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?
Throughout the Eisenhart & Towne article they spoke about research being scientifically based. One theme I saw emerge throughout the article was the push for this scientific research for funding and political reasons. However, the obstacles I see in this were clearly stated in the opening of chapter 3, where Pring stated "it may distance that research from what is distinctively educational". To me it seems there is a push to "gain more respect" (the actual practice of education) within the social sciences instead of focusing on what educators need to know. Again, as mentioned in class we are working with human subjects in education & understanding the whole picture rather than just "lab results."
ReplyDeleteThe Eisenhart and Towne article touched on this as they discussed the definitions & rigor for conducing qualitative v. quantitative research and to understand both can provide valuable information to the field. I think by understanding what makes good research with either method and adding this good research to the field could allow education to gain more respect within the social sciences.
When I was a classroom teacher, I felt like there was a huge disconnect between what those in power said I had to do and what I knew I needed to do. The decision makers didn’t know/understand/care to know what was really going on in teaching.
ReplyDeleteAfter this week’s readings, I have the same feeling about the scientific nature of educational research. Policy makers are making decisions about educational research, yet they seem to be disconnected from the meaning and purpose of educational research. If we only think of scientific research as that which uses random samples, focuses on primarily quantitative data, is generalizable, etc., then I don’t think educational research can be, nor should it be, scientific. Like Lauren said, I think we need to develop an understanding of what good research is and make sure that we are doing good educational research. The research methods should fit the research questions and settings.
I did find it promising that policy makers have been somewhat open to changing how they define educational research. While I am not sure that researchers and policy makers will ever come to a consensus on the goals and methods of research, Eisenhart & Towne made it seem like having that dialogue does make a difference.
In Chapter 3 of Pring, he emphasized the complexity of educational research. His thoughts seem to echo some of the discussions we had in class last week. He believes learning (what is learned or the process of learning) is difficult to measure because it is subjective and loaded with values. It reminded me of Kurt's thinking on the issues surrounding educational research (i.e. it is hard to even establish what we want to know or what the goal of the research is). In Pring's opinion, educational research needs not only to focus on what is learned but how it was learned and the relationship between student and teacher. Research tries to simplify these complex concepts, which hurts its effectiveness. Eisenhart and Towne touched on this in their article. They believe the definitions of educational research in various legislation is too narrow. However, the evolution of this definition is promising. The authors acknowledge legislative definitions of educational research are becoming more broad, inclusive and sensitive of real life application and implications.
ReplyDeleteAs a future researcher, I found Pring's analysis to be a little daunting and discouraging, but was happy to see the definitions of educational research being expanded to be more comprehensive and less restrictive. I agree with Pring that the process and products of learning are complex; therefore, educational research cannot just use simple measures and expect complete and meaningful results. Overall, there are many obstacles in educational research (i.e. measurement and subjectivity just to name a few), but I am optimistic about its future and the impact it can have for both students and teachers.
I agree with Sam that there really is a gap between admin, making judgment calls on building wide curriculum and what you saw firsthand in the classroom. This impersonal aspect mirrors the scientific aspect of research coming into the educational spectrum. It risks losing the human aspect which is paramount to successful teaching and learning. Research can be beneficial in specific ways, assisting with learning nuances, but it cannot cease to take into account people. Additionally, Brittany’s point is so true that it needs to encompass the act of learning, not just the outcome of having learned. While Pring notes how complicated educational research is, so is the act of educating. To simplify either would end up devaluing both, leaving the need for compromise as the forefront issue to building a stronger relationship between the two in my opinion. This is not an impossible task, however scientifically based research in education cannot be a cookie cutter approach as usual.
ReplyDeleteFatemah-I am not yet convinced why we should do educational research as “scientifically based research”. Reading Eisenhart and Towne and finding that the definition of this kind research not yet agreed among education research, even if they try to make it broader than what it was, does not include all of what educational research stand for. That confuses me. I recall Pring’s reasons of why educational research do not have much respect “Maybe there is a lot of bad research. And one reason for poor quality might be that, conceptually and philosophically, the research simply does not make sense.” Pring, Richard (2014-09-20). Philosophy of Educational Research (p. 7). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.
ReplyDeleteAnd that make me question why?
