Session Information
24 SES 13 A, From Research to Dissemination: How Should We Translate Research Findings into Teaching Practice?
Research Workshop
Contribution
The aim of this interactive workshop is to provide an opportunity for participants to discuss issues and challenges associated with research dissemination in (mathematics) education, and to identify ways to overcome these challenges. This is an independent workshop connected to another workshop proposal on the intertwined development of theory and practice.
The translation of research into practice can be seen as a “double-edged sword”. As education researchers, we want our research to influence practice and policy. Many universities and grant providers often include community engagement or public dissemination as one of the research outcome measures. “Altmetrics”, which include citation counts such as news and Twitter mentions and links on Wikipedia pages, have been promoted as an alternative measure of research impact outside of traditional scholarly outlets.
However, such push for public dissemination of research findings has been fraught with cautionary tales. The “what works” movement (Slavin, 2004; 2008), for example, advocated for the need for education research to identify what education practices are most effective. In order to answer the “what works” question, randomised controlled trial was advocated and later mandated in the United States as the gold standard for “scientific” education research (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). This created a backlash (Why “what works” won’t work) within the research community which highlighted the danger of favouring a particular research approach and controlling education practice (Biesta, 2007; Schoenfeld, 2006).
More recently, ideas and findings from the Visible Learning meta-analysis study (Hattie, 2009, 2012) have been implemented internationally in schools and districts in 23 countries (Knudsen, 2017). However, there are concerns over the implementation of the work in de-professionalising teachers (Laursen et al., 2017; McKnight & Whitburn, 2020), while on the contrary, the project INCLUD-ED founded by the European Commission has found solid evidence on the positive impact of the “successful educational actions” improving learning over 9,000 schools all over the world (Flecha, 2017; Flecha, Gutierrez, & Eugenio, 2019).
These examples show how the translation of research into practice is not always straightforward and requires careful consideration. The focus of this workshop is on how to best communicate knowledge gained from research and research findings in a way that empowers teachers, rather than “disqualifies” them (Laursen et al., 2017). We won’t be getting into debates regarding effective teaching methods or research approaches, but consider the challenges to see communication as a two-way process, in which one must listen as well as speak, should one be interested in identifying the best ways of conveying the message (Fischhoff and Scheufele, 2013).
In this workshop, we will ask: How do we communicate our research in a way that achieves the goals of empowerment and improvement, and how should such communication be framed and disseminated? How do we construct 2-way communication channels discussing both “what seems to work” and “why what works might sometimes be unattainable”? These questions form the focus of this workshop. As stated by Fischhoff and Scheufele (2013, p. 14031): “Just as there is science to be communicated, there is a science of communication.” When talking to people outside academia, in particular, such science of communication should be implemented.
We will draw from a range of research communication perspectives and expertise from the facilitators and participants. We will stimulate discussion among participants and offer examples and hands-on activities for research communication and dissemination. It aims to equip NW24 researchers with new tools enabling them to better connect with communities outside academia. Without a variety of communication approaches, there is more space for fragmentation, anti-intellectualism and mistrust of establishments, institutions and politicians, issues stated as avoidable in the ECER 2020 conference theme.
