<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Ed research on C'est la Z</title><link>https://cestlaz.github.io/cestlaz-old-hugo.github.io/tags/ed-research/</link><description>C'est la Z (Ed research)</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:33:02 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://cestlaz.github.io/cestlaz-old-hugo.github.io/tags/ed-research/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss"/><item><title>Research Vs Practice</title><link>https://cestlaz.github.io/cestlaz-old-hugo.github.io/post/research-vs-practice/</link><pubDate>Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:33:02 -0400</pubDate><guid>https://cestlaz.github.io/cestlaz-old-hugo.github.io/post/research-vs-practice/</guid><description>&lt;p>
I&amp;#39;ve been seeing a lot of tweets recently about &amp;#34;the research&amp;#34; - how
PD should present how to teach and cite &amp;#34;the research,&amp;#34; how research
defines the best practices teachers should use, and on and on.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
As readers know, this is not something I subscribe to.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
What got me this time was a specific tweet on the PD thing and how
it&amp;#39;s critically important to show the research to &amp;#34;prove&amp;#34; the
effectiveness of whatever is being pitched. Sorry, no. &lt;/p>
&lt;p>
Let&amp;#39;s look at two scenarios.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
Scenario 1:&lt;/p>
&lt;blockquote>
&lt;p>You get a PD either from a researcher telling you how to teach based
on their research or, as would be more common, from an administrator
or private consultant or contractor who read some researcher&amp;#39;s work.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
The presenter tells you about the practice and how the research said
it was the one true way.&lt;/p>
&lt;/blockquote>
&lt;p>
Scenario 2:&lt;/p>
&lt;blockquote>
&lt;p>You get a PD from an actual teacher. They tell you what they tried,
how it went, and a robust discussion ensues between the presenter and
audience on how the practice might or might not work with the
audience&amp;#39;s students.&lt;/p>
&lt;/blockquote>
&lt;p>
I&amp;#39;m taking scenario 2 any day of the week. &lt;/p>
&lt;p>
There is and can be good education research and it can have tremendous
value but the truth is, education research has pretty poor overall reputation
and as far as I can tell, it&amp;#39;s largely deserved. Over my career, I&amp;#39;ve
been told how to teach multiple times based on the research only to
hear a few years later that it was wrong and there&amp;#39;s another one true way.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
Ed research, as far as I can tell is rarely if ever reproduced and
hardly ever accounts for the many, MANY variables that can change
outcomes.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
I&amp;#39;ll talk about the good side of Ed Research down below but first an
example.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
I&amp;#39;ve spoken to ed researchers over the years and told them a story
of my classes and how my first period CS class always under-performed
as compared to my later classes. Not by a lot but it was
consistent. The response was always the same - &amp;#34;that class starts at
8:00am, right? That&amp;#39;s way too early - that&amp;#39;s the difference.&amp;#34; Sounds
good and truth be told, I agree that 8:00am is too early but that
wasn&amp;#39;t the factor. My first period was weaker because math team ran
at the same time. My other CS classes always had a math team ace or
two pulling up the average. Once I took them out of the mix, the
variance was gone.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
There are so many subtle and not so subtle factors that can affect a
class that it&amp;#39;s impossible for &amp;#34;the research&amp;#34; to cover it all. Sure,
you can account for a few, particularly big and obvious ones but there
are so many more. Was the class before or after lunch or gym? What
about on the sunny side of the building getting the greenhouse affect
in the mid afternoon? What about just certain mixes of students. The
variables are endless.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
Rather than telling us teachers how to teach based on &amp;#34;the research&amp;#34;
I&amp;#39;d much rather hear from, and/or talk to teachers about things
they&amp;#39;ve tried. What worked for them and what didn&amp;#39;t. Why, at least
from their perspective. Then I can pick and chose and try for
myself. While I&amp;#39;ve gotten some good ideas from research papers, the
amount is pretty meager compared to what I&amp;#39;ve learned from other
teachers.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
All this said, I do think that there can be good and great research
and that good research is important.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
Even if you don&amp;#39;t account for all the variables, researchers are
documenting practices and this is importance. I&amp;#39;ve learned much more
from teachers than from ed researchers about teaching but what I&amp;#39;ve
learned from teachers is ephemeral. It&amp;#39;s not recorded for all
time. The research can document these practices. We just have to take
a stronger line as a community in saying that &amp;#34;this is what we tried,
here are some of the variables, and here is what happened. It might
work for you or it might not, it&amp;#39;s not the one true way.&amp;#34;&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
Another side where ed research can have a major positive impact is
that when researchers work with teachers they can develop practices
and tools together that directly help teachers. A great example of
this is what Mark Guzdial is doing with his teaspoon languages.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
So anyway, after seeing all those tweets I felt I had to vent. I know
this is not a popular view in some of my circles but that&amp;#39;s okay,
contrary voices are important as well and as the designated old CS Ed
Curmudgeon I&amp;#39;m always happy to take that role :-).&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>