terms are supporting my understanding of the term ‘research’ and have moved my thinking on in how to discuss engaging with research with teachers. Teaching Scotland’s Future (2010) uses Cochran-Smith &Lytle’s (2009) argument that “if we are to achieve the aspiration of teachers being leaders of educational improvement, they need to develop expertise in using research, inquiry and reflection as part of their daily skill set”. At this point in time, I would argue that this is still an aspiration, although there are pockets of good and excellent research practice across schools in Scotland. I believe we still have a long way to go for the teaching professional as a whole to have developed the approach of ‘enquiry as stance’.

References

Cochran-Smyth, M. & Lytle, S. L. (1993) Inside Outside: Teacher Research and Knowledge. New York and London: Teacher College Press

Cochran-Smyth, M. & Lytle, S. L. (2009) Inquiry as a Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation Teacher College Press, New York

Donaldson, G. (2010) Teaching Scotland’s future

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/337626/0110852.pdf

Last accessed online 22/11/15

Elliott, J. (1987) ‘Classroom research: Science or Common Sense?’ in R. McALeese and D. Hamilton (eds) Understanding Classroom life (pp12-15). York: NFER

Foreman-Peck, L. & Winch, C (2010) Using educational research to inform practice – A Practical Guide to Practitioner Research in Universities and Colleges. Routledge

“Researching maybe more important than research” @realdcameron

The pedagoo #enquirymeet yesterday at Grangemouth High School was a new take on teachmeet format with a single focus on sharing practitioner enquiry. The range of presentations through early years, primary, secondary and some cross sector was fantastic with teachers and educators sharing their experiences and findings of enquiry. In his ‘final thoughts’ David Cameron (@realdcameron) had a bullet point “Research maybe more important than researching”, this connected with a paper I had been reading “Bridging the Gap between Researchers and Practitioners” Montgomery & Smith (2015), as I want to explore how research is accessed, used and the relevance of research in schools.

Teaching Scotland’s Future has a paragraph that discusses (p75), “a research-informed approach to continuous learning” in this Cochran-Smith (2009) is cited and her notion of teachers developing an ‘enquiry as stance’ is described as “they need to develop expertise in using research, inquiry and reflection as part of their daily skill set”. This is reinforced later in Teaching Scotland’s Future on p102, as “teachers will be more research aware and engage directly in self-evaluation”. In the essay by Montgomery & Smith (2015), they discuss the use of research to “assist teachers in providing evidence-based justifications for the curriculum materials they choose and the pedagogical decisions they make” and to “defend their professional choices”. These statements link the accountability that teachers have with the aspiration of ‘enquiry as stance’ and help to move teachers beyond "the kids loved it!" to more research informed practice. It also supports the suggestion discussed by Bevan (2004) that although teachers are both interested in improving students learning and are continually experimenting with ideas and approaches, using a more research focussed approach would encourage a more in-depth study of practice and support teachers to develop a criticality of “research-based initiative” which are ‘required’ to be implemented.

There was a major debate at the initial meeting to discuss the idea of a teachmeet with a focus on using research to inform practice. I was and still am of the opinion that the word ’research’ seems difficult, unattainable, and remote from teachers’ practice and indeed prevents teachers engaging in this way of working, as they can lack confidence and as Healy (2005) discusses many teachers have difficulty thinking of themselves as researchers. However by using a ‘softer’ idea of enquiry, this helps to break some myths and makes research more accessible for teachers, hence #enquirymeet.

There is a disconnect in the way teachers and researchers view themselves and each other and the relationship between the two ‘groups’ has not always been an easy one. Montgomery & Smith discuss these differing expectations as “researchers often wonder why so few research findings seem to make their way into classroom practice” and from the teaches point of view “teachers express frustration with how "out of touch" academic articles seem to be with the day-to-day realities”.

