importance of research to education

• What is Educational Research? + [Types, Scope & Importance]

Education is an integral aspect of every society and in a bid to expand the frontiers of knowledge, educational research must become a priority. Educational research plays a vital role in the overall development of pedagogy, learning programs, and policy formulation. 

Educational research is a spectrum that bothers on multiple fields of knowledge and this means that it draws from different disciplines. As a result of this, the findings of this research are multi-dimensional and can be restricted by the characteristics of the research participants and the research environment. 

What is Educational Research?

Educational research is a type of systematic investigation that applies empirical methods to solving challenges in education. It adopts rigorous and well-defined scientific processes in order to gather and analyze data for problem-solving and knowledge advancement. 

J. W. Best defines educational research as that activity that is directed towards the development of a science of behavior in educational situations. The ultimate aim of such a science is to provide knowledge that will permit the educator to achieve his goals through the most effective methods.

The primary purpose of educational research is to expand the existing body of knowledge by providing solutions to different problems in pedagogy while improving teaching and learning practices. Educational researchers also seek answers to questions bothering on learner motivation, development, and classroom management. 

Characteristics of Education Research  

While educational research can take numerous forms and approaches, several characteristics define its process and approach. Some of them are listed below:

• It sets out to solve a specific problem.
• Educational research adopts primary and secondary research methods in its data collection process . This means that in educational research, the investigator relies on first-hand sources of information and secondary data to arrive at a suitable conclusion. 
• Educational research relies on empirical evidence . This results from its largely scientific approach.
• Educational research is objective and accurate because it measures verifiable information.
• In educational research, the researcher adopts specific methodologies, detailed procedures, and analysis to arrive at the most objective responses
• Educational research findings are useful in the development of principles and theories that provide better insights into pressing issues.
• This research approach combines structured, semi-structured, and unstructured questions to gather verifiable data from respondents.
• Many educational research findings are documented for peer review before their presentation. 
• Educational research is interdisciplinary in nature because it draws from different fields and studies complex factual relations.

Types of Educational Research 

Educational research can be broadly categorized into 3 which are descriptive research , correlational research , and experimental research . Each of these has distinct and overlapping features. 

Descriptive Educational Research

In this type of educational research, the researcher merely seeks to collect data with regards to the status quo or present situation of things. The core of descriptive research lies in defining the state and characteristics of the research subject being understudied. 

Because of its emphasis on the “what” of the situation, descriptive research can be termed an observational research method . In descriptive educational research, the researcher makes use of quantitative research methods including surveys and questionnaires to gather the required data.

Typically, descriptive educational research is the first step in solving a specific problem. Here are a few examples of descriptive research: 

• A reading program to help you understand student literacy levels.
• A study of students’ classroom performance.
• Research to gather data on students’ interests and preferences. 

From these examples, you would notice that the researcher does not need to create a simulation of the natural environment of the research subjects; rather, he or she observes them as they engage in their routines. Also, the researcher is not concerned with creating a causal relationship between the research variables. 

Correlational Educational Research

This is a type of educational research that seeks insights into the statistical relationship between two research variables. In correlational research, the researcher studies two variables intending to establish a connection between them. 

Correlational research can be positive, negative, or non-existent. Positive correlation occurs when an increase in variable A leads to an increase in variable B, while negative correlation occurs when an increase in variable A results in a decrease in variable B. 

When a change in any of the variables does not trigger a succeeding change in the other, then the correlation is non-existent. Also, in correlational educational research, the research does not need to alter the natural environment of the variables; that is, there is no need for external conditioning. 

Examples of educational correlational research include: 

• Research to discover the relationship between students’ behaviors and classroom performance.
• A study into the relationship between students’ social skills and their learning behaviors. 

Experimental Educational Research

Experimental educational research is a research approach that seeks to establish the causal relationship between two variables in the research environment. It adopts quantitative research methods in order to determine the cause and effect in terms of the research variables being studied. 

Experimental educational research typically involves two groups – the control group and the experimental group. The researcher introduces some changes to the experimental group such as a change in environment or a catalyst, while the control group is left in its natural state. 

The introduction of these catalysts allows the researcher to determine the causative factor(s) in the experiment. At the core of experimental educational research lies the formulation of a hypothesis and so, the overall research design relies on statistical analysis to approve or disprove this hypothesis.

Examples of Experimental Educational Research

• A study to determine the best teaching and learning methods in a school.
• A study to understand how extracurricular activities affect the learning process. 

Based on functionality, educational research can be classified into fundamental research , applied research , and action research. The primary purpose of fundamental research is to provide insights into the research variables; that is, to gain more knowledge. Fundamental research does not solve any specific problems. 

Just as the name suggests, applied research is a research approach that seeks to solve specific problems. Findings from applied research are useful in solving practical challenges in the educational sector such as improving teaching methods, modifying learning curricula, and simplifying pedagogy. 

Action research is tailored to solve immediate problems that are specific to a context such as educational challenges in a local primary school. The goal of action research is to proffer solutions that work in this context and to solve general or universal challenges in the educational sector. 

Importance of Educational Research

• Educational research plays a crucial role in knowledge advancement across different fields of study. 
• It provides answers to practical educational challenges using scientific methods.
• Findings from educational research; especially applied research, are instrumental in policy reformulation. 
• For the researcher and other parties involved in this research approach, educational research improves learning, knowledge, skills, and understanding.
• Educational research improves teaching and learning methods by empowering you with data to help you teach and lead more strategically and effectively.
• Educational research helps students apply their knowledge to practical situations.

Educational Research Methods 

• Surveys/Questionnaires

A survey is a research method that is used to collect data from a predetermined audience about a specific research context. It usually consists of a set of standardized questions that help you to gain insights into the experiences, thoughts, and behaviors of the audience. 

Surveys can be administered physically using paper forms, face-to-face conversations, telephone conversations, or online forms. Online forms are easier to administer because they help you to collect accurate data and to also reach a larger sample size. Creating your online survey on data-gathering platforms like Formplus allows you to.also analyze survey respondent’s data easily. 

In order to gather accurate data via your survey, you must first identify the research context and the research subjects that would make up your data sample size. Next, you need to choose an online survey tool like Formplus to help you create and administer your survey with little or no hassles. 

An interview is a qualitative data collection method that helps you to gather information from respondents by asking questions in a conversation. It is typically a face-to-face conversation with the research subjects in order to gather insights that will prove useful to the specific research context. 

Interviews can be structured, semi-structured , or unstructured . A structured interview is a type of interview that follows a premeditated sequence; that is, it makes use of a set of standardized questions to gather information from the research subjects. 

An unstructured interview is a type of interview that is fluid; that is, it is non-directive. During a structured interview, the researcher does not make use of a set of predetermined questions rather, he or she spontaneously asks questions to gather relevant data from the respondents. 

A semi-structured interview is the mid-point between structured and unstructured interviews. Here, the researcher makes use of a set of standardized questions yet, he or she still makes inquiries outside these premeditated questions as dedicated by the flow of the conversations in the research context. 

Data from Interviews can be collected using audio recorders, digital cameras, surveys, and questionnaires. 

• Observation

Observation is a method of data collection that entails systematically selecting, watching, listening, reading, touching, and recording behaviors and characteristics of living beings, objects, or phenomena. In the classroom, teachers can adopt this method to understand students’ behaviors in different contexts. 

Observation can be qualitative or quantitative in approach . In quantitative observation, the researcher aims at collecting statistical information from respondents and in qualitative information, the researcher aims at collecting qualitative data from respondents. 

Qualitative observation can further be classified into participant or non-participant observation. In participant observation, the researcher becomes a part of the research environment and interacts with the research subjects to gather info about their behaviors. In non-participant observation, the researcher does not actively take part in the research environment; that is, he or she is a passive observer. 

How to Create Surveys and Questionnaires with Formplus

• On your dashboard, choose the “create new form” button to access the form builder. You can also choose from the available survey templates and modify them to suit your need.
• Save your online survey to access the form customization section. Here, you can change the physical appearance of your form by adding preferred background images and inserting your organization’s logo.
• Formplus has a form analytics dashboard that allows you to view insights from your data collection process such as the total number of form views and form submissions. You can also use the reports summary tool to generate custom graphs and charts from your survey data. 

Steps in Educational Research

Like other types of research, educational research involves several steps. Following these steps allows the researcher to gather objective information and arrive at valid findings that are useful to the research context. 

• Define the research problem clearly. 
• Formulate your hypothesis. A hypothesis is the researcher’s reasonable guess based on the available evidence, which he or she seeks to prove in the course of the research.
• Determine the methodology to be adopted. Educational research methods include interviews, surveys, and questionnaires.
• Collect data from the research subjects using one or more educational research methods. You can collect research data using Formplus forms.
• Analyze and interpret your data to arrive at valid findings. In the Formplus analytics dashboard, you can view important data collection insights and you can also create custom visual reports with the reports summary tool. 
• Create your research report. A research report details the entire process of the systematic investigation plus the research findings. 

