Methods in Educational Research

From Theory to Practice

Marguerite G. Lodico, Dean T. Spaulding, Katherine H. Voegtle

• Éditeur: Jossey-Bass
• Année: 2010
• ISBN:
  9780470588697
• Édition: 2
• Sujet: Psicología
• Sous-sujet: Formación en psicología

Methods in Educational Research

Methods in Educational Research is designed to prepare students for the real world of educational research. It focuses on scientifically-based methods, school accountability, and the professional demands of the twenty-first century, empowering researchers to take an active role in conducting research in their classrooms, districts, and the greater educational community. Like the first edition, this edition helps students, educators, and researchers develop a broad and deep understanding of research methodologies. It includes substantial new content on the impact of No Child Left Behind legislation, school reform, quantitative and qualitative methodologies, logic modeling, action research, and other areas. Special features to assist the teaching and learning processes include vignettes illustrating research tied to practice, suggested readings at the end of each chapter, and discussion questions to reinforce chapter content.

Praise for the Previous Edition

"A new attempt to make this subject more relevant and appealing to students. Most striking is how useful this book is because it is really grounded in educational research. It is very well written and quite relevant for educational researchers or for the student hoping to become one." -PsycCRITIQUES/American Psychological Association

"I applaud the authors for their attempt to cover a wide range of material. The straightforward language of the book helps make the material understandable for readers." -Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION TO EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

• Become familiar with the recent history of the educational accountability movement and describe the role of research in accountability

• Understand the role of action research in improving teaching and learning

• Explain value-added assessment

• Describe key aspects of the No Child Left Behind Act

• Explain the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning

• Articulate the key differences between knowledge-oriented philosophical frameworks for educational research (scientific realism and social constructivism) and action-oriented approaches (advocacy or liberatory and pragmatism) and begin to define your own framework

• Explain the differences among and provide a simple example of quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and basic and applied educational research

• Understand the essentials of research ethics and how ethics apply to research questions and methodology

EDUCATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

At the beginning of the 21 st century, the educational research community is again responding to the call for increased accountability in our nation’s schools. This call for accountability comes from both within and outside the educational community. Educators, parents, students, communities, and politicians are hopeful that the new accountability will result in increased achievement for America’s students.

BOX 1.1

Educational Reform and the No Child Left Behind Act

In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed by the U.S. Congress to achieve three major goals. These goals included the desire to improve Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, increase academic proficiency, and close the achievement gap that separated students of color and low-income students from White and more affluent students (Nichols & Berliner, 2007). ESEA provided funding to schools (labeled “Title I” schools) with high poverty levels and large numbers of students of color. In 1983, eighteen years after the passage of ESEA, the National Commission of Excellence in Education published a report entitled A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform in America. Troubling to all, the report stated that ESEA had failed to achieve its goals and that academic proficiency of U.S. students remained low. A Nation at Risk called for additional reforms to increase parental and community involvement, improve achievement, enhance the quality of teachers, and close the achievement gap. While A Nation at Risk drew attention from educators, parents, and legislators, it resulted in little change or reform. It was not until 1994, under the administration of President Bill Clinton, that serious educational reform came under increased scrutiny. This occurred with another reauthorization of ESEA entitled Goals 2000, which focused greater attention on school accountability. As part of this legislation, schools that developed annual testing practices received financial incentives.

Goals 2000 provided a skeletal foundation for the next iteration of ESEA, called the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2001. The rationale, in part, was based on the fact that in spite of spending more than $300 billion since 1965 to educate youth from low-income families, only 32% of fourth graders could read at grade level, and most of those who could not read were ethnic minorities (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b). Believing that the money spent was not improving education, NCLB was designed to increase accountability of individual schools and states and ultimately reform education.

The legislation significantly increased the role of the federal government in education and set into place regulations that reached into nearly all public schools in this country. In short, the legislation requires (U.S. Department of Education, 2005a):

1. Annual testing. By the 2005-2006 school year, states were required to test reading and math annually in Grades 3-8. By 2007-2008, states were required to develop tests to measure science achievement at least once in elementary school, middle school, and high school. All tests must be aligned with state standards and be reliable and valid measures. Additionally, a sample of the fourth and eighth grades must participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress testing program every other year in the content areas of reading and math.

2. Academic progress. States are responsible for bringing all students up to a level of proficiency by the 2013-2014 academic school year. Each year, every school must demonstrate adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward this goal. If a school fails to meet this goal for two years in a row and receives Title I funding (federal dollars), the state must provide technical assistance and families must be allowed a choice of other public schools (assuming there is available space and that the other schools are making adequate progress). If a school fails to meet the defined level of proficiency for three years in a row, it must offer students supplemental educational services, which could include tutoring.

3. Report cards. All states must prepare individual school report cards on all schools. These report cards must be made public and must demonstrate progress in reaching the state standards.

4. Teaching quality. Currently, the federal government provides money to states and school districts to improve the quality of their teaching forces. Under the NCLB legislation, the federal government has indicated that it will provide greater flexibility in the spending of that federal money.

5. Reading First. NCLB offers competitive grants called Reading First that will help states and school districts set up scientific and reliable research-based reading programs for children in kindergarten through Grade 3. School districts in high-poverty areas will be given priority for these grants.

