What To Do About Educational Research’s Credibility Gaps?

2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-256
Author(s):  
Joel R. Levin ◽  
Angela M. O’ Donnell
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Educational Practice ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Research Model ◽  
Scientifically Based Research ◽  
Scientific Investigations ◽  
Widespread Implementation ◽  
Research Standards

Educational research is continually being thrashed for its poor quality. Several recent efforts to define better research standards have sputtered. Acknowledging others’ arguments that the nature of educational research is applied (directed at problems of schooling), heterogeneous (multidisciplinary), and complex (multidimensional), we nonetheless advocate more widespread implementation of scientifically based research methodologies. Our central thesis focuses on the concept of credible evidence. We suggest that most educational research approaches that are in vogue today are incapable of yielding empirical evidence that is convincing from either a scientific or a prescriptive standpoint. After offering a refresher on the logic underlying carefully controlled scientific investigations and then contrasting current educational research inquiry with inquiry characteristic of medical research, we present an educational research model in which what we refer to as “randomized classroom trials” studies are accorded a position of prominence. We provide examples of candidate topics for such studies and discuss the challenging issues that must be resolved so that educational practice will be better informed by educational research evidence that is credible.

scholarly journals Evidence-informed teaching and practice-informed research

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 199-208
Author(s):  
Leila E. Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Preservice Teachers ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Teacher Educators ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Educational Practice ◽  
Epistemic Cognition ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Teachers Beliefs ◽  
Roles Of Teacher ◽  
Do So

Abstract. In this commentary, I seek to join the ongoing conversation about evidence-informed educational practice that has been threaded through this special issue. I do so by drawing on related insights from the fields of teachers' beliefs and epistemic cognition and considering the roles of teacher education and educational research in improving (preservice) teachers' use of educational research. In particular, I focus on the merits of explicit research-based practice in teacher educators' teaching and ways that they can encourage preservice teachers' interactions with educational research in class, and methods of changing the beliefs that may underlie (preservice) teachers' engagement with educational research evidence, and finally, the need for clearly communicated research, including details of implementation.

Poor-Quality Medical Research

JAMA ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 287 (21) ◽  
pp. 2765 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas G. Altman
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Poor Quality

Educational research in educational practice [1]

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Bloomer ◽  
David James
Keyword(s):  
Educational Research ◽  
Educational Practice

scholarly journals The Learning Styles Neuromyth Is Still Thriving in Medical Education

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip M. Newton ◽  
Hannah Farukh Najabat-Lattif ◽  
Gabriella Santiago ◽  
Atharva Salvi
Keyword(s):  
Learning Styles ◽  
Learning Style ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Educational Practice ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Sensory Preference

Learning Styles theory promises improved academic performance based on the identification of a personal, sensory preference for informational processing. This promise is not supported by evidence, and is in contrast to our current understanding of the neuroscience of learning. Despite this lack of evidence, prior research shows that that belief in the Learning Styles “neuromyth” remains high amongst educators of all levels, around the world. This perspective article is a follow up on prior research aimed at understanding why belief in the neuromyth of Learning Styles remains so high. We evaluated current research papers from the field of health professions education, to characterize the perspective that an educator would be given, should they search for evidence on Learning Styles. As in earlier research on Higher Education, we found that the use of Learning Style frameworks persist in education research for the health professions; 91% of 112 recent research papers published on Learning Styles are based upon the premise that Learning Styles are a useful approach to education. This is in sharp contrast to the fundamental principle of evidence-based practice within these professions. Thus any educator who sought out the research evidence on Learning Styles would be given a consistent but inaccurate endorsement of the value of a teaching technique that is not evidence based, possibly then propagating the belief in Learning Styles. Here we offer perspectives from both research and student about this apparent mismatch between educational practice and clinical practice, along with recommendations and considerations for the future.

Some reasons why evidence from educational research is not particularly popular among (pre-service) teachers: A discussion

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 209-214
Author(s):  
Frank Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Teacher Education ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
The Individual

Abstract. This discussion first highlights novel aspects that the individual articles contribute to the special issue on (future) teachers' choice, use, and evaluation of (non-)scientific information sources about educational topics. Among these highlights are the conceptualizations of epistemic goals and the type of pedagogical task as moderators of the selection and use of scientific evidence. The second part raises overarching questions, including the following: How inclusive do we want the concept of evidence to be? How should teachers use research evidence in their pedagogical problem-solving and decision-making? To what extent is multidisciplinary teacher education contributing to epistemological confusion, possibly leading to (pre-service) teachers' low appreciation of educational research?

scholarly journals Impact of an Artificial Intelligence Research Frame on the Perceived Credibility of Educational Research Evidence