This argument of differing views is further discussed in terms of how research is written and where it is published. Classroom teachers can find access to research difficult. In Scotland, the GTC are supporting registered teachers to access academic literature through the Education Source – EBSCO, which has over 17,000 journal articles and also a small selection of ebooks to help teachers to engage with research. However, time is always a factor and teachers are “interested in concrete ways to improve their practice (Drill et al., 2012)”. Researchers “hope their work will have a large-scale impact on the profession” but for researchers, publication often serves a dual purpose. Firstly, to share their findings, thus adding to wider communities knowledge of the subject area and secondly, “a condition of continued employment”, therefore the intended audience may not be teachers which furthers the divide between researchers and teachers.

Most published research is written to a “standard convention” and follows a common structure. This “standard convention” can also create a barrier for teachers’ engagement with research as the abstract, literature review, methodology, discussion, and finally conclusion sections are lengthy and take precious time to wade through and digest. The use of "jargon," or "academese," can be off-putting and may seem to be “purposefully designed to deliberately exclude people”. The discussion and conclusion sections are usually of most use to teachers but can be written in an academically responsible but appear somewhat ‘wishy washy’ from the teachers perspective. However, this is right and proper, as Montgomery & Smith state “researchers try to be careful not to make assertions for which they do not feel they have adequate evidence, and limit the conclusions they draw from their research to statements that can be directly supported by the data they have analysed” but can lead to frustration for teachers who are hoping for something more ‘concrete’.

A further barrier for teachers for articles written in an academically conventional framework is the “extensive use of citations and complex statistical analyses”, this can be off putting for teachers as it can be “intrusive to the flow of the argument, and disruptive to their ability to understand the content” or viewed from an academic point of view as “gaps in their professional literacy” of teachers. There can also be an issue in the conclusions drawn from research and it can lack "street credibility" as it appears remote from the teachers’ personal experience.

The best way forward I would suggest would be, as is already appearing across Scotland, partnership models, where universities and either local authorities or schools, are forming relationships. These partnerships support “university researchers have access to students they would not otherwise be able to study” and “teachers can get the answers they need to improve their practice without taking on the research obligation alone” and this would appear to be the answer. However, a word of caution, in any partnership the relationship is key. The partnership must “find common ground” so there is no conflict of ‘whose agenda’ is being addressed. The outcomes of the research and who ‘owns’ the research must be agreed to minimise confusion and conflict as Montgomery & Smith state “[are] mostly due to the fact that both parties view the purposes and value of research from such different perspectives, which are firmly grounded in their unique roles and responsibilities”.

In essence, I agree with @realdcameron’s final thought of “Researching maybe more important than research” but I feel we, as a profession, need to become more proactive in seeking out literature to support our pedagogy but also understand the limitations of time and resource. Practitioner enquiry may be a first step into carrying out some ‘research’ into our own practice but I believe that if we can implement the partnership model as a way of working that meet the needs of teachers and researchers then we can have the best of both worlds.

References

Bevan, R. M. (2004). Filtering, fragmenting, and fiddling? Teachers' life cycles, and phases in their engagement with research. Teacher Development, 8 (2-3), 325-339. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13664530400200224.

Donaldson, G. (2010) Teaching Scotland’s Future

Retreived from http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/337626/0110852.pdf

Drill, K., Miller, S., & Behrstock-Sherratt, E. (2012). Teachers' perspectives on educational research. Report from American Institutes for Research. Retrieved fromhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530742.pdf

Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In Barnett, R. (Ed.), Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching, (pp. 67-78). Berkshire, England: McGraw Hill / Open University Press. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.

Montgomery,C. Smith, L.C.(2015) ‘Bridging the Gap between Researchers and Practitioners’ Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, Spring2015, Vol. 48 Issue 1, p100, 14p

What is knowledge?

I have been thinking about knowledge lately. This came into focus as terminology such as ‘knowledge into action’, ‘knowledge exchange’ and ‘21^st century knowledge’ are beginning to proliferate the discourse in education without the examination that we have a common understanding of the meanings of these terms.

