Abstract
Pressley and Harris have correctly highlighted many unfortunate limits of educational intervention research and institutions for disseminating research reports. They have suggested useful changes in how intervention research is done, and, except possibly for their emphasis on faithful replication, they have argued correctly that the changes are feasible. Unfortunately, they represent educational intervention research as being important primarily as guidance for educational reformers. I argue that research does not guide educational intervention, and that even if it is improved in the required ways they suggest it will not guide educational innovation. Instead, the valuable function of their analysis is that it could improve the scientific quality of educational research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Butterfield, E. C., and Dickerson, D. J. (1976). Cognitive theory and mental development. In Ellis, N. R. (ed.),International Review of Research in Mental Retardation. Academic Press, New York, pp. 105–137.
Butterfield, E. C., Siladi, D., and Belmont, J. M. (1980). Validating theories of intelligence. In Reese, H. and Lipsitt, L. P. (eds.),Advances in Child Development and Child Behavior. Academic Press, New York, pp. 96–162.
Holtzman, T. G., Pellegrino, J. W., and Glaser, R. (1976). Process training derived from a computer simulation theory.Memory Cognit. 4: 349–356.
Sarason, S. (1990).The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. xi-98.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Butterfield, E.C. Why innovate with education?. Educ Psychol Rev 6, 209–214 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213182
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213182