Conclusion 

Educational research is crucial to the overall advancement of different fields of study and learning, as a whole. Data in educational research can be gathered via surveys and questionnaires, observation methods, or interviews – structured, unstructured, and semi-structured. 

You can create a survey/questionnaire for educational research with Formplu s. As a top-tier data tool, Formplus makes it easy for you to create your educational research survey in the drag-and-drop form builder, and share this with survey respondents using one or more of the form sharing options. 

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• education research
• educational research types
• examples of educational research
• importance of educational research
• purpose of educational research
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

What is Pure or Basic Research? + [Examples & Method]

Simple guide on pure or basic research, its methods, characteristics, advantages, and examples in science, medicine, education and psychology

Assessment Tools: Types, Examples & Importance

In this article, you’ll learn about different assessment tools to help you evaluate performance in various contexts

User Research: Definition, Methods, Tools and Guide

In this article, you’ll learn to provide value to your target market with user research. As a bonus, we’ve added user research tools and...

Goodhart’s Law: Definition, Implications & Examples

In this article, we will discuss Goodhart’s law in different fields, especially in survey research, and how you can avoid it.

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

Importance of Research in Education

8 Pages Posted: 19 Nov 2020

Mayurakshi Basu

National Council of Educational Research and Training

Date Written: October 2, 2020

Research is a scientific and systematic investigation or inquiry especially through search for new facts in any branch of knowledge. On the other hand education is regarded as the aggregate of all the processes by which a person develops abilities, attitudes and other forms of behavior of practical values in the society in which she or he lives. The core purpose of this paper is to understand the importance of research in education. Research is widely regarded as providing benefits to individuals and to local, regional, national, and international community’s involved in the education system. The thrust areas of this paper are characteristics, purposes of research in education, steps involved in research, importance of research in education and lastly challenges of research in present context.

Keywords: Research Importance Challenges Education

JEL Classification: I

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Mayurakshi Basu (Contact Author)

National council of educational research and training ( email ).

National Council of Educational Research and Trai Regional Institute of Education Bhubaneswar, OR 751022 751022 (Fax)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, educational administration & leadership ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Educational Impact & Evaluation Research eJournal

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Information Theory & Research eJournal

Library management & operations ejournal.

How educational research could play a greater role in K-12 school improvement

Clinical Professor of Applied Human Development, Boston University

Disclosure statement

Detris Honora Adelabu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Boston University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.

View all partners

For the past 20 years, I have taught research methods in education to students here in the U.S. and in other countries. While the purpose of the course is to show students how to do effective research, the ultimate goal of the research is to get better academic results for the nation’s K-12 students and schools.

Vast resources are already being spent on this goal. Between 2019 and 2022, the Institute of Educational Sciences , the research and evaluation arm of the U.S. Education Department, distributed US$473 million in 255 grants to improve educational outcomes.

In 2021, colleges and universities spent approximately $1.6 billion on educational research .

The research is not hard to find. The Educational Research Information Center, a federally run repository, houses 1.6 million educational research sources in over 1,000 scholarly journals.

And there are plenty of opportunities for educational researchers to network and collaborate. Each year, for instance, more than 15,000 educators and researchers gather to present or discuss educational research findings at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association .

Yet, for all the time, money and effort that have been spent on producing research in the field of education, the nation seems to have little to show for it in terms of improvements in academic achievement.

Growing gaps

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, test scores were beginning to decline. Results from the 2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress, , or NAEP – the most representative assessment of what elementary and middle school students know across specific subjects – show a widening gap between the highest and lowest achievement levels on the NAEP for fourth grade mathematics and eighth grade reading between 2017-19. During the same period, NAEP outcomes show stagnated growth in reading achievement among fourth graders. By eighth grade, there is a greater gap in reading achievement between the highest- and lowest-achieving students.

Some education experts have even suggested that the chances for progress get dimmer for students as they get older. For instance, in a 2019-2020 report to Congress , Mark Schneider, the Institute of Educational Sciences director, wrote: “for science and math, the longer students stay in school, the more likely they are to fail to meet even NAEP’s basic performance level.”

Scores on the International Assessment of Adult Competencies , a measure of literacy, numeracy and problem-solving skills, suggest a similar pattern of achievement. Achievement levels on the assessment show a slight decline in literacy and numeracy between 2012-14 and 2017. Fewer Americans are scoring at the highest levels of proficiency in literacy and numeracy.

As an educational researcher who focuses on academic outcomes for low-income students and students of color , I believe these troubling results raise serious questions about whether educational research is being put to use.

Are school leaders and policymakers actually reading any of the vast amount of educational research that exists? Or does it go largely unnoticed in voluminous virtual vaults? What, if anything, can be done to make sure that educational research findings and recommendations are actually being tried?

Here are four things I believe can be done in order to make sure that educational research is actually being applied.

1. Build better relationships with school leaders

Educational researchers can reach out to school leaders before doing their research in order to design research based on the needs of schools and schoolchildren. If school leaders can see how educational research can specifically benefit their school community, they may be more likely to implement findings and recommendations from the research.

2. Make policy and practice part of the research process

By implementing new policies and practices based on research findings, researchers can work with school leaders to do further research to see if the new policies and practices actually work.

For example, The Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund was established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to fund the implementation and evaluation of education interventions with a record of improving student achievement. Through the fund, $679 million was distributed through 67 grants – and 12 of those 67 funded projects improved student outcomes. The key to success? Having a “tight implementation” plan, which was shown to produce at least one positive student outcome.

3. Rethink how research impact is measured

As part of the national rankings for colleges of education – that is, the schools that prepare schoolteachers for their careers – engagement with public schools could be made a factor in the rankings. The rankings could also include measurable educational impact.

4. Rethink and redefine how research is distributed

Evidence-based instruction can improve student outcomes . However, public school teachers often can’t afford to access the evidence or the time to make sense of it. Research findings written in everyday language could be distributed at conferences frequented by public school teachers and in the periodicals that they read.

If research findings are to make a difference, I believe there has to be a stronger focus on using research to bring about real-world change in public schools.

• Academic research
• Education research
• Academic results
• Proficiency Level
• K-12 education
• Student test scores
• Higher ed attainment
• Federal role in K-12 education
• K-12 schools

Stephen Knight Lecturer in Medieval Literature

Postdoctoral Research Fellowship

Social Media Producer

Dean (Head of School), Indigenous Knowledges

Senior Research Fellow - Curtin Institute for Energy Transition (CIET)

Advertisement

Editorial: Educational Research and Why It’s Important

• Published: 23 October 2017
• Volume 52 , pages 207–210, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Roseanna Bourke 1 &
• Judith Loveridge 2  

17k Accesses

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The New Zealand Journal of Educational Research (NZJES) is aptly named, because the distinction between ‘education’ research and ‘educational’ research is critical. As Lingard ( 2013 ) has argued, “When we use the descriptor ‘educational’ attached to research, we are arguing that such research has educational or educative purposes, that is, such research is progressive in the sense of seeking and desiring to improve both education policy and professional practice in education” (p. 115). For contributors and readers of this journal, the importance of demonstrating the potential to impact on policy and practice is important. Researchers working in education typically are also interested in addressing equity issues as political and social agendas, and seeking to explore positive change for others through educational research .

Educational research can challenge and change educational policy and practice, as evidenced in the articles within this issue. Equity and justice of educational experience are important to these researchers. This is consistent with previous NZJES issues, where authors have sought to enable the voice of participants to be heard, to foreground culture, and question the status quo. In other words, for these authors, being educational through research is a critical part of having impact.

Of the eight articles in this issue, five present evidence about educational experiences, issues and outcomes for Māori, Pacific Island and Indigenous students. The approaches taken to address these questions are diverse, ranging from examining the very way that ethnicity is defined and used in statistical analysis to exploring ‘the spiritual footsteps of teaching and learning’.

In the first article, Boereboom critiques the way that ethnicity is defined and then used for the purposes of analysing and reporting national educational outcomes and assessment data. Although New Zealand has moved to a view of ethnicity as a fluid social construct which allows for self-identification and the claiming of multiple ethnic identities, the rapid increase in ethnic diversity and the need for narrow and precise definitions of variables for the purposes of statistical analysis are creating a range of issues that to date have been largely ignored. Boereboom explores these issues by comparing an analysis of NCEA Level 1 results using (1) the status quo of rank ordering to assign a single ethnic identity, and (2) a weighted ethnicity proportional representation approach. Boereboom’s analysis and arguments show that there is the potential for current practices to mask and under report trends and thereby to strengthen a deficit approach to educational planning. He compellingly argues that there are strong ethical grounds and concerns related to validity to support a call to ‘re-examine the practice of ethnic priority ranking and explore alternative more culturally valid and inclusive approaches’.