The Oxford dictionaries (here) gives definitions of knowledge,

• as a noun - “facts, information and skills acquired through experience or education”, “the sum of what is known” or “information held on a computer system 
• as a philosophical stance - “true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion”.  “awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation” 
•  in archaic term -  “sexual intercourse”.

Following on from this, I have chosen two papers to support my understanding of the meaning of knowledge from the Education Source – EBSCO, which is available to all registered teachers in Scotland through MyGTCS.

In the first paper by Merrill-Glover, the author discusses different types of knowledge and how knowledge has changed over time. She states that knowledge was “inextricably linked to historical and cultural legacies” (p24) and this knowledge linked to history was termed “official knowledge” (p24) by Bernstein. She comments on the philosophical concept of knowledge having both “external reality” and as being “part of human thought” (Burr, 2013:12) and the notion that “knowledge is both malleable and multi-layered”(p24).

She goes on to discuss the ‘knowledge economy’ and how this, as Burton Jones (199:22) asserts is, “beginning to challenge money and all other forms of capital” (p25). Merrill-Glover asserts that a rethink around the concept of knowledge was brought about by the “democratisation of knowledge” combined with “know how” knowledge held within “transferable skills”. In the ‘knowledge society’ the status of ‘official knowledge’ is under threat as ‘transferable skills’ are coming to the fore. These ‘transferable skills’, highly prized by employers, are beginning to replace pure knowledge (subject based) as we move into what Merrill-Glover called a ‘pedagogic schizoid position’ “where individuals and institutions are required to manage the competing demands of traditional practices and modern day expectations” (p31)

In the second paper authored by Kereluik et al, according to Gardner (2008) and Pink (2005) “the educational demands of this new century require new ways of thinking and learning” (p127). The reason stated for these new ways of thinking and learning are given as students “due to their immersion in technology” i.e. being digital natives, are fundamentally different learners. This rethink of knowledge and how we support students to develop knowledge is linked to “technological modernisation and globalisation” (p129). Learning in the 21^st century seems to be almost exclusively linked to learning with technology but this is not without its misconceptions such as the belief that using technologies require a rethinking of pedagogy, just because you are using technology and a that technologies are limited to a single mode of use. I like the phraseology, used by a number of authors cited in the paper, which is that “technologies provide a ‘zone of possibility’”(p128), this supports my view that technology is a fantastic tool to support learning and provides teachers with new ways to engage learners.

In identifying knowledge types, the authors determined three broad categories and tried to “capture the essential elements” through an analysis of various frameworks. Their findings are summarised in as;

21^st Century Learning

                Foundational Knowledge (to Know)

o   Digital/ICT Literacy

o   Core Content Knowledge

o   Cross-disciplinary Knowledge

Meta Knowledge (to Act)

o   Creativity and Innovation

o   Problem solving and Critical Thinking

o   Communication and Collaboration

Humanistic Knowledge (to Value)

o   Life and Job skills

o   Ethical/emotional awareness

o   Cultural Competence

The authors states that “the need for students to develop deep disciplinary knowledge has always been important” and goes on to say “what has changed is access to disciplinary knowledge and authentic disciplinary inquiry made viable through technology and subsequently experts and resources” (p133) and another important factor is “knowing how and when” to use technology. Even with changing pedagogy and resources in the 21^st century “our core role (to know, to act, and to value) have not changed”.

Through examination of these two papers I do believe I have a greater understanding of the different forms of knowledge, but still feel that the education community creates and morphs words to make something ordinary sound extraordinary and in doing do loses some of the audience as they feel they cannot contribute and as they lack understanding. As Young (2008) cited by Merrill-Glover, argues, and I agree, “the question about what knowledge is remain largely unanswered”.

References

Merrill-Glover, K (2015) “Working towards powerful knowledge: Curriculum pedagogy and assessment in work based learning” Widening Perspectives and Lifelong learning Volume 17, number 1

Kereluik, K. Mishra, P, Fahnoe, C. & Terry, L. (2013)”What knowledge is of most worth: teacher knowledge for 21^st Century Learning” Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, Volume 29, Number 4