Search News


Browse Archives

News

New Model for Education Research

November 20, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- Current practices in education research -- most of which is conducted in a university setting -- are insufficient to meet the demand for a better K-12 system, the new president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching says. In his first major policy address since becoming the foundation’s president, Anthony S. Bryk announced his vision for the future of education research and development at the American Enterprise Institute here Wednesday, putting particular emphasis on the possibility of reforming teacher education programs.

Byrk’s ideas concerning education research -- which he plans to present to the Carnegie Foundation’s board later this week for its consideration -- were born out of a chapter he wrote in The Future of Educational Entrepreneurship: Possibilities for School Reform (Harvard Education Press), a book of policy suggestions published in September.

A lack of financing is the largest problem facing education research, Bryk said, noting that less than 0.25 percent of the overall education budget -- an estimate based on education as a $500 billion a year industry in the United States -- is allocated to research and development. By contrast, he noted, in fields such as medicine and engineering, 5 to 15 percent of the total budget is spent on R&D.

Bryk expressed, moreover, concern that most research is being conducted in the university setting where, as he wrote, “new theory development is more valued than practical solutions.” This environment, he said, is not conducive to the creation of workable solutions in education reform -- not as long as scholarly articles in journals are considered the acme of accomplishment in educational research.

Additionally, Bryk said, on-the-ground teachers and policy makers tend to see this research as intended for other researchers, and irrelevant to their own everyday work. He said this is probably because teacher education programs and some research activities are viewed, and many times conducted, as separate from each other.

Any new vision of education research should be aligned with what its practitioners want, Bryk said.

“We must make schooling more efficient while simultaneously pressing forward toward more ambitious academic learning for all children,” Bryk said. “And, we need to accomplish all of this as the basic task has become more challenging given demographic changes, including the increasing numbers of English language learners.”

He noted that the problems of educational practice should be the problems of research’s inquiry. The primary goal of education research, he added, should be to “achieve greater reliability in [teacher and student] performance.”

The first step toward accomplishing this goal and revamping education research, Bryk said, is to reconsider the purpose of teacher training programs and to specify what teachers are expected to learn from this training. Still, if these to teacher preparation were made, he acknowledged, it would be difficult to determine how the reforms would affect an individual teacher's work in the classroom. He added further research would be needed to determine what refinements should be made.

Further, Bryk continued, any developments made in educational research need to pass a “learnability test” in order to determine whether it is possible for a critical mass of teachers to learn a specific skill or technique. This can be helped by the use of technology, he explained, but he cautioned that such technology should not used for its own sake.

In a suggestion that could shift the role of teacher education programs, Bryk proposed creating new roles for K-12 instructors in which more experienced teachers would lead “instructional teams” with younger colleagues. These senior teachers would then, in Bryk’s model, concentrate on their specialization while mentoring junior teachers who handle the remainder of the students. He added that these senior teachers would be key partners in educational research and development, gauging what was and was not working in the classroom.

Ultimately, Bryk said, it is the responsibility of professional schools to change the methods they use to train teachers for K-12 education and to improve the quality of the tools, materials and ideas with which they work to improve themselves and their students.

“The foundation might look at the role of the university and its relations to school districts and the commercial sector in developing people and the tools, materials and ideas that work,” Bryk stated in the official president’s message he wrote at the time of his arrival at the Carnegie Foundation. “The key question for us is one of valued added: How and where might introducing new tools and social practices advance the work of teachers, professors and other school professionals in improving student engagement and learning?”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on New Model for Education Research