Although positive outcomes have been achieved in Māori medium education over the past 40 years there are still very real concerns about the revitalisation of te reo Māori. Research is needed to support the revitalisation process. Hill’s research focuses on level 2 Māori medium programmes, that is programmes with 51–80% Maori language instruction. He explores the perceptions of students and their parents about the contribution these programmes make to the education of students. In Maged, Rosales-Anderson and Manuel’s article, they explore teaching and learning relationships that students attending a Wānanga (a Māori indigenous tertiary education organisation) identified as having had a positive impact on their learning and engagement in the past or currently. In particular Maged et al. are interested in exploring the spiritual element of the connection between the kaiako (teachers) and the tauira (students). They identify a range of ways in which tauira had felt a deep sense of connection through the wairua (spirit) within the classroom to the people, place and space around them and which had impacted positively on their learning and their well-being, both within and beyond the classroom.

Olsen and Andreassen explore how indigenous issues are articulated and instantiated in the Early Childhood Education Curricula (the official written documents) of Norway and Aotearoa/New Zealand. They argue that the purpose of comparing how indigenous issues are conceptualised within the respective curricula is ‘to bring something new to the analysis of one case by putting it next to another’. Their analysis focuses on the main tendencies of the indigenous issues in each country. While they conclude, ‘the curricula are expressions of indigenous knowledge and status being privileged’ they caution that if the curricular claims and statements are not enacted, then it would not be a surprise to find the indigenous silenced.

Towner, Taumoepeau, Lal and Pranish focus on the situation of Pasifika learners in the tertiary context. They conducted a case study, which evaluated the outcomes of current practices and support for Pasifika students at a New Zealand private tertiary education (PTE) provider in order to assess what practices and support systems are beneficial for Pasifika learners. Their findings emphasise the importance of a variety of support systems, many of which increased a sense of community connectedness for students, and a culturally sensitive environment for students’ academic success.

Van Rij explores how the New Zealand’s School Journal has reflected both shifting perceptions of childhood as well as acting as a mirror on the educational ideologies of the times, from the time it started (1907) through to 1918. Later, she introduces another period (1919–1938) where she identifies how the journal ‘led to the liberal spirited, revised syllabus of instruction in 1935. This in turn paved the way for the curriculum reforms from 1939 into the 1950s’. In this article van Rij traverses the complex terrain of the journal by presenting the historical and cultural analysis of the type of prose, subject content and inherent political messages within the journal.

In McPhail and Laurie’s article, they argue that social science research methods teaching needs to include the idea of realism. Given that interpretivism is commonly used in educational social science research, the authors were both faced with a dilemma when conducting their respective PhDs, looking for a methodological approach that could enable them ‘to explain the social meaning of events and provide a means of exploring causes and processes obscured within the phenomenon being investigated’. Using the case study of the second author who completed her PhD using realism, this article explores what this methodological approach has to offer, and how a realist rather than an interpretivist orientation can offer a different analysis of data.

Oldham’s article foregrounds the increase of non-state policy actors in public education systems. He explores the phenomenon of ‘enterprise education’ by using governance theory and methods to argue that this is replacing curriculum governance.

Finally Gerrard’s commentary, explores the impact of the Productivity Commission’s Report on New Models of Tertiary Education (2017) and how this may impact on the changing nature of the purpose and value of tertiary education.

This issue of the New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies is also our last one as Editors. Our tenure has included transitioning the journal from a print-based journal to its first online issue with Springer (Volume 50), and marking its 50th anniversary celebrations. The journal continues to be foundational to the New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE) learned society, and the principal vehicle for researchers and educators to share and disseminate their published research.

Since 2014, we have edited 8 issues, which have included 65 published articles and 5 commentaries written by 112 authors (76% female; 24% male). We extend our thanks to the 138 reviewers who gave their time, expertise and collegial support to blind peer review the work. In addition, we have published 39 book reviews and we thank our Book Editor, Dr. Stephanie Doyle, Victoria University of Wellington, who liaised so successfully with the book reviewers that we were never without a well-articulated review of the latest work coming out. During this period there have been two special issues: Student Voice 49(2), and Equity and Diversity 51(2). Both these special issues included national and international contributions, with one collection arguing the importance of including student voice in learning, policy and practice, and acting on these views; and the other on ensuring equity through education enables, celebrates and includes all learners.

Across this period the contributing authors have collectively demonstrated a broad interest in educational research, policy and practice, which fully justifies the journal’s claim to be concerned with ‘educational studies’. The many contributors to this journal have documented change and progress, issues and tensions, and promises and visions. Given this depth and breadth of educational research, and the diversity of researcher-authors, it is not surprising that their own values and ideologies are embedded in the work. As Lingard ( 2013 ) reminds us, evidence-based policy is not all about research evidence. It includes in the mix values, ideology and professional knowledge of the researchers who conduct the research, and the practitioners and policy makers who read and interpret that research.

The areas of scholarship covered over this period (Volumes 49–52) are diverse, inclusive and representative of multi-voiced, cultural and social imperatives. These include Kura Kaupapa Māori research, cross-cultural practice, the achievement gap, tertiary education supervision and partnership practices, all education sectors, the history of education in New Zealand, student voice, education policy, equity in education, curriculum design, teacher initial education and professional development and the nature of education in the twenty-first century.

This research labour has originated from within 29 institutions, including 21 universities, 1 wānanga, 2 polytechnics, independent researchers (2), and other tertiary, research or independent providers such as the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER), Kelston Deaf Education Centre, and SPELD. The research published within NZJES has demonstrated it is confidently located within the Aotearoa/New Zealand context. Locally, we have had contributors from University of Auckland, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), University of Waikato, Waikato Institute of Technology (Win Tec), Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, Massey University, Victoria University of Wellington, Whitireia Polytechnic, University of Canterbury, and University of Otago. There has also been an international presence connected closely to the New Zealand research community, including contributions from researchers based in higher education organisations from the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, USA, UAE, and Australia. The institutions represented include University of Dublin, University of Manchester, University of Uppsala, University of Tromsø, University of Melbourne, University of New South Wales, Monash University, Australian Catholic University, University of New England, University of Denver, Bryn Mawr College, North Carolina State University, University of Florida, Southern Cross University and Zayed University.

As co-editors, we are proud to have been part of this continuing educational research journey. We wish the incoming editors the rich experience we have been privileged to have. We thank the Editorial Board for the stimulating collegial discussions at our meetings and the NZARE Council for their ongoing support. A warm thank you to all contributors, reviewers, NZARE members, and staff at Springer for enabling this journal to take the next step in its trajectory of contributing to the betterment of education in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Lingard, B. (2013). The impact of research on education policy in an era of evidence-based policy. Critical Studies in Education, 54 (2), 113–131.

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Roseanna Bourke

Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand

Judith Loveridge

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roseanna Bourke .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bourke, R., Loveridge, J. Editorial: Educational Research and Why It’s Important. NZ J Educ Stud 52 , 207–210 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-017-0093-0

Download citation

Published : 23 October 2017

Issue Date : November 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-017-0093-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Find My Rep

You are here

What are the benefits of educational research for teachers.

Cultivating a research-based approach to developing your practice provides evidence to effect change in your teaching, your classroom, your school, and beyond. Rebecca Austin, author of Researching Primary Education  and Senior Lecturer at the School of Teacher Education and Development at Canterbury Christchurch University, highlights what the benefits are of research to your practice…

In the context of the debate about what works and why, there is a wide range of benefits to researching your own practice, whether directly feeding into improvement through action research or, more broadly, gaining understanding and knowledge on themes of interest and relevance. This is why research is embedded into initial teacher education. As research becomes embedded in your practice you can gain a range of benefits. Research can:

• clarify purposes, processes and priorities when introducing change – for example, to  curriculum, pedagogy or assessment  
• develop your agency, influence, self-efficacy and voice within your own school and  more widely within the profession.

Each of these can involve investigation using evidence from your own setting, along with wider research evidence. 