Going back to “scientifically based education research”, this kind of research would make the teaching procure focus more on how to deliver the significant results which usually get its information from standardizing testing rather than “help to transform the capacities of people to live a fuller and more distinctively human life.”
Pring, Richard (2014-09-20). Philosophy of Educational Research (p. 27). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.
However, I am not against scientifically based educational research in general, but I don't agree that it should be the only kind of educational research that should be funded.
Allison on, The obstacles and possibilities of scientifically based educational research: I feel, as up and coming educational researchers' we have inherited a bad reputation or negative stereotype of ER. Pring (2015) points out the criticisms of ER. For example, research fails to address the practical questions of "What works" (p. 10), educational research is fragmented, and of poor quality (p.11). In contrast, I found Eisenhart and Towne's (2003) article hopeful. The authors outlined the historical backdrop for our current principals of educational research. Eisenhart and Towne also reiterate in their article the power of the people to affect the meaning of educational research "operationalized in current public policy" (p. 31). I feel the problems associated with ER are surmountable if we investigate phenomenon and disseminate research that is relevant to students, practitioners, and policymakers.
ReplyDeleteAnytime you are dealing with people and how they interact with other people, it is impossible to be completely scientific. Education is a social science and I do not think that is a bad thing. On the other side of the debate, Education research is often criticized and not respected because of the lack of empirical/science-driven data. Also, as Eisenhart and Towne discuss, in order to influence education policy, government officials are going to want something empirical and generalizable to base their decisions off of. As others have mentioned, there seems to be a disconnect about what teachers need to know and what is coming out of scientific based educational research. Clearly there needs to be balance. Education researchers should rely on a mix of scientific and non-scientific research to inform policy and practice.
ReplyDeleteIn ch. 3 Pring discusses the comparison of education to a business model, driven by political and governmental motives and how this view has changed education research. Pring argues that thinking about education in business terms removes the basic moral/ personal nature of education and the teacher-child relationship that is central to education. Eisenhart and Towne similarly discuss the "scientific" foundation of education research and the definition of "good scientific research." I understand the desire to define and put into a box what defines scientific educational research in order to maintain a certain type of "quality", seemingly to the detriment of the personalized nature of education. Pring mentions "respecting the learner as a person" and that the "task of education" is the "gradual defining of the identity" this seems so opposite the clinical and scientific definition of research. I agree with Melissa that the very personal nature of education seems to contradict the impersonal and scientific definitions imposed by some organizations. I think there is definitely room in education research for both the "scientific" aspect and the personal, it does seem to be a difficult balance to strike.
ReplyDeleteVeronica Shuford - Educational research has seen much criticism because it tends to lack scientific rigor. As Pring states on page 41, “what sense can be made of educational research and theorizing unless it attempts to make sense of education practice and unless it addresses the problems as they are perceived by those who engage in it.” I agree with Samantha and Lauren’s post above. Oftentimes policy makers and leaders make decisions based upon “research” that impact practitioners, without fully taking into consideration the social aspects associated. I believe that educational research should include those engagements and interactions between the teachers and the learners. On page 33, Pring states that educational research must address what it means to learn. Although, I see a place for scientific research in many disciplines, I believe that educational research must take in to consideration social and humanistic approaches to research. I agree with Tiesha’s statement that educational research must include mix of scientific and non-scientific research to inform policy and practice. It was very helpful and encouraging to read the Einsenhart and Towne article, which attempts to examine definitions of scientifically-based research to address current policy issues.
ReplyDeleteJorli-
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at Eisenhart and Towne's five scientific principles, I feel that all of the principals apply to educational research except for principal 5. Principal 5 states that research is replicatable and generalizable. I think that educational research should be replicated and replicated often. Dr. McMillian points out in his class that education is one of the few fields in which research is not replicated. However generalizing educational research is difficult to do. So many groups are different from each other that research does not apply across groups. I do feel that sometimes those in the education field underestimate how generalizable research is across fields.
There are times that I feel we must generalize across groups. By generalizing across groups for items that hold true for most people, we can hopefully hit the majority of the population. This year for 6th graders we did social skills training for an entire team (120 students). Social skills have been shown to reduce discipline. Even though not all 120 students needed social skills, all students received the social skills training so that we provided this training to the students who needed it.