  • It's higher ed research, too
  • Posted by Cliff Adelman , Senior Associate at Institute for Higher Education Policy on November 20, 2008 at 9:30am EST
  • Hats off to Tony! What applies to K-12 research is equally as telling with higher education research, dominated as it is, by sociological cookie-cutter models that (a) worship theory at the expense of discovering any new territory that requires the building of empirical data, and (b) result in a stream of minor variations-on-a-theme literature. We get topic X hit from a dozen different models with statistically significant but hardly meaningful results, or the same statistical models applied to a slightly different population—or a different data set with the same population--within topic X that result in statistically significant but hardly meaningful results. And in both cases, please give us 4 pages of a theory dominated literature review, a theory-based hypothesis, and a conclusion governed by the theory-based hypothesis in which one adds a plea for more research of the same type (of course!)---or your work is unacceptable. And be sure to watch out for your endogeneity, that prime metaphysical concept that’s been imported and inflated to an outsized role in statistical analyses. One’s eyes roll! We train generation after generation of graduate students with these templates and then wonder why actors and policy-makers (whether institutional, organizational, or legislative) don’t pay any attention.

  • Posted by Kathleen on November 20, 2008 at 9:30am EST
  • You don't have to log too many hours in the faculty room to see that new, young teachers are often the ones to embrace innovation, while senior teachers go on and on about how much better it was to teach 30 years ago. It is common to assume that older, experienced teachers are the ones we should count on to take the lead in implementing and evaluating innovative practices. If schools are to change, that assumption has to be thrown out.

  • Posted by Cynthia Parsons on November 20, 2008 at 9:30am EST
  • Yes, yes, yes. In each classroom a master teacher/researcher; in each classroom a full-time teacher; in each classroom a student doing service-learning (or if you prefer work-study) combining what student is learning at college about teaching and what happens when such theories are applied in the classroom.
    It is teacher education most need of reform; would Carnegie really provide sufficient funds to cause at least 20 universities to change their basic education programs?

  • New Model for Education Research
  • Posted by Adell Brooks , Professor at Hinds Communtiy College on November 20, 2008 at 10:15am EST
  • Mr. Bryk has some very good idea about this subject and I applaud him. My belief, according a small number of students and so much research, is that we must focus on student-centered instruction (what is it and how does the student understand it). Teachers are professionals, not experts in every area of "teaching" and "learning". It is so important that we continue retool education so that it is "simple". We are not the Greeks or Romans that used education for status or statesmanship (Oratory). We need to education our citizenry in such a way that we meet the needs and demands of society. The method most used is so dependent upon the instructional leader, as it clearly defines the Vision and mission, state the goals and objectives, and ensure the success of the entity. Practical solutions are becoming difficult to present or implement do to the peer pressure for theorems and academia that tickle the mind. Finally, education is a continuous process that must challenge each and every "learner" to achieve at "their" highest level of success.

  • So true!
  • Posted by Ken D. on November 20, 2008 at 11:15am EST
  • Bryk says: 'most research is being conducted in the university setting where, as he wrote, "new theory development is more valued than practical solutions." This environment, he said, is not conducive to the creation of workable solutions in education reform — not as long as scholarly articles in journals are considered the acme of accomplishment in educational research.'

    This is so true!
    When I was in the first year of a Ph.D. program in Education at a leading U.S. university, a professor told me that we students should try to publish six papers before graduating. How it was that we were supposed to know anything worth publishing, much less six papers worth, was not clear to me. Later on, having spent many years in this paper mill environment, I came to believe that most people engaged in this publication enterprise did not even have a true vocation for education.

    Rather than cranking out thousands of unread journal articles each year, our corps of elite, self-styled educational experts should set themselves to working in our failing schools.