• Site search

CBT Supervision

The ABC of CBT

CBT for Beginners

CBT Values and Ethics

Reflection in CBT

CBT for Older People

Overcoming Obstacles in CBT

The CBT Handbook

CBT for Personality Disorders

CBMCS Multicultural Training Program

CBMCS Multicultural Reader

An Introduction to CBT Research

CBT for Common Trauma Responses

Person-centred Therapy and CBT

Low-intensity CBT Skills and Interventions

CBT for Depression: An Integrated Approach

CBT with Children, Young People and Families

CBT for Worry and Generalised Anxiety Disorder

Action Research

Product Type plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

• Textbook (33) Apply Textbook filter
• Journal (13) Apply Journal filter
• Academic Book (5) Apply Academic Book filter
• Professional Book (4) Apply Professional Book filter
• Reference Book (4) Apply Reference Book filter

Disciplines plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

• Education (31) Apply Education filter
• Counselling and Psychotherapy (General) (19) Apply Counselling and Psychotherapy (General) filter
• Research Methods & Evaluation (General) (18) Apply Research Methods & Evaluation (General) filter
• Nursing (7) Apply Nursing filter
• Public Health (4) Apply Public Health filter
• Psychology (General) (3) Apply Psychology (General) filter
• Social Work & Social Policy (General) (3) Apply Social Work & Social Policy (General) filter
• Clinical Medicine (3) Apply Clinical Medicine filter
• Anthropology & Archaeology (General) (1) Apply Anthropology & Archaeology (General) filter
• Arts & Humanities (General) (1) Apply Arts & Humanities (General) filter
• History (General) (1) Apply History (General) filter
• Business & Management (General) (1) Apply Business & Management (General) filter
• Communication and Media Studies (General) (1) Apply Communication and Media Studies (General) filter
• Cultural Studies (General) (1) Apply Cultural Studies (General) filter
• Economics & Development Studies (General) (1) Apply Economics & Development Studies (General) filter
• Life & Biomedical Sciences (1) Apply Life & Biomedical Sciences filter
• Politics & International Relations (1) Apply Politics & International Relations filter
• Study Skills (General) (1) Apply Study Skills (General) filter
• Other Health Specialties (1) Apply Other Health Specialties filter

Status plus Created with Sketch. minus Created with Sketch.

• Published (44) Apply Published filter
• Forthcoming (2) Apply Forthcoming filter

• Copy/Paste Link Link Copied

Using Research and Reason in Education: How Teachers Can Use Scientifically Based Research to Make Curricular & Instructional Decisions

Paula J. Stanovich and Keith E. Stanovich University of Toronto

Produced by RMC Research Corporation, Portsmouth, New Hampshire

This publication was produced under National Institute for Literacy Contract No. ED-00CO-0093 with RMC Research Corporation. Sandra Baxter served as the contracting officer's technical representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the policies of the National Institute for Literacy. No official endorsement by the National Institute for Literacy or any product, commodity, service, or enterprise is intended or should be inferred.

The National Institute for Literacy

Sandra Baxter, Interim Executive Director Lynn Reddy, Communications Director

To order copies of this booklet, contact the National Institute for Literacy at EdPubs, PO Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Call 800-228-8813 or email [email protected] .

The National Institute for Literacy, an independent federal organization, supports the development of high quality state, regional, and national literacy services so that all Americans can develop the literacy skills they need to succeed at work, at home, and in the community.

The Partnership for Reading, a project administered by the National Institute for Literacy, is a collaborative effort of the National Institute for Literacy, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to make evidence-based reading research available to educators, parents, policy makers, and others with an interest in helping all people learn to read well.

Editorial support provided by C. Ralph Adler and Elizabeth Goldman, and design/production support provided by Diane Draper and Bob Kozman, all of RMC Research Corporation.

Introduction

In the recent move toward standards-based reform in public education, many educational reform efforts require schools to demonstrate that they are achieving educational outcomes with students performing at a required level of achievement. Federal and state legislation, in particular, has codified this standards-based movement and tied funding and other incentives to student achievement.

At first, demonstrating student learning may seem like a simple task, but reflection reveals that it is a complex challenge requiring educators to use specific knowledge and skills. Standards-based reform has many curricular and instructional prerequisites. The curriculum must represent the most important knowledge, skills, and attributes that schools want their students to acquire because these learning outcomes will serve as the basis of assessment instruments. Likewise, instructional methods should be appropriate for the designed curriculum. Teaching methods should lead to students learning the outcomes that are the focus of the assessment standards.

Standards- and assessment-based educational reforms seek to obligate schools and teachers to supply evidence that their instructional methods are effective. But testing is only one of three ways to gather evidence about the effectiveness of instructional methods. Evidence of instructional effectiveness can come from any of the following sources:

• Demonstrated student achievement in formal testing situations implemented by the teacher, school district, or state;
• Published findings of research-based evidence that the instructional methods being used by teachers lead to student achievement; or
• Proof of reason-based practice that converges with a research-based consensus in the scientific literature. This type of justification of educational practice becomes important when direct evidence may be lacking (a direct test of the instructional efficacy of a particular method is absent), but there is a theoretical link to research-based evidence that can be traced.

Each of these methods has its pluses and minuses. While testing seems the most straightforward, it is not necessarily the clear indicator of good educational practice that the public seems to think it is. The meaning of test results is often not immediately clear. For example, comparing averages or other indicators of overall performance from tests across classrooms, schools, or school districts takes no account of the resources and support provided to a school, school district, or individual professional. Poor outcomes do not necessarily indict the efforts of physicians in Third World countries who work with substandard equipment and supplies. Likewise, objective evidence of below-grade or below-standard mean performance of a group of students should not necessarily indict their teachers if essential resources and supports (e.g., curriculum materials, institutional aid, parental cooperation) to support teaching efforts were lacking. However, the extent to which children could learn effectively even in under-equipped schools is not known because evidence-based practices are, by and large, not implemented. That is, there is evidence that children experiencing academic difficulties can achieve more educationally if they are taught with effective methods; sadly, scientific research about what works does not usually find its way into most classrooms.

Testing provides a useful professional calibrator, but it requires great contextual sensitivity in interpretation. It is not the entire solution for assessing the quality of instructional efforts. This is why research-based and reason-based educational practice are also crucial for determining the quality and impact of programs. Teachers thus have the responsibility to be effective users and interpreters of research. Providing a survey and synthesis of the most effective practices for a variety of key curriculum goals (such as literacy and numeracy) would seem to be a helpful idea, but no document could provide all of that information. (Many excellent research syntheses exist, such as the National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Swanson, 1999, but the knowledge base about effective educational practices is constantly being updated, and many issues remain to be settled.)

As professionals, teachers can become more effective and powerful by developing the skills to recognize scientifically based practice and, when the evidence is not available, use some basic research concepts to draw conclusions on their own. This paper offers a primer for those skills that will allow teachers to become independent evaluators of educational research.

The Formal Scientific Method and Scientific Thinking in Educational Practice

When you go to your family physician with a medical complaint, you expect that the recommended treatment has proven to be effective with many other patients who have had the same symptoms. You may even ask why a particular medication is being recommended for you. The doctor may summarize the background knowledge that led to that recommendation and very likely will cite summary evidence from the drug's many clinical trials and perhaps even give you an overview of the theory behind the drug's success in treating symptoms like yours.

All of this discussion will probably occur in rather simple terms, but that does not obscure the fact that the doctor has provided you with data to support a theory about your complaint and its treatment. The doctor has shared knowledge of medical science with you. And while everyone would agree that the practice of medicine has its "artful" components (for example, the creation of a healing relationship between doctor and patient), we have come to expect and depend upon the scientific foundation that underpins even the artful aspects of medical treatment. Even when we do not ask our doctors specifically for the data, we assume it is there, supporting our course of treatment.

Actually, Vaughn and Dammann (2001) have argued that the correct analogy is to say that teaching is in part a craft, rather than an art. They point out that craft knowledge is superior to alternative forms of knowledge such as superstition and folklore because, among other things, craft knowledge is compatible with scientific knowledge and can be more easily integrated with it. One could argue that in this age of education reform and accountability, educators are being asked to demonstrate that their craft has been integrated with science--that their instructional models, methods, and materials can be likened to the evidence a physician should be able to produce showing that a specific treatment will be effective. As with medicine, constructing teaching practice on a firm scientific foundation does not mean denying the craft aspects of teaching.

Architecture is another professional practice that, like medicine and education, grew from being purely a craft to a craft based firmly on a scientific foundation. Architects wish to design beautiful buildings and environments, but they must also apply many foundational principles of engineering and adhere to structural principles. If they do not, their buildings, however beautiful they may be, will not stand. Similarly, a teacher seeks to design lessons that stimulate students and entice them to learn--lessons that are sometimes a beauty to behold. But if the lessons are not based in the science of pedagogy, they, like poorly constructed buildings, will fail.

Education is informed by formal scientific research through the use of archival research-based knowledge such as that found in peer-reviewed educational journals. Preservice teachers are first exposed to the formal scientific research in their university teacher preparation courses (it is hoped), through the instruction received from their professors, and in their course readings (e.g., textbooks, journal articles). Practicing teachers continue their exposure to the results of formal scientific research by subscribing to and reading professional journals, by enrolling in graduate programs, and by becoming lifelong learners.

Scientific thinking in practice is what characterizes reflective teachers--those who inquire into their own practice and who examine their own classrooms to find out what works best for them and their students. What follows in this document is, first, a "short course" on how to become an effective consumer of the archival literature that results from the conduct of formal scientific research in education and, second, a section describing how teachers can think scientifically in their ongoing reflection about their classroom practice.

Being able to access mechanisms that evaluate claims about teaching methods and to recognize scientific research and its findings is especially important for teachers because they are often confronted with the view that "anything goes" in the field of education--that there is no such thing as best practice in education, that there are no ways to verify what works best, that teachers should base their practice on intuition, or that the latest fad must be the best way to teach, please a principal, or address local school reform. The "anything goes" mentality actually represents a threat to teachers' professional autonomy. It provides a fertile environment for gurus to sell untested educational "remedies" that are not supported by an established research base.

