Research and Practice in Education

Question: How does research relate to practice in education?  

Answer/Quotes:

Two Constituencies

“As scholars and teachers in the field of education, we face two constituencies. On the one hand, our research and scholarship is embedded in specific disciplines, representing such fields as rhetoric, linguistics, literature, psychology, anthropology, or communications. On the other hand, we share a common interest in issues and problems of teaching; we expect our research to speak to practice.

“There is usually some tension between these twin constituencies—at its best, a creative tension that leads to new questions and better methods of teaching. Sometimes, however, one or the other of our constituencies gets out of balance, demanding more than its share of attention. Of late, the balance has been shifting toward the practical side of what we do—reflected in demands that research be directly relevant to practice, and in the growing interest in action research and the teacher as researcher.”

The Real World

“To put the case baldly, I don’t believe that any of our research in education can be justified in terms of direct and immediate consequences for practice.”

The Ideal World

“In an ideal world, the relationship between research and teaching would be a symbiotic one. The issues of practice would help shape what counts as interesting and important, honing researchers’ sensibilities as they select problems to work on. The findings of research would give practitioners new questions to ask and new ways to look at their own approaches to teaching. Each would need and respect the other, because each would bring expertise to bear on the problems of education.”

The Real World

“In the real world, we have blurred these differing expertises by forcing researchers to become imperfect prescribers of teaching practice (and teachers to become imperfect researchers….)”

Comment: The co-editor of Research in the Teaching of English, Arthur N. Applebee, pretty well defines the issue between the role of researchers and desires by teachers seeking practical answers to their questions. RayS.

Title: “Musings…Balancing the Demands for Practical Outcomes.” Arthur N. Applebee (Co-editor). Research in the Teaching of English (October 1986), 221-223.

Research: Science, Reading and Literature

Question: How do new paradigms in science relate to reading and literature?

Answer: First, the new paradigms in science:

. The universe is not fundamentally a mechanism, but an organism.

. The basic nature of reality is process.

. One of the most basic processes is transaction, through which entities are endlessly defined and redefined. 

. At its most fundamental, reality apparently consists of transactive events in space-time, which underlie what we think of as separately identifiable ‘things.’

. There is no sharp division between ‘observer’ and ‘observed’ between ‘self’ and ‘other.’

. The whole is not merely the sum of separately identifiable parts.

. Cause and effect are often inseparable in time, because events are characterized as much by simultaneity and synchronicity as by linearity.

. Inorganic and organic matter exist at varying levels of complexity, with lower levels or systems affecting higher levels, and higher affecting lower.

. Thus there is interrelationship and transaction horizontally among units (systems) on the same level, and vertically among he various levels (systems) themselves.

. As has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past, our ‘common-sense’ notions of the universe are again seriously in error.

Second, parallels between the new paradigms in science and the new paradigms in reading and literature:

“Among the major parallels emphasized are the following concepts: reality is fundamentally an organic process; there is no sharp separation between observer and observed, reader and text, reader/text and context; the whole (universe, sentence, text) is not merely the sum of parts which can be separately identified;  meaning is determined through transactions between observer and observed, reader and text, reader/text and context, and among textual elements on and across various levels.”

Comment: You’re going to have to think about these concepts, think deeply in order to understand them. As one of the science paradigms says, they violate common sense. This article should lead to a great deal of reflection. It’s a “Keeper.” RayS.

Title: “Parallels Between New Paradigms in Science and in Reading and Literary Theories: An Essay Review.” Constance Weaver. Research in the Teaching of English (October 1985), 298-316.

Research: Quality of Writing and Mode of Discourse

Research: Quality of Writing and Mode of discourse

Question: Are college writers of different ability (basic, average, and honors) affected by mode of writing (descriptive, narrative and persuasive)?

Answer/Quote: “…we found that writing ability differentially affected…engagement across modes. For example, honors writers were least engaged when writing descriptive essays but were most engaged when writing persuasive essays; whereas average writers were most engaged when writing descriptive essays, but were least engaged when writing narrative essays. Analytic quality scores and engagement were related….”

Comment: Possibly honors writers were used to the challenge of writing persuasive essays. However, I don’t understand average writers preferring descriptive to narrative essays.

Writing is almost always uncomfortable. Students need to adapt to unfamiliar formats. The use of models helps.  RayS.

Title: “The Effects of Writing Ability and Mode of Discourse on Cognitive Capacity Engagement.” WM Reed, TK Burton and PP Kelly. Research in the Teaching of English (October 1985), 283-297.

Research: Writing and Argument

Question: How would the best argument be described by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)?

Answer: “These papers present at least two moderately developed lines of argument, one which supports the position and one which answers the possible arguments raised by the opposition. The lines of argument usually are linked as well as carefully organized.” P. 281.

Comment: A clear description of a strong argument. RayS.

Title: “Writing Quality, Coherence, and Cohesion.” George A. McCullery. Research in the Teaching of English (October 1985), 269-282.

Research: Writing and Audience

Question: Does concern for audience improve writing?

Answer: Yes. But there are two aspects of audience: awareness and adaptation to.

Quote: “While previous research has linked good writing to audience in very general, open-ended ways…this study links good writing to specific audience concerns in a comparatively realistic persuasive situation. A more difficult, but ultimately more interesting question is how writers use what they know about their audience to build good essays.” P. 250.

Comment: I could kick myself for not making audience an important part of my writing assignments. RayS.

Title: “Audience Adaptation in the Essays of Proficient and Nonproficient Freshman Writing.” BA Raforth. Research in the Teaching of English (October 1985), 237-253.