  • Changing how we train teachers
  • Posted by celia Domser , Dept Head Engineering, Computer and Physical Sciences at Mohawk Valley Community College on November 20, 2008 at 11:40am EST
  • It is no secret that the ways of the world have often surpased the way we train teachers. The recent article on training teachers hit a sore spot for me. As a professors in community colleges we have always had some remediation, but the numbers of students coming into college (2 or 4 year) that are severly lacking basic skills continues to rise. There may be many reasons attributed to this, but one of them certainly is how we prepare teachers K-12. Our remediation classes cover writing, reading and most definitely math. Most teachers go into elementary education and stay totaly away from the sciences and math. Some teacher training colleges have a minimum requirement for math and science classes. These are the folks that start with our children at a time when they are so up for a challenge. If the teachers are not trained in higher math and science skills, how could they challenge our children? This problem progresses to the middle schooll and then high school. If we still continue to allow people to teach math and science without the credentials, then how will this change what happens when the colleges get these students and have to spend an extra year or more getting them up to speed to be successful at college level courses? I do believe we need to train science and math teachers to teach just that, from pre-K through the junior high and demand that our high school teachers be certified and tested so that they can better prepare our high school students. They need to stop teaching to tests. We don't need to prepare puppets, we need to prepare our children so that they can function and be successful at the highest learning levels they are mentally and physically capable of attaining. Yes, college may not be for everyone.
    I certainly am aware of all the contributing factors other than this that have an effect on how students end up after high school and am not pointing fingers at just this issue, but there surely needs to be reform in this area. It will only get worse before it gets better. Our designers at the sate level need to look at the heart of the matter here.
    Colleges need to come forward and look at how we too can help with these problems. The first in in college for upwards of 30% of our students is spent doing work that should have been done at the pre-college level. This is costing tax payers millions from state to state for what they have already paid for. The greatest nation in the world needs to have the best students in the world and we can. These students deserve only the best, they are our future!

  • Posted by Michael Simpson on November 20, 2008 at 12:15pm EST
  • Goog God it is the efficiency, scientific managment people that have created the mess today!!!! What we need is more humanistic understanding. What we need is teachers that have explored who they are, what their class and racial privileges are, how to be critical and help students be critical (especially of the testing regime and curriculum material that serves the elite), and we need to pay teachers more. What we need less of is heavy handed college research and administration.

  • Posted by Robin Latimer on November 20, 2008 at 12:15pm EST
  • Democratic action research is an old model that has been available for some time, and it could easily incorporate the mentoring concepts implied in this research agenda, but as long as the real agenda is efficiency and reliability (terms used in the Carnegie statement)or an economically-based, quality-control model,nothing new will be happening in research or the classroom. It is far too easy to snipe at universities for being theoretical. It is the large part of their work to set the theoretical and philosophical stage. What really needs to happen is not reform, but a radically new disposition among public educators that eschews economic models and favors work that connects individuals to themselves and the opportunities and therapies that will allow them to gain personal power while learning the routes of access to other sources of power: political, social, and economic. Aren't we tired yet of the global economic agenda at back of "reform" movements?

  • Posted by Dave B on November 20, 2008 at 12:50pm EST
  • Bryk's comments are on the mark, but it goes further than that in my view. It seems to me that what we in higher ed expect in incoming college students regarding writing skills, critical thinking skills, and math skills does not align with what what most P-12 systems expect in graduating HS seniors.

    We need a conversation between higher ed and P-12 to align our expectations. Unless we are on the same page, the number of incoming students requiring remediation will continue to rise.

  • Ed research
  • Posted by M C Smith , Professor at Northern Illinois University on November 20, 2008 at 3:55pm EST
  • Might CFAT make any recommendations as to how public schools can become more amenable to large-scale education research? Research is not a priority for public school's most important stakeholders -- parents and their children -- even if administrators and teachers believe that research findings might lead to improvements in schooling, teaching, and learning. Professional development schools, perhaps closest to education research labs, are sufficiently different from typical public schools that research findings from these don't generalize well. So, education researchers will likely continue to do what they have to do -- find sympathetic administrators and eager teachers who are willing to put up with the intrusiveness of a team of investigators roaming the halls and lurking in the back of their classrooms -- so that the researchers might learn a bit about how schools can improve their practices.

  • Underfunded Ed Research?
  • Posted by roboteacher on November 20, 2008 at 8:35pm EST
  • You have to pity the poor Ed researchers of America - forced to struggle along on mere .25% of a $500 billion education outlay! Why that's a measly $1.25 BILLION dollars. How can they possibly make ends meet? As a famous politician once said, " a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money!" (Actually, I think he probably said "million" instead of "billion" but inflation rears its ugly head.)When are ed writers going to learn to do their math - a bill and a quarter sounds like an impressive number to me. I'd cheerfully aree to eke out a miserly existance on .25% of THAT. Let's get real folks.

  • Concurrence
  • Posted by Joe Hadley , Student at Eastern Illinois University on November 20, 2008 at 11:35pm EST
  • The views expressed in this article, I find relevant to the "No Child Left Behind" Act issued by G.W.B. in the early portion of his term. More research and development are the true answers to better test scores in schools, districts, and states. By changing the philosophy of our education programs in this country, and strive for greater minds, instead of better test scores, we may even experience an economic boom in a decade or so. A general sense of pride, still always striving for better methods needs to be in constant evolution.

    ~jsh

  • Get rid of School of Education
  • Posted by Bill Jacobks , Instructor at Muskegon Community College on November 21, 2008 at 8:15am EST
  • Schools of Education at universities are founded on the assumption that "Education" is an intellectual and academic discipline. It is not. It is a mere technology that is designed to help the prospective teacher do a better job that he or she would naturally do on his or her own. The first reform of higher education ought to demote these schools of education and make prospective teachers learn their subject with depth and passion. The job of the k-18 teach is to impart knowledge. Any prospective teacher who has the talent for teaching knows how to do that: a little help is all that is necessary. In spite of one of the above comment's that Classical education was about status, Classical Civilization gave the world its knowledge base. Ought we not to start there instead of how to write a syllabus? Bill Jacobks

  • Public-Sector Development v. Research
  • Posted by Craig Howley , Errant Scholar (sort of) at Ohio University on November 21, 2008 at 10:05am EST
  • The idea that ed research ought to be addressing dilemmas of practice of course, is essential. So far as one can tell, however, a lot of what is already being done does so! Yikes.

    The missing piece seems not to be research per se, but the development of the simple products ensuing from research that standardization so prizes (cf. the WWC). Hmm. Veyzmir. More development is a good idea, but at present development is a captive of for-profit ventures that adore the wide mile and the deep inch.

    One has heard research potentates claim that so much more money is needed for so much more research for such a long time that one has become dubious.

    But more money for public-sector development would be comparatively innovative. By contrast, working with Time-Warner and colleagues (whatever potentates do control ed publishing) would not be productive, even if they had to foot the bill for the vetting of their over-esteemed and over-weight products--which has not yet been demanded of them, perhaps because it's believed so hard to damage someone with an Algebra I book.

    The overarching goal here is this: "greater reliability in student and teacher performance." Another way to state that goal, in practical terms is this: standardization. More learning, sure. More learning across the board, sure. More learning that's the same every time--baloney. We already have too much of that; well, maybe most of that isn't really learning.

  • Who will do the research
  • Posted by Reid Cornwell , R&D Director at The Center for Internet Research on November 21, 2008 at 4:30pm EST
  • As we all know T.A. Bell's "A Nation At Risk" provides a watermark for concerns about education. In response to the cries for improvement and reform, instutions of higher education have returned by training more and more PH.D. educators.

    The fact is that in the 20 years from 1980 to 1999 U.S. universities produced more Ph.D.s than in the other 80 years of that century.

    The vast majority of those were in educational administration and outnumbers empirical discipline (research methods, measurement, and statistics and statistics by 3 to 1.

    In fact, doctorates in educational methods, statistics for the last 20 years amounted to no more than 1 per school district (14,546)

    Even if the research methods are changed who is going to conduct the research?

    Educational research is highly nuanced. The ability to seperate ancedote for causality is crucial. I takes great skill to parse these. The survey courses that are required for non-major student differ significatly from courses directed towards developing subject matter experts.

    Despite the cry for more and better research the reality is that ther are too few capable researchers to meet the demands.

    If you don't believe me try reading a few of the dissertations from the same period. If you want to challenge the numbers consider that they came from NSF.

  • redefining educational researchers
  • Posted by vinnie on November 22, 2008 at 11:40am EST
  • This proposal is absolutely pie-in-the-sky fantasy that will complete the Holmes disaster relative to reforming teacher education. But what more would one expect from Carnegie other than extending the failed concept they invented and promoted of "teaching as scholarship (an oxymoron) to the K-12 school systems to make things complete. What is being proposed is not research even in the loosest sense of the term (but one must grasp for the prestige rather than calling it what it is) but rather clinical and practitioner (blind empircial) evaluation yet another backward move to the 1920's and E.L. Thorndike studies of schooling and schooling problems (and where did that get either research or education). Yet more education-lite and dumbing down down things to fit the politics and the race to the bottom. This "new model" has been tried and many times and it doesn't work, so of course lets do it again so in typical American educational fashion we can repeat history again and again and again. And the model porposed of course is exactly the model that has advanced medicial and other research. Well I suppose that if you're under pressure to propose something new and unique something like this will do and FYI, the reason the investment in educational research has dried up are proposals like this for defining and conducting it.

  • Posted by Bob S> , Statistically speaking on November 23, 2008 at 12:00pm EST
  • Research and education don't bode well together. There are too many paramaters, theories, perssectives, points of view and biases. Mix these with politics and money and you get what we have. The reliance on statistics to clarify the social issues inherent to education cannot accomplish much.

    The problems are more with the students and society than the teachers. It is unreaslistic, statistically speaking, to ask teachers to teach students who all too often are not interested, not prepared, not housed, fed, clothed or otherwise parented. Schools are spiraling downward along with the deep social issues that are growing in a troubled "free" society led to believe that it can go one way while their students go another.

    Do you need research to see what's happening here?

  • Guide students to hear their voices
  • Posted by leticia pesqueira leal , Doctor in education at Universidad Juarez de Durango, Mexico on December 8, 2008 at 7:00pm EST
  • Education is a problem not only for the United States but also here in Mexico, I believe that the new generations are different and need to be seen that way, the information that they are receiving from technology are opening their minds and way of thinking. They need more than even teachers that can help them understand the world that they are living. But my question is, are we teacher prepare to guide this new generations?
    I believe that is important for them to hear their voice and share their thinking’s, as a way of being part of a community and in this participation make them part of the solutions that thier society requieres.

  • A LOWER SOURCE FOR HIGHER ED
  • Posted by Martin Dutcher , Director at Parenting for Partnership on February 13, 2009 at 1:25pm EST
  • Higher and lower education research and instruction is considerably influenced and probably severely constrained by our very early education, including by parenting - but not what we normally consider "parenting skills". We all 'adopt' beliefs and attitudes about ourselves, about how learning happens, about what is important, and how things in life are supposed to go by the time we start school. This is normal and yet not fully examined as "educational experience" before schooling.
    Consider that we have a brain system that stores data collected from all of our senses and links all that data together in time, place, and other categories.

    Consider that new information, feelings, ideas, concepts, operational paradigms such as what is right or wrong, also is linked in to behavior and thinking - automatically - from day one of life if not earlier.

    Consider that you and I by age three have learned a foreign language and more facts about the world than we learn from three until the end of our lives - with no teaching, no schooling.

    Everything mentioned above is known in smaller circles of study and research outside of education academia - as far as I know. Our educational structure, our underlying assumptions about what is needed for children (and adults) to learn is inconsistent with the automatic already existing inherent learning (survival, pleasure, making a difference) ability.

    By the time we reach the end of high school, we are either not interested anymore in educational structure, or have adopted the educational (that is, teaching) model in which we spent the previous 12 years. That's a long time, especially in our formative years.

    Impactful higher education reform might consider a design for higher education based on a reform of "lower" education that is consistent with how much three year olds learn before schooling. What if the rate and pace and love of learning could continue from three to 18? How much educational cost, training and effort were those first three years?

    How could we design schools (places away from homes that bring the richness of the community, businesses, arts - therefor the realization of the skills needed to belong and be successful in endeavors of interest) where children can learn and practice skills and discover concepts with adults as partners rather than as adults who know more, know the right answers?

    Think about it - how would like to have to spend 6+ hours, five days a week, for twelve years in your local school, and after school and weekend time what you could do would be totally dependent on someone else's schedule and interests?