Teachers as independent evaluators of research evidence

One factor that has impeded teachers from being active and effective consumers of educational science has been a lack of orientation and training in how to understand the scientific process and how that process results in the cumulative growth of knowledge that leads to validated educational practice. Educators have only recently attempted to resolve educational disputes scientifically, and teachers have not yet been armed with the skills to evaluate disputes on their own.

Educational practice has suffered greatly because its dominant model for resolving or adjudicating disputes has been more political (with its corresponding factions and interest groups) than scientific. The field's failure to ground practice in the attitudes and values of science has made educators susceptible to the "authority syndrome" as well as fads and gimmicks that ignore evidence-based practice.

When our ancestors needed information about how to act, they would ask their elders and other wise people. Contemporary society and culture are much more complex. Mass communication allows virtually anyone (on the Internet, through self-help books) to proffer advice, to appear to be a "wise elder." The current problem is how to sift through the avalanche of misguided and uninformed advice to find genuine knowledge. Our problem is not information; we have tons of information. What we need are quality control mechanisms.

Peer-reviewed research journals in various disciplines provide those mechanisms. However, even with mechanisms like these in behavioral science and education, it is all too easy to do an "end run" around the quality control they provide. Powerful information dissemination outlets such as publishing houses and mass media frequently do not discriminate between good and bad information. This provides a fertile environment for gurus to sell untested educational "remedies" that are not supported by an established research base and, often, to discredit science, scientific evidence, and the notion of research-based best practice in education. As Gersten (2001) notes, both seasoned and novice teachers are "deluged with misinformation" (p. 45).

We need tools for evaluating the credibility of these many and varied sources of information; the ability to recognize research-based conclusions is especially important. Acquiring those tools means understanding scientific values and learning methods for making inferences from the research evidence that arises through the scientific process. These values and methods were recently summarized by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences convened on scientific inquiry in education (Shavelson & Towne, 2002), and our discussion here will be completely consistent with the conclusions of that NAS panel.

The scientific criteria for evaluating knowledge claims are not complicated and could easily be included in initial teacher preparation programs, but they usually are not (which deprives teachers from an opportunity to become more efficient and autonomous in their work right at the beginning of their careers). These criteria include:

• the publication of findings in refereed journals (scientific publications that employ a process of peer review),
• the duplication of the results by other investigators, and
• a consensus within a particular research community on whether there is a critical mass of studies that point toward a particular conclusion.

In their discussion of the evolution of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference and the importance of separating research evidence from opinion when making decisions about instructional practice, Levin and O'Donnell (2000) highlight the importance of enabling teachers to become independent evaluators of research evidence. Being aware of the importance of research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals is only the first step because this represents only the most minimal of criteria. Following is a review of some of the principles of research-based evaluation that teachers will find useful in their work.

Publicly verifiable research conclusions: Replication and Peer Review

Source credibility: the consumer protection of peer reviewed journals..

The front line of defense for teachers against incorrect information in education is the existence of peer-reviewed journals in education, psychology, and other related social sciences. These journals publish empirical research on topics relevant to classroom practice and human cognition and learning. They are the first place that teachers should look for evidence of validated instructional practices.

As a general quality control mechanism, peer review journals provide a "first pass" filter that teachers can use to evaluate the plausibility of educational claims. To put it more concretely, one ironclad criterion that will always work for teachers when presented with claims of uncertain validity is the question: Have findings supporting this method been published in recognized scientific journals that use some type of peer review procedure? The answer to this question will almost always separate pseudoscientific claims from the real thing.

In a peer review, authors submit a paper to a journal for publication, where it is critiqued by several scientists. The critiques are reviewed by an editor (usually a scientist with an extensive history of work in the specialty area covered by the journal). The editor then decides whether the weight of opinion warrants immediate publication, publication after further experimentation and statistical analysis, or rejection because the research is flawed or does not add to the knowledge base. Most journals carry a statement of editorial policy outlining their exact procedures for publication, so it is easy to check whether a journal is in fact, peer-reviewed.

Peer review is a minimal criterion, not a stringent one. Not all information in peer-reviewed scientific journals is necessarily correct, but it has at the very least undergone a cycle of peer criticism and scrutiny. However, it is because the presence of peer-reviewed research is such a minimal criterion that its absence becomes so diagnostic. The failure of an idea, a theory, an educational practice, behavioral therapy, or a remediation technique to have adequate documentation in the peer-reviewed literature of a scientific discipline is a very strong indication to be wary of the practice.

The mechanisms of peer review vary somewhat from discipline to discipline, but the underlying rationale is the same. Peer review is one way (replication of a research finding is another) that science institutionalizes the attitudes of objectivity and public criticism. Ideas and experimentation undergo a honing process in which they are submitted to other critical minds for evaluation. Ideas that survive this critical process have begun to meet the criterion of public verifiability. The peer review process is far from perfect, but it really is the only external consumer protection that teachers have.

The history of reading instruction illustrates the high cost that is paid when the peer-reviewed literature is ignored, when the normal processes of scientific adjudication are replaced with political debates and rhetorical posturing. A vast literature has been generated on best practices that foster children's reading acquisition (Adams, 1990; Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; Chard & Osborn, 1999; Cunningham & Allington, 1994; Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001; Moats, 1999; National Reading Panel, 2000; Pearson, 1993; Pressley, 1998; Pressley, Rankin, & Yokol, 1996; Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2002; Reading Coherence Initiative, 1999; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 2001). Yet much of this literature remains unknown to many teachers, contributing to the frustrating lack of clarity about accepted, scientifically validated findings and conclusions on reading acquisition.

Teachers should also be forewarned about the difference between professional education journals that are magazines of opinion in contrast to journals where primary reports of research, or reviews of research, are peer reviewed. For example, the magazines Phi Delta Kappan and Educational Leadership both contain stimulating discussions of educational issues, but neither is a peer-reviewed journal of original research. In contrast, the American Educational Research Journal (a flagship journal of the AERA) and the Journal of Educational Psychology (a flagship journal of the American Psychological Association) are both peer-reviewed journals of original research. Both are main sources for evidence on validated techniques of reading instruction and for research on aspects of the reading process that are relevant to a teacher's instructional decisions.

This is true, too, of presentations at conferences of educational organizations. Some are data-based presentations of original research. Others are speeches reflecting personal opinion about educational problems. While these talks can be stimulating and informative, they are not a substitute for empirical research on educational effectiveness.

Replication and the importance of public verifiability.

Research-based conclusions about educational practice are public in an important sense: they do not exist solely in the mind of a particular individual but have been submitted to the scientific community for criticism and empirical testing by others. Knowledge considered "special"--the province of the thought of an individual and immune from scrutiny and criticism by others--can never have the status of scientific knowledge. Research-based conclusions, when published in a peer reviewed journal, become part of the public realm, available to all, in a way that claims of "special expertise" are not.

Replication is the second way that science uses to make research-based conclusions concrete and "public." In order to be considered scientific, a research finding must be presented to other researchers in the scientific community in a way that enables them to attempt the same experiment and obtain the same results. When the same results occur, the finding has been replicated . This process ensures that a finding is not the result of the errors or biases of a particular investigator. Replicable findings become part of the converging evidence that forms the basis of a research-based conclusion about educational practice.

John Donne told us that "no man is an island." Similarly, in science, no researcher is an island. Each investigator is connected to the research community and its knowledge base. This interconnection enables science to grow cumulatively and for research-based educational practice to be built on a convergence of knowledge from a variety of sources. Researchers constantly build on previous knowledge in order to go beyond what is currently known. This process is possible only if research findings are presented in such a way that any investigator can use them to build on.

Philosopher Daniel Dennett (1995) has said that science is "making mistakes in public. Making mistakes for all to see, in the hopes of getting the others to help with the corrections" (p. 380). We might ask those proposing an educational innovation for the evidence that they have in fact "made some mistakes in public." Legitimate scientific disciplines can easily provide such evidence. For example, scientists studying the psychology of reading once thought that reading difficulties were caused by faulty eye movements. This hypothesis has been shown to be in error, as has another that followed it, that so-called visual reversal errors were a major cause of reading difficulty. Both hypotheses were found not to square with the empirical evidence (Rayner, 1998; Share & Stanovich, 1995). The hypothesis that reading difficulties can be related to language difficulties at the phonological level has received much more support (Liberman, 1999; National Reading Panel, 2000; Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2002; Shankweiler, 1999; Stanovich, 2000).

After making a few such "errors" in public, reading scientists have begun, in the last 20 years, to get it right. But the only reason teachers can have confidence that researchers are now "getting it right" is that researchers made it open, public knowledge when they got things wrong. Proponents of untested and pseudoscientific educational practices will never point to cases where they "got it wrong" because they are not committed to public knowledge in the way that actual science is. These proponents do not need, as Dennett says, "to get others to help in making the corrections" because they have no intention of correcting their beliefs and prescriptions based on empirical evidence.