According to the U.S. Department of Education (2005a), the key characteristics of reliable research are

1. A study that uses the scientific method, which includes a research hypothesis, a treatment group, and a control group

2. A study that can be replicated and generalized

3. A study that meets rigorous standards in design, methods used, and interpretation of the results

4. A study that produces convergent findings, for example, findings are consistent using various approaches

These guidelines have significant implications for the way research is conducted in education. Specifically, the legislation calls for researchers to conduct studies with scientific rigor. According to Neuman (2002), NCLB’s definition of scientific rigor is consistent with randomized experimental designs—study designs in which persons are randomly assigned to groups that are treated differently. Randomized studies are one approach for establishing causality but may not be appropriate for all research questions. Nearly everyone agrees that research studies should be rigorous and scientific. However, the narrow definition of scientific rigor as randomized experimental studies has the potential for greatly limiting the scope of educational research. Furthermore, according to Davies (2003), “Devoting singular attention to one tool of scientific research jeopardizes inquiry efforts into a range of problems best addressed by other scientific methods (pp. 4-5).”

A school’s failure to meet its AYP has serious consequences; these consequences become more severe the longer it takes schools to reach their defined benchmarks. (Benchmarks are predetermined levels of achievement for which states or federal officials set performance levels.) For example, a school that fails to make its AYP two years in a row is labeled as a school in need of improvement or a SINI school. The SINI school must then develop an improvement plan that describes the necessary changes that will result in meeting its AYP. SINI schools must offer public choice to their students, allowing transfer in-district to a school in good standing or to a nearby charter school (charter schools are public schools funded with tax dollars that permit some flexibility regarding some state education regulations). Schools that fail to make AYP for three years must provide and pay for supplemental educational services for eligible students. This often includes tutoring services offered by approved providers. Those SINI schools that continue to fail to meet AYP for four consecutive years must take “corrective action” in addition to the sanctions noted. This action could include replacing administrative staff, hiring outside consultants to run the school, implementing a new curriculum, and extending the school year, to name a few. Schools that fail to make AYP for five consecutive years must develop a restructuring plan that may result in a state takeover or new governance for the school.

Accountability and educational reform are by no means new in education (see Box 1.1). The newest accountability legislation, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), holds schools accountable for monitoring and reporting student progress based on test scores. Monies for schools are made available for programs that are scientific and reliable (see Box 1.1, number 5), although the federal government’s definition of scientific research is very narrow (Neuman, 2002).

NCLB requirements and other accountability measures make knowledge of educational research an essential component of professional preparation for all educators. However, to promote creative, innovative, yet sound solutions to current educational problems, future educators must become knowledgeable about a multitude of research approaches that reach beyond those techniques defined as reliable under the NCLB legislation. It is our hope that this book will enable you to participate in ongoing debates about the status and future of education on both national and local levels. We also hope that you will develop skills and knowledge to take part in a much longer and broader tradition: using scientific research to identify, develop, and assess effective educational practices. Furthermore, by using this knowledge you will be better able to make informed decisions based on data and evidence collected in your practice (for example, what is often referred to as evidence-based practice).

It is our belief that practitioners can have a major role in influencing positive change in their classrooms, schools, and districts if they actively engage in the research process. This does not necessitate that practitioners become involved in large-scale research projects. We are all aware that teachers and other educational professionals have very heavy workloads. In spite of this, many practitioners currently conduct small-scale research projects to evaluate their own practices. This type of research is often referred to as action research or practitioner research which is discussed in depth in Chapter 12. Briefly, action research (see Box 1.2 for an example) is a type of research that is conducted by the practitioner in order to improve teaching and learning. Action research is conducted by teachers, counselors, school psychologists, speech language pathologists, administrators, or any educational professionals looking to improve their practice. It is often done in a collaborative environment in which practitioners engage in a cycle of reflection and action to gain knowledge about ways to improve their practices. More specifically, action research provides practitioners with a process that involves reflection or assessment of needs, utilization of a systematic inquiry, collection and analysis of data, and informed decision making.

Action researchers strive to find solutions that can bring immediate change and facilitate improvement in student learning. One might ask why practitioners are increasingly involved in action research. The answer is quite simple. Schools and school districts are involving practitioners to a greater degree in the operation of schools. Additionally, practitioners are being held accountable for student learning. These factors have increased the level of participation of the practitioner beyond his or her traditional responsibilities. Practitioners are assessing their own practices and, where appropriate, modifying those practices. Most important, engaging in action research empowers practitioners. They can identify their own practical research problems and set in motion immediate plans to improve practices. This immediacy is attractive to practitioners who are looking to make quick yet responsible and defensible changes or improve the learning of their students. As you read this book, we hope that you will appreciate the importance of considering ways in which the practitioner can use research to make a difference in the quality of our educational systems.

BOX 1.2

Action Research Example

Ms. Lovett, a first-year teacher, is teaching a ninth-grade biology unit on parts of the human respiratory system. On the first quiz, which covered the initial part of the unit, 50% of her students failed the quiz. She reviews her quiz and finds it to be fair. Her next step is to reflect on the strategies she used to cover the content. She realizes that her primary instructional strategy was lecture, multimedia, and student note taking...