Method
Five mini-presentations (5 minutes each) will open the session: Discussing research without the intention to educate (Dr Tuohilampi) Willingham (2012) suggests that we can educate people to become good readers of academic work, but unfortunately, people will never invest enough to develop the required level of sophistication. More versatile ways to communicate are presented in “Psychopath test” (Ronson, 2011), where the author searches for an explanation of false diagnoses, sometimes outrageous yet unavoidable albeit the best scientific practices. Discussing science through a documentary-like narrative helps to accept the fallible nature of research. How do we communicate our research to empower teachers? (Dr Chan) The push for education researchers to disseminate their research to a non-academic audience can have unintended consequences. What messages are “safe” to be disseminated to teachers? In this presentation, I outline different conceptualisations of teacher professional learning and how these conceptualisations may have implications on how researchers should shape and position their research communication. Societal and political impact (Prof Diez-Palomar) This presentation discusses the ethical responsibility of researchers for improving our societies. It draws on evidence from the implementation of the “successful educational actions” appointed by the European Commission in the frame of INCLUD-ED (Flecha, 2017). How should research respond to societal demands, providing results and contributions, based on scientific evidence? The current university and funding expectations are also addressed. It’s not just skills! (Dr Nieminen) Education research findings often aim to foster mathematics teachers’ skills and competencies. However, it is not only teachers’ skills that mediate how research findings are transferred in practice but teachers’ beliefs as well. In this presentation, mathematics assessment is used as an example of how open science communication could foster teachers’ critical reflection and thus affect their beliefs. Varying ways to discuss research to affect teachers’ beliefs (Dr. Shu Zhang) For in-service teachers who have been teaching for many years, it is difficult to change beliefs. I will introduce some experiences from the a teacher training programme, wherein through combining introductory lectures of research findings and public lessons taught by expert teachers, we help teachers to learn how to reflect on their teaching practices. After the presentations, the participants will discuss their current research, and dissemination methods (20 mins). Next, different dissemination examples will be shown and participants will be broken into small groups to experiment with different communication formats (30 mins). The final part will summarise the discussion (10 mins).
Expected Outcomes
The aim of the European Educational Research Association is to “further high quality educational research for the benefit of education and society”. One of the purposes of the association is to “[disseminate] the findings of educational research and [highlight] their contribution to policy and practice” (EERA website). In order to fulfil this purpose, careful consideration needs to be made when disseminating research findings and learning from research to contribute positively and constructively to policy and practice. This workshop serves as a starting point for discussion regarding how best to disseminate, communicate and collaboratively construct research findings based on the current university and funding expectations. We recognise that the questions and issues raised in the session can be further consulted with teachers and school leaders. Alternative communication solutions founded in the workshop will be devised: the participants will produce blog posts, social media posts, teacher recommendations, videos, podcasts, etc. drawing from their own research. Based on the participants’ own consideration, these communication contributions will be made public. ECER 2021 would be tagged into all of those posts. We would also aim to make a follow up for the participants later to hear about their experiences about comprehensive research communication. We would be willing to write a report of the experiment (= workshop + the follow up) either in a relevant magazine or, based on what was learned during the project, create an alternative way to inform what was learned. If possible, we would also be willing to write a blog post in EERA blog about the experiment.
References
Altmetric. What are altmetrics? https://www.altmetric.com/about-altmetrics/what-are-altmetrics/ Biesta, G. (2007). Why 'what works' won't work: Evidence-based practise and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. European Educational Research Association 1. About EERA. https://eera-ecer.de/about-eera/ European Educational Research Association 2. Conference Theme: Educational Research (Re)connecting Communities. https://eera-ecer.de/previous-ecers/ecer-2020-glasgow/programme/theme/ Fischhoff, B., & Scheufele, D. A. (2013). The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 3), 14031-14032. Flecha, R., Gutierrez, N., & Ruiz-Eugenio, L. (2019). University education of the educational professionals: from the “edu-myths” to the social impact. Journal of Educational Sciences, 39(1), 21-32. Flecha, R. (2017). Social impact of community-based educational programs in Europe. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge. Knudsen, H. (2017). John Hattie: I’m a statistician, I’m not a theoretician. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2017.1415048 Laursen, P. F., Larsen, S. N., Bjerre, J., Skovmand, K., Møller, N., & Rømer, T. A. (Eds.). (2017). Hattie på dansk: Evidenstænkningen i et kritisk og konstruktivt perspektiv [Hattie in Danish: Evidence thinking in a critical and constructive perspective]. Hans Reitzels Forlag. McKnight, L., & Whitburn, B. (2020). Seven reasons to question the hegemony of Visible Learning. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(1), 32-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1480474 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 § 6301 et seq. (2002). http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf Ronson, J. (2011). The psychopath test: A journey through the madness industry. Riverhead Books/Penguin Putnam. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). What doesn't work: The challenge and failure of the What Works Clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher, 35(2), 13–21. Slavin, R. E. (2004). Education research can and must address "what works" questions. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 27–28. Slavin, R. E. (2008). What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5–14. Willingham, D. T. (2012). When can you trust the experts?: How to tell good science from bad in education. John Wiley & Sons.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.