Education is so susceptible to fads and unproven practices because of its tacit endorsement of a personalistic view of knowledge acquisition--one that is antithetical to the scientific value of the public verifiability of knowledge claims. Many educators believe that knowledge resides within particular individuals--with particularly elite insights--who then must be called upon to dispense this knowledge to others. Indeed, some educators reject public, depersonalized knowledge in social science because they believe it dehumanizes people. Science, however, with its conception of publicly verifiable knowledge, actually democratizes knowledge. It frees practitioners and researchers from slavish dependence on authority.

Subjective, personalized views of knowledge degrade the human intellect by creating conditions that subjugate it to an elite whose "personal" knowledge is not accessible to all (Bronowski, 1956, 1977; Dawkins, 1998; Gross, Levitt, & Lewis, 1997; Medawar, 1982, 1984, 1990; Popper, 1972; Wilson, 1998). Empirical science, by generating knowledge and moving it into the public domain, is a liberating force. Teachers can consult the research and decide for themselves whether the state of the literature is as the expert portrays it. All teachers can benefit from some rudimentary grounding in the most fundamental principles of scientific inference. With knowledge of a few uncomplicated research principles, such as control, manipulation, and randomization, anyone can enter the open, public discourse about empirical findings. In fact, with the exception of a few select areas such as the eye movement research mentioned previously, much of the work described in noted summaries of reading research (e.g., Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) could easily be replicated by teachers themselves.

There are many ways that the criteria of replication and peer review can be utilized in education to base practitioner training on research-based best practice. Take continuing teacher education in the form of inservice sessions, for example. Teachers and principals who select speakers for professional development activities should ask speakers for the sources of their conclusions in the form of research evidence in peer-reviewed journals. They should ask speakers for bibliographies of the research evidence published on the practices recommended in their presentations.

The science behind research-based practice relies on systematic empiricism

Empiricism is the practice of relying on observation. Scientists find out about the world by examining it. The refusal by some scientists to look into Galileo's telescope is an example of how empiricism has been ignored at certain points in history. It was long believed that knowledge was best obtained through pure thought or by appealing to authority. Galileo claimed to have seen moons around the planet Jupiter. Another scholar, Francesco Sizi, attempted to refute Galileo, not with observations, but with the following argument:

There are seven windows in the head, two nostrils, two ears, two eyes and a mouth; so in the heavens there are two favorable stars, two unpropitious, two luminaries, and Mercury alone undecided and indifferent. From which and many other similar phenomena of nature such as the seven metals, etc., which it were tedious to enumerate, we gather that the number of planets is necessarily seven...ancient nations, as well as modern Europeans, have adopted the division of the week into seven days, and have named them from the seven planets; now if we increase the number of planets, this whole system falls to the ground...moreover, the satellites are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth and therefore would be useless and therefore do not exist. (Holton & Roller, 1958, p. 160)

Three centuries of the demonstrated power of the empirical approach give us an edge on poor Sizi. Take away those years of empiricism, and many of us might have been there nodding our heads and urging him on. In fact, the empirical approach is not necessarily obvious, which is why we often have to teach it, even in a society that is dominated by science.

Empiricism pure and simple is not enough, however. Observation itself is fine and necessary, but pure, unstructured observation of the natural world will not lead to scientific knowledge. Write down every observation you make from the time you get up in the morning to the time you go to bed on a given day. When you finish, you will have a great number of facts, but you will not have a greater understanding of the world. Scientific observation is termed systematic because it is structured so that the results of the observation reveal something about the underlying causal structure of events in the world. Observations are structured so that, depending upon the outcome of the observation, some theories of the causes of the outcome are supported and others rejected.

Teachers can benefit by understanding two things about research and causal inferences. The first is the simple (but sometimes obscured) fact that statements about best instructional practices are statements that contain a causal claim. These statements claim that one type of method or practice causes superior educational outcomes. Second, teachers must understand how the logic of the experimental method provides the critical support for making causal inferences.

Science addresses testable questions

Science advances by positing theories to account for particular phenomena in the world, by deriving predictions from these theories, by testing the predictions empirically, and by modifying the theories based on the tests (the sequence is typically theory -> prediction -> test -> theory modification). What makes a theory testable? A theory must have specific implications for observable events in the natural world.

Science deals only with a certain class of problem: the kind that is empirically solvable. That does not mean that different classes of problems are inherently solvable or unsolvable and that this division is fixed forever. Quite the contrary: some problems that are currently unsolvable may become solvable as theory and empirical techniques become more sophisticated. For example, decades ago historians would not have believed that the controversial issue of whether Thomas Jefferson had a child with his slave Sally Hemings was an empirically solvable question. Yet, by 1998, this problem had become solvable through advances in genetic technology, and a paper was published in the journal Nature (Foster, Jobling, Taylor, Donnelly, Deknijeff, Renemieremet, Zerjal, & Tyler-Smith, 1998) on the question.

The criterion of whether a problem is "testable" is called the falsifiability criterion: a scientific theory must always be stated in such a way that the predictions derived from it can potentially be shown to be false. The falsifiability criterion states that, for a theory to be useful, the predictions drawn from it must be specific. The theory must go out on a limb, so to speak, because in telling us what should happen, the theory must also imply that certain things will not happen. If these latter things do happen, it is a clear signal that something is wrong with the theory. It may need to be modified, or we may need to look for an entirely new theory. Either way, we will end up with a theory that is closer to the truth.

In contrast, if a theory does not rule out any possible observations, then the theory can never be changed, and we are frozen into our current way of thinking with no possibility of progress. A successful theory cannot posit or account for every possible happening. Such a theory robs itself of any predictive power.

What we are talking about here is a certain type of intellectual honesty. In science, the proponent of a theory is always asked to address this question before the data are collected: "What data pattern would cause you to give up, or at least to alter, this theory?" In the same way, the falsifiability criterion is a useful consumer protection for the teacher when evaluating claims of educational effectiveness. Proponents of an educational practice should be asked for evidence; they should also be willing to admit that contrary data will lead them to abandon the practice. True scientific knowledge is held tentatively and is subject to change based on contrary evidence. Educational remedies not based on scientific evidence will often fail to put themselves at risk by specifying what data patterns would prove them false.

Objectivity and intellectual honesty

Objectivity, another form of intellectual honesty in research, means that we let nature "speak for itself" without imposing our wishes on it--that we report the results of experimentation as accurately as we can and that we interpret them as fairly as possible. (The fact that this goal is unattainable for any single human being should not dissuade us from holding objectivity as a value.)

In the language of the general public, open-mindedness means being open to possible theories and explanations for a particular phenomenon. But in science it means that and something more. Philosopher Jonathan Adler (1998) teaches us that science values another aspect of open-mindedness even more highly: "What truly marks an open-minded person is the willingness to follow where evidence leads. The open-minded person is willing to defer to impartial investigations rather than to his own predilections...Scientific method is attunement to the world, not to ourselves" (p. 44).

Objectivity is critical to the process of science, but it does not mean that such attitudes must characterize each and every scientist for science as a whole to work. Jacob Bronowski (1973, 1977) often argued that the unique power of science to reveal knowledge about the world does not arise because scientists are uniquely virtuous (that they are completely objective or that they are never biased in interpreting findings, for example). It arises because fallible scientists are immersed in a process of checks and balances --a process in which scientists are always there to criticize and to root out errors. Philosopher Daniel Dennett (1999/2000) points out that "scientists take themselves to be just as weak and fallible as anybody else, but recognizing those very sources of error in themselvesÉthey have devised elaborate systems to tie their own hands, forcibly preventing their frailties and prejudices from infecting their results" (p. 42). More humorously, psychologist Ray Nickerson (1998) makes the related point that the vanities of scientists are actually put to use by the scientific process, by noting that it is "not so much the critical attitude that individual scientists have taken with respect to their own ideas that has given science its success...but more the fact that individual scientists have been highly motivated to demonstrate that hypotheses that are held by some other scientists are false" (p. 32). These authors suggest that the strength of scientific knowledge comes not because scientists are virtuous, but from the social process where scientists constantly cross-check each others' knowledge and conclusions.

The public criteria of peer review and replication of findings exist in part to keep checks on the objectivity of individual scientists. Individuals cannot hide bias and nonobjectivity by personalizing their claims and keeping them from public scrutiny. Science does not accept findings that have failed the tests of replication and peer review precisely because it wants to ensure that all findings in science are in the public domain, as defined above. Purveyors of pseudoscientific educational practices fail the test of objectivity and are often identifiable by their attempts to do an "end run" around the public mechanisms of science by avoiding established peer review mechanisms and the information-sharing mechanisms that make replication possible. Instead, they attempt to promulgate their findings directly to consumers, such as teachers.

The principle of converging evidence

The principle of converging evidence has been well illustrated in the controversies surrounding the teaching of reading. The methods of systematic empiricism employed in the study of reading acquisition are many and varied. They include case studies, correlational studies, experimental studies, narratives, quasi-experimental studies, surveys, epidemiological studies and many others. The results of many of these studies have been synthesized in several important research syntheses (Adams, 1990; Ehri et al., 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000; Pressley, 1998; Rayner et al., 2002; Reading Coherence Initiative, 1999; Share & Stanovich, 1995; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Snowling, 2000; Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 2001; Stanovich, 2000). These studies were used in a process of establishing converging evidence, a principle that governs the drawing of the conclusion that a particular educational practice is research-based.

The principle of converging evidence is applied in situations requiring a judgment about where the "preponderance of evidence" points. Most areas of science contain competing theories. The extent to which a particular study can be seen as uniquely supporting one particular theory depends on whether other competing explanations have been ruled out. A particular experimental result is never equally relevant to all competing theories. An experiment may be a very strong test of one or two alternative theories but a weak test of others. Thus, research is considered highly convergent when a series of experiments consistently supports a given theory while collectively eliminating the most important competing explanations. Although no single experiment can rule out all alternative explanations, taken collectively, a series of partially diagnostic experiments can lead to a strong conclusion if the data converge.

Contrast this idea of converging evidence with the mistaken view that a problem in science can be solved with a single, crucial experiment, or that a single critical insight can advance theory and overturn all previous knowledge. This view of scientific progress fits nicely with the operation of the news media, in which history is tracked by presenting separate, disconnected "events" in bite-sized units. This is a gross misunderstanding of scientific progress and, if taken too seriously, leads to misconceptions about how conclusions are reached about research-based practices.

One experiment rarely decides an issue, supporting one theory and ruling out all others. Issues are most often decided when the community of scientists gradually begins to agree that the preponderance of evidence supports one alternative theory rather than another. Scientists do not evaluate data from a single experiment that has finally been designed in the perfect way. They most often evaluate data from dozens of experiments, each containing some flaws but providing part of the answer.

Although there are many ways in which an experiment can go wrong (or become confounded ), a scientist with experience working on a particular problem usually has a good idea of what most of the critical factors are, and there are usually only a few. The idea of converging evidence tells us to examine the pattern of flaws running through the research literature because the nature of this pattern can either support or undermine the conclusions that we might draw.

For example, suppose that the findings from a number of different experiments were largely consistent in supporting a particular conclusion. Given the imperfect nature of experiments, we would evaluate the extent and nature of the flaws in these studies. If all the experiments were flawed in a similar way, this circumstance would undermine confidence in the conclusions drawn from them because the consistency of the outcome may simply have resulted from a particular, consistent flaw. On the other hand, if all the experiments were flawed in different ways, our confidence in the conclusions increases because it is less likely that the consistency in the results was due to a contaminating factor that confounded all the experiments. As Anderson and Anderson (1996) note, "When a conceptual hypothesis survives many potential falsifications based on different sets of assumptions, we have a robust effect." (p. 742).

Suppose that five different theoretical summaries (call them A, B, C, D, and E) of a given set of phenomena exist at one time and are investigated in a series of experiments. Suppose that one set of experiments represents a strong test of theories A, B, and C, and that the data largely refute theories A and B and support C. Imagine also that another set of experiments is a particularly strong test of theories C, D, and E, and that the data largely refute theories D and E and support C. In such a situation, we would have strong converging evidence for theory C. Not only do we have data supportive of theory C, but we have data that contradict its major competitors. Note that no one experiment tests all the theories, but taken together, the entire set of experiments allows a strong inference.

In contrast, if the two sets of experiments each represent strong tests of B, C, and E, and the data strongly support C and refute B and E, the overall support for theory C would be less strong than in our previous example. The reason is that, although data supporting theory C have been generated, there is no strong evidence ruling out two viable alternative theories (A and D). Thus research is highly convergent when a series of experiments consistently supports a given theory while collectively eliminating the most important competing explanations. Although no single experiment can rule out all alternative explanations, taken collectively, a series of partially diagnostic experiments can lead to a strong conclusion if the data converge in the manner of our first example.

Increasingly, the combining of evidence from disparate studies to form a conclusion is being done more formally by the use of the statistical technique termed meta-analysis (Cooper & Hedges, 1994; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Hunter & Schmidt, 1990; Rosenthal, 1995; Schmidt, 1992; Swanson, 1999) which has been used extensively to establish whether various medical practices are research based. In a medical context, meta-analysis:

involves adding together the data from many clinical trials to create a single pool of data big enough to eliminate much of the statistical uncertainty that plagues individual trials...The great virtue of meta-analysis is that clear findings can emerge from a group of studies whose findings are scattered all over the map. (Plotkin,1996, p. 70)

The use of meta-analysis for determining the research validation of educational practices is just the same as in medicine. The effects obtained when one practice is compared against another are expressed in a common statistical metric that allows comparison of effects across studies. The findings are then statistically amalgamated in some standard ways (Cooper & Hedges, 1994; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Swanson, 1999) and a conclusion about differential efficacy is reached if the amalgamation process passes certain statistical criteria. In some cases, of course, no conclusion can be drawn with confidence, and the result of the meta-analysis is inconclusive.

More and more commentators on the educational research literature are calling for a greater emphasis on meta-analysis as a way of dampening the contentious disputes about conflicting studies that plague education and other behavioral sciences (Kavale & Forness, 1995; Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1989; Schmidt, 1996; Stanovich, 2001; Swanson, 1999). The method is useful for ending disputes that seem to be nothing more than a "he-said, she-said" debate. An emphasis on meta-analysis has often revealed that we actually have more stable and useful findings than is apparent from a perusal of the conflicts in our journals.

The National Reading Panel (2000) found just this in their meta-analysis of the evidence surrounding several issues in reading education. For example, they concluded that the results of a meta-analysis of the results of 66 comparisons from 38 different studies indicated "solid support for the conclusion that systematic phonics instruction makes a bigger contribution to children's growth in reading than alternative programs providing unsystematic or no phonics instruction" (p. 2-84). In another section of their report, the National Reading Panel reported that a meta-analysis of 52 studies of phonemic awareness training indicated that "teaching children to manipulate the sounds in language helps them learn to read. Across the various conditions of teaching, testing, and participant characteristics, the effect sizes were all significantly greater than chance and ranged from large to small, with the majority in the moderate range. Effects of phonemic awareness training on reading lasted well beyond the end of training" (p. 2-5).

A statement by a task force of the American Psychological Association (Wilkinson, 1999) on statistical methods in psychology journals provides an apt summary for this section. The task force stated that investigators should not "interpret a single study's results as having importance independent of the effects reported elsewhere in the relevant literature" (p. 602). Science progresses by convergence upon conclusions. The outcomes of one study can only be interpreted in the context of the present state of the convergence on the particular issue in question.

The logic of the experimental method

Scientific thinking is based on the ideas of comparison, control, and manipulation . In a true experimental study, these characteristics of scientific investigation must be arranged to work in concert.

Comparison alone is not enough to justify a causal inference. In methodology texts, correlational investigations (which involve comparison only) are distinguished from true experimental investigations that warrant much stronger causal inferences because they involve comparison, control, and manipulation. The mere existence of a relationship between two variables does not guarantee that changes in one are causing changes in the other. Correlation does not imply causation.

There are two potential problems with drawing causal inferences from correlational evidence. The first is called the third-variable problem. It occurs when the correlation between the two variables does not indicate a direct causal path between them but arises because both variables are related to a third variable that has not even been measured.

The second reason is called the directionality problem. It creates potential interpretive difficulties because even if two variables have a direct causal relationship, the direction of that relationship is not indicated by the mere presence of the correlation. In short, a correlation between variables A and B could arise because changes in A are causing changes in B or because changes in B are causing changes in A. The mere presence of the correlation does not allow us to decide between these two possibilities.

The heart of the experimental method lies in manipulation and control. In contrast to a correlational study, where the investigator simply observes whether the natural fluctuation in two variables displays a relationship, the investigator in a true experiment manipulates the variable thought to be the cause (the independent variable) and looks for an effect on the variable thought to be the effect (the dependent variable ) while holding all other variables constant by control and randomization. This method removes the third-variable problem because, in the natural world, many different things are related. The experimental method may be viewed as a way of prying apart these naturally occurring relationships. It does so because it isolates one particular variable (the hypothesized cause) by manipulating it and holding everything else constant (control).

When manipulation is combined with a procedure known as random assignment (in which the subjects themselves do not determine which experimental condition they will be in but, instead, are randomly assigned to one of the experimental groups), scientists can rule out alternative explanations of data patterns. By using manipulation, experimental control, and random assignment, investigators construct stronger comparisons so that the outcome eliminates alternative theories and explanations.