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mutlu Cukurova ◽  
Rosemary Luckin ◽  
Carmel Kent
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Educational Research ◽  
Educational Psychology ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Public Image ◽  
The Public ◽  
Perceived Credibility ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Education Community ◽  
The Impact

AbstractArtificial Intelligence (AI) is attracting a great deal of attention and it is important to investigate the public perceptions of AI and their impact on the perceived credibility of research evidence. In the literature, there is evidence that people overweight research evidence when framed in neuroscience findings. In this paper, we present the findings of the first investigation of the impact of an AI frame on the perceived credibility of educational research evidence. In an experimental study, we allocated 605 participants including educators to one of three conditions in which the same educational research evidence was framed within one of: AI, neuroscience, or educational psychology. The results demonstrate that when educational research evidence is framed within AI research, it is considered as less credible in comparison to when it is framed instead within neuroscience or educational psychology. The effect is still evident when the subjects’ familiarity with the framing discipline is controlled for. Furthermore, our results indicate that the general public perceives AI to be: less helpful in assisting us to understand how children learn, lacking in adherence to scientific methods, and to be less prestigious compared to neuroscience and educational psychology. Considering the increased use of AI technologies in Educational settings, we argue that there should be significant attempts to recover the public image of AI being less scientifically robust and less prestigious than educational psychology and neuroscience. We conclude the article suggesting that AI in Education community should attempt to be more actively engaged with key stakeholders of AI and Education to help mitigate such effects.

Evidence-Based Practices for Teaching Learners who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in Regular Classrooms

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Leigh ◽  
Kathryn Crowe
Keyword(s):  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Educational Outcomes ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Educational Practice ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Pedagogical Practices ◽  
Language And Literacy ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Quality Research ◽  
Regular Classrooms

The question of how best to teach learners who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) is perhaps the oldest topic in any area of education for children with diverse learning needs. Developments in a number of fields have accounted for more DHH learners achieving educational outcomes commensurate with their hearing-age peers than at any point in that long history. Efforts to further develop and implement effective educational practices with these learners continue, with an abundance of interventions proposed in the literature and in practice. Despite this, evidence for their efficacy remains limited. Such evidence as there is tends to be drawn from observations of professional practice and not always from the outcomes of high-quality research. This is not to say that a lack of research evidence for a particular educational practice means that it is necessarily ineffective or should not be used. Rather, it is to acknowledge the preeminence of quality research outcomes as the cornerstone of an evidence-base for educational practice with DHH learners while recognizing that contributions can come from two other sources: the expertise and experiences of professionals involved in the education of DHH learners in educational settings, and the views and preferences of DHH learners and their families about how the best educational outcomes can be achieved. The vast majority of DHH learners are educated in regular classrooms alongside their hearing peers, including a significant minority whose primary or preferred language is a signed language. Questions of how best to facilitate access to regular classrooms for those DHH learners are inextricably linked to issues in three areas: (a) communication, language, and literacy; (b) classroom access; and (c) pedagogical practices and other educational supports. The first area covers the unique set of challenges that relate to DHH learners acquiring a language (i.e., whether that be spoken or signed) and how best to support their ongoing development and use of their communication, language, and literacy skills in the classroom. The other two sets of issues, relate to the difficulties that are typically encountered by DHH learners in gaining access to the regular classroom curriculum through their preferred language and mode of communication (i.e., how best to access the auditory and visual environment of the classroom on an equitable basis with their hearing peers), and how best to support that access through instructional techniques and/or specialist support services. In all three areas there remains the challenge of assembling an evidence base for practice from quality research evidence.

What to Do About Educational Research’s Credibility Gaps? Become More Scientific A Commentary on Levin and O’Donnell1

2001 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-346
Author(s):  
Jerry S. Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Educational Research ◽  
Experimental Research ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Educational Practice ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
General Thesis ◽  
Methodological Approaches

In their article, Levin and O’Donnell argue that educational research has sunk to the level that it is becoming irrelevant to educational theorizing or educational practice. They indicate several reasons for this. Among them are tensions between laboratory or experimental research approaches as contrasted with contextual approaches that tend to be poorly informed by theory or rigorous scientific method. Levin and O’Donnell go on to offer practical suggestions how to “fix” the problem by employing rigorous methodological approaches. In my commentary to Levin and O’Donnell I point out points of agreement with their general thesis and suggest historical as well as contemporary ways we might approach the problem. These include moving beyond simplistic qualitative versus quantitative arguments about educational research, contextualizing and clarifying “constructivism” in educational parlance, and reforming training in education so that graduates will be better versed in the method and content of ancillary fields that inform or should inform educational research and practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document