Research and Practice: A Complex Relationship?

The past decade has seen fundamental questions about the nature and quality of educational research, and its relationship to practice and policy, placed prominently on the agenda in many countries. In the United Kingdom, the 1996 Teacher Training Agency lecture by David Hargreaves, then of the University of Cambridge, is widely seen as having played a key role in setting the agenda and influencing the direction of the ensuing debate. In his lecture, Hargreaves (1996) asked if teaching could be regarded as a research-based profession and concluded that it could not. This he attributed largely to the nature and quality of the outcomes of educational research: “Given the huge amounts of educational research conducted over the past fifty years or more, there are few areas which have yielded a corpus of research evidence regarded as scientifically sound and as a worthwhile resource to guide professional action” (p. 2).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adey, P. S., Landau, N., Hewitt, G.,&Hewitt, J. (2003). The professional development of teachers: Practice and theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Adey, P. S.,&Shayer, M. (1990). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adey, P. S., Shayer, M.,&Yates, C. (1989). Thinking science: The curriculum materials of the CASE project. London: Thomas Nelson&Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J.,&Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, B.,&Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  6. Black, P. J. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science Education, 21(1), 49–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, P. J., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B.,&Wiliam, D. (2002). Working inside the black box. London: King's College London.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P. J., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B.,&Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning. Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Black, P. J.,&Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy&Practice, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Black, P. J.,&Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: King's College.Google Scholar
  11. Chinn, C. A.,&Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.Google Scholar
  12. Claxton, G. (1988). Live and learn: An introduction to the psychology of growth and change in everyday life. Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Curd, M.,&Cover, J. A. (Eds.) (1998). Philosophy of science: The central issues. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  14. Davies, H. T. O., Nutley, S. M.,&Smith, P. C. (Eds.). (2000). What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol, Avon, UK: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (2nd edn.). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  16. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hargreaves, D. H. (1996). eaching as a research based profession: Possibilities and prospects [The Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture]. London: The Teacher Training Agency.Google Scholar
  18. Hargreaves, D. H. (1999). Revitalising educational research: Lessons from the past and proposals for the future. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(2), 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harland, J.,&Kinder, K. (1997). Teachers' continuing professional development: Framing a model of outcomes. British Journal of In-Service Education, 23(1), 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hestenes, D., Wells, M.,&Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoban, G. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Joyce, B.,&Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd edn.). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  23. Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Leo, E. L.,&Galloway, D. (1996). Conceptual links between cognitive acceleration through science education and motivational style: A critique of Adey and Shayer. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lijnse, P. L. (2000). Didactics of science: The forgotten dimension in science education research. In R. Millar, J. Leach,&J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 308–326). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A.,&Bell, P. (2003). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N.,&Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  28. Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children's collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning&Instruction, 6(4), 359–377.Google Scholar
  29. Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children's science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93–127.Google Scholar
  30. Millar, R.,&Hames, V. (2002). EPSE Project 1: Using diagnostic assessment to improve science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 84(307), 21–24.Google Scholar
  31. Millar, R., Leach, J., Osborne, J.,&Ratcliffe, M. (2006). Improving subject teaching: Lessons from research in science education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Nisbet, J. (1980). Educational research: The state of the art. In W. B. Dockrell&D. Hamilton (Eds.), Rethinking educational research (pp. 1–10). London: Hodder&Stoughton.Google Scholar
  33. Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: Teachers using curriculum innovations. Physics Education, 37(2), 142–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osborne, J., Duschl, R. A.,&Fairbrother, R. (2002). Breaking the mould? Teaching science for public understanding. London: Nuffield Foundation. Available from http://www.nuffieldfoundation. org/fileLibrary/pdf/teachingspu01.pdfGoogle Scholar
  35. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W.,&Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2),211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Putnam, R. T.,&Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
  37. Ratcliffe, M., Hanley, P.,&Osborne, J. (2007). Evaluation of twenty-first century science GCSE Strand 3: The teaching of twenty-first century science GCSE, and teachers' and students' views of the course. Southampton, Hampshire, UK: University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  38. Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic, and fate control: Part one—wait-time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B.,&Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72.Google Scholar
  40. Scott, P., Leach, J., Hind, A.,&Lewis, J. (2006). Designing research evidence-informed teaching sequences. In R. Millar, J. Leach, J. Osborne,&M. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Improving subject teaching: Lessons from research in science education (pp. 60–78). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Shayer, M.,&Adey, P. S. (1992a). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students II: Postproject effects on science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shayer, M.,&Adey, P. S. (1992b). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students III: Testing the permanency of effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(10), 1101–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shayer, M.,&Adey, P. S. (1993). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students IV: Three years after a two-year intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(4), 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shayer, M., Küchemann, D. E.,&Wylam, H. (1976). The distribution of Piagetian stages of thinking in the British middle and secondary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 164–173.Google Scholar
  45. Shipstone, D. M. (1985). Electricity in simple circuits. In R. Driver, E. Guesne,&A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children's ideas in science. Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tobin, K. (1986). Effects of teacher wait time on discourse characteristics in mathematics and language arts classes. American Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 191–200.Google Scholar
  48. Treagust, D. F., Harrison, A. G.,&Venville, G. J. (1996). Using an analogical teaching approach to engender conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 18(2), 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. United States National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. R. J. Shavelson&L. Towne (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. Viennot, L. (2003). Relating research in didactics and actual teaching practice: Impact and virtues of critical details. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, E. Hatzikraniotis, G. Fassoulopoulos,&M. Kallery (Eds.), Science education research in the knowledge-based society. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  51. White, R. T.,&Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational StudiesUniversity of YorkUK
  2. 2.School of EducationStanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations