Educational Researcher 43卷1期文章

1. Research in the Hard Sciences, and in Very Hard “Softer” Domains

Author:D. C. Phillips

Source:Educational Researcher, 2014, 43(1):9-11

Abstract:The author of this commentary argues that physical scientists  are attempting to advance knowledge in the so-called hard sciences, whereas  education researchers are laboring to increase knowledge and understanding in an  “extremely hard” but softer domain. Drawing on the work of Popper and Dewey,  this commentary highlights the relative similarities between hard sciences and  education research in their rhetorical nature, while acknowledging the divergent  paths of these two fields of inquiry with regard to prediction and  generalizability. The author suggests that given the highly contextualized  nature of educational processes, embedded in shifting complex social settings,  and the relevance of all variables, very little education research is able to  pursue predictive power.

 ………………………………………………………………………………

2. The Similarities Between Research in Education and Research in the Hard  Sciences

Author:Carl E. Wieman

Source:Educational Researcher, 2014, 43(1):12-14

Abstract:In this commentary, the author argues that there is a  considerable degree of similarity between research in the hard sciences and  education and that this provides a useful lens for thinking about what  constitutes “rigorous” and “scientific” education research. He suggests that the  fundamental property of hard science research is its predictive power, a  property that can equally be applied to large- and small-scale and quantitative  and qualitative research in education. Although variables may differ and methods  of collection may not be the same, researchers do their best to measure and/or  control those variables that matter, and design experiments and subsequent tests  to ensure that those that can neither be measured nor fully controlled are  unlikely to change the results in significant ways. He concludes that although  fields like physics or chemistry are mature sciences, the “cutting-edge” work in  these fields is often “messy,” as researchers struggle to determine which  variables are important. He suggests that education research often resembles the  patterns seen in cutting-edge research in the “hard” sciences, as researchers  are struggling to identify variables that are important to the problem.

 ………………………………………………………………………………

3. Why Understanding Science Matters: The IES Research Guidelines as a Case  in Point

Author:John L. Rudolph

Source:Educational Researcher, 2014, 43(1):15-18

Abstract:The author outlines the rise of a hard-science  model advocated by the Institute for Education Sciences, including the  application of research and development approaches to education following the  Second World War, and describes the attraction of these hard-science approaches  for education policymakers. He notes that in the face of complex and persistent  educational problems, these approaches seem to promise objective results,  uniform solutions, and standardized interventions less prone to ideological  distortion. He argues that this particular view of science, however, represents  only a narrow slice of the myriad intellectual, social, and cultural practices  that fall under the rubric of science and ignores a good deal of the contextual  nuance of educational phenomenon. The author highlights the consequences of  adopting a narrow vision of science in educational policy, including the  marginalization of swathes of research, and the constraint of educational  activities to make them more amenable to experimental research.

 ………………………………………………………………………………

4. Relevance to Practice as a Criterion for Rigor

Author:Kris D. Gutiérrez andWilliam R. Penuel

Source:Educational Researcher, 2014, 43(1):19-23

Abstract:The authors argue for a reconceptualization of rigor that  requires sustained, direct, and systematic documentation of what takes place  inside programs to document how students and teachers change and adapt  interventions in interactions with each other in relation to their dynamic local  contexts. Building on promising new programs at the Institute of Education  Sciences, they call for the formulation of collaborative research standards that  must require researchers to provide evidence that they have engaged in a process  to surface and negotiate the focus of their joint work, and to document the ways  participation in this process was structured to include district and school  leaders, teachers, parents, community stakeholders, and, wherever possible,  children and youth. They close by describing how this new criterion—“relevance  to practice”—can ensure the longevity and efficacy of educational research.

 ………………………………………………………………………………

5. An Investigation of the Relations Between School Concentrations of  Student Risk Factors and Student Educational Well-Being

Author:John W. Fantuzzo, Whitney A. LeBoeuf, and Heather L.  Rouse

Source:Educational Researcher, 2014, 43(1):25-36

Abstract:This study investigated the unique relations between school  concentrations of student risk factors and measures of reading, mathematics, and  attendance. It used an integrated administrative data system to create a  combined data set of risks (i.e., birth risks, teen mother, low maternal  education, homelessness, maltreatment, and lead exposure) for an entire cohort  of third-grade students in a large urban school district. At the school level,  high concentrations of children with low maternal education, inadequate prenatal  care, homelessness, and maltreatment were most significantly detrimental for  student educational well-being. When concentrations of risks at the school level  were considered simultaneously with race and poverty, the concentration of  poverty was no longer significantly related to targeted educational well-being  indicators. For reading achievement and attendance, concentrations of both  poverty and race were not significant. Implications for school accountability  and community collaborations are discussed.

 ………………………………………………………………………………

6. Learning to Think Critically: A Visual Art Experiment

Author:Daniel H. Bowen, Jay P. Greene, and Brian Kisida

Source:Educational Researcher, 2014,  43(1):37-44

Abstract:This article examines whether exposure to the arts has an  effect on the ability of students to engage in critical thinking. We conduct a  randomized controlled trial involving 3,811 students who were assigned by  lottery to participate in a School Visit Program at the newly opened Crystal  Bridges Museum of American Art. Students who participated in the School Visit  Program demonstrated significantly stronger critical thinking skills when  analyzing a new painting. These effects were larger for students from more  disadvantaged backgrounds. In light of recent declines in the availability of  the arts for disadvantaged populations, our results have important policy  implications for efforts to restore and expand access to the arts.

 ………………………………………………………………………………

7. The Waive of the Future? School Accountability in the Waiver Era

Author:Morgan S. Polikoff, Andrew J. McEachin, Stephani L.  Wrabel, and Matthew Duque

Source:Educational Researcher, 2014,  43(1):45-54

Abstract:Forty-two states and the District of Columbia have recently  received waivers to the school accountability requirements of the No Child Left  Behind Act (NCLB). As the prospects for reauthorizing the Act in th

e near term are dim, these new accountability systems will be  law for at least several years. Drawing on a four-part framework from the  measurement literature, we describe and critique the approved waiver  accountability plans, comparing them to the NCLB accountability rules. We find a  mixed bag—some states have made large improvements and others have not. Overall  we conclude that states missed opportunities to design more effective school  accountability systems that might minimize negative unintended consequences of  these policies. The article concludes with suggestions for state and federal  policy in light of the available literature.