The need for both correlational methods and true experiments

As strong as they are methodologically, studies employing true experimental logic are not the only type that can be used to draw conclusions. Correlational studies have value. The results from many different types of investigation, including correlational studies, can be amalgamated to derive a general conclusion. The basis for conclusion rests on the convergence observed from the variety of methods used. This is most certainly true in classroom and curriculum research. It is necessary to amalgamate the results from not only experimental investigations, but correlational studies, nonequivalent control group studies, time series designs, and various other quasi-experimental designs and multivariate correlational designs, All have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, it is often (but not always) the case that experimental investigations are high in internal validity, but limited in external validity, whereas correlational studies are often high in external validity, but low in internal validity.

Internal validity concerns whether we can infer a causal effect for a particular variable. The more a study employs the logic of a true experiment (i.e., includes manipulation, control, and randomization), the more we can make a strong causal inference. External validity concerns the generalizability of the conclusion to the population and setting of interest. Internal and external validity are often traded off across different methodologies. Experimental laboratory investigations are high in internal validity but may not fully address concerns about external validity. Field classroom investigations, on the other hand, are often quite high in external validity but because of the logistical difficulties involved in carrying them out, they are often quite low in internal validity. That is why we need to look for a convergence of results, not just consistency from one method. Convergence increases our confidence in the external and internal validity of our conclusions.

Again, this underscores why correlational studies can contribute to knowledge. First, some variables simply cannot be manipulated for ethical reasons (for instance, human malnutrition or physical disabilities). Other variables, such as birth order, sex, and age, are inherently correlational because they cannot be manipulated, and therefore the scientific knowledge concerning them must be based on correlational evidence. Finally, logistical difficulties in classroom and curriculum research often make it impossible to achieve the logic of the true experiment. However, this circumstance is not unique to educational or psychological research. Astronomers obviously cannot manipulate all the variables affecting the objects they study, yet they are able to arrive at conclusions.

Complex correlational techniques are essential in the absence of experimental research because complex correlational statistics such as multiple regression, path analysis, and structural equation modeling that allow for the partial control of third variables when those variables can be measured. These statistics allow us to recalculate the correlation between two variables after the influence of other variables is removed. If a potential third variable can be measured, complex correlational statistics can help us determine whether that third variable is determining the relationship. These correlational statistics and designs help to rule out certain causal hypotheses, even if they cannot demonstrate the true causal relation definitively.

Stages of scientific investigation: The Role of Case Studies and Qualitative Investigations

The educational literature includes many qualitative investigations that focus less on issues of causal explanation and variable control and more on thick description , in the manner of the anthropologist (Geertz, 1973, 1979). The context of a person's behavior is described as much as possible from the standpoint of the participant. Many different fields (e.g., anthropology, psychology, education) contain case studies where the focus is detailed description and contextualization of the situation of a single participant (or very few participants).

The usefulness of case studies and qualitative investigations is strongly determined by how far scientific investigation has advanced in a particular area. The insights gained from case studies or qualitative investigations may be quite useful in the early stages of an investigation of a certain problem. They can help us determine which variables deserve more intense study by drawing attention to heretofore unrecognized aspects of a person's behavior and by suggesting how understanding of behavior might be sharpened by incorporating the participant's perspective.

However, when we move from the early stages of scientific investigation, where case studies may be very useful, to the more mature stages of theory testing--where adjudicating between causal explanations is the main task--the situation changes drastically. Case studies and qualitative description are not useful at the later stages of scientific investigation because they cannot be used to confirm or disconfirm a particular causal theory. They lack the comparative information necessary to rule out alternative explanations.

Where qualitative investigations are useful relates strongly to a distinction in philosophy of science between the context of discovery and the context of justification . Qualitative research, case studies, and clinical observations support a context of discovery where, as Levin and O'Donnell (2000) note in an educational context, such research must be regarded as "preliminary/exploratory, observational, hypothesis generating" (p. 26). They rightly point to the essential importance of qualitative investigations because "in the early stages of inquiry into a research topic, one has to look before one can leap into designing interventions, making predictions, or testing hypotheses" (p. 26). The orientation provided by qualitative investigations is critical in such cases. Even more important, the results of quantitative investigations--which must sometimes abstract away some of the contextual features of a situation--are often contextualized by the thick situational description provided by qualitative work.

However, in the context of justification, variables must be measured precisely, large groups must be tested to make sure the conclusion generalizes and, most importantly, many variables must be controlled because alternative causal explanations must be ruled out. Gersten (2001) summarizes the value of qualitative research accurately when he says that "despite the rich insights they often provide, descriptive studies cannot be used as evidence for an intervention's efficacy...descriptive research can only suggest innovative strategies to teach students and lay the groundwork for development of such strategies" (p. 47). Qualitative research does, however, help to identify fruitful directions for future experimental studies.

Nevertheless, here is why the sole reliance on qualitative techniques to determine the effectiveness of curricula and instructional strategies has become problematic. As a researcher, you desire to do one of two things.

Objective A

The researcher wishes to make some type of statement about a relationship, however minimal. That is, you at least want to use terms like greater than, or less than, or equal to. You want to say that such and such an educational program or practice is better than another. "Better than" and "worse than" are, of course, quantitative statements--and, in the context of issues about what leads to or fosters greater educational achievement, they are causal statements as well . As quantitative causal statements, the support for such claims obviously must be found in the experimental logic that has been outlined above. To justify such statements, you must adhere to the canons of quantitative research logic.

Objective B

The researcher seeks to adhere to an exclusively qualitative path that abjures statements about relationships and never uses comparative terms of magnitude. The investigator desires to simply engage in thick description of a domain that may well prompt hypotheses when later work moves on to the more quantitative methods that are necessary to justify a causal inference.

Investigators pursuing Objective B are doing essential work. They provide quantitative information with suggestions for richer hypotheses to study. In education, however, investigators sometimes claim to be pursuing Objective B but slide over into Objective A without realizing they have made a crucial switch. They want to make comparative, or quantitative, statements, but have not carried out the proper types of investigation to justify them. They want to say that a certain educational program is better than another (that is, it causes better school outcomes). They want to give educational strictures that are assumed to hold for a population of students, not just to the single or few individuals who were the objects of the qualitative study. They want to condemn an educational practice (and, by inference, deem an alternative quantitatively and causally better). But instead of taking the necessary course of pursuing Objective A, they carry out their investigation in the manner of Objective B.

Let's recall why the use of single case or qualitative description as evidence in support of a particular causal explanation is inappropriate. The idea of alternative explanations is critical to an understanding of theory testing. The goal of experimental design is to structure events so that support of one particular explanation simultaneously disconfirms other explanations. Scientific progress can occur only if the data that are collected rule out some explanations. Science sets up conditions for the natural selection of ideas. Some survive empirical testing and others do not.

This is the honing process by which ideas are sifted so that those that contain the most truth are found. But there must be selection in this process: data collected as support for a particular theory must not leave many other alternative explanations as equally viable candidates. For this reason, scientists construct control or comparison groups in their experimentation. These groups are formed so that, when their results are compared with those from an experimental group, some alternative explanations are ruled out.

Case studies and qualitative description lack the comparative information necessary to prove that a particular theory or educational practice is superior, because they fail to test an alternative; they rule nothing out. Take the seminal work of Jean Piaget for example. His case studies were critical in pointing developmental psychology in new and important directions, but many of his theoretical conclusions and causal explanations did not hold up in controlled experiments (Bjorklund, 1995; Goswami, 1998; Siegler, 1991).

In summary, as educational psychologist Richard Mayer (2000) notes, "the domain of science includes both some quantitative and qualitative methodologies" (p. 39), and the key is to use each where it is most effective (see Kamil, 1995). Likewise, in their recent book on research-based best practices in comprehension instruction, Block and Pressley (2002) argue that future progress in understanding how comprehension works will depend on a healthy interaction between qualitative and quantitative approaches. They point out that getting an initial idea of the comprehension processes involved in hypertext and Web-based environments will involve detailed descriptive studies using think-alouds and assessments of qualitative decision making. Qualitative studies of real reading environments will set the stage for more controlled investigations of causal hypotheses.

The progression to more powerful methods

A final useful concept is the progression to more powerful research methods ("more powerful" in this context meaning more diagnostic of a causal explanation). Research on a particular problem often proceeds from weaker methods (ones less likely to yield a causal explanation) to ones that allow stronger causal inferences. For example, interest in a particular hypothesis may originally emerge from a particular case study of unusual interest. This is the proper role for case studies: to suggest hypotheses for further study with more powerful techniques and to motivate scientists to apply more rigorous methods to a research problem. Thus, following the case studies, researchers often undertake correlational investigations to verify whether the link between variables is real rather than the result of the peculiarities of a few case studies. If the correlational studies support the relationship between relevant variables, then researchers will attempt experiments in which variables are manipulated in order to isolate a causal relationship between the variables.

Summary of principles that support research-based inferences about best practice

Our sketch of the principles that support research-based inferences about best practice in education has revealed that:

• Science progresses by investigating solvable, or testable, empirical problems.
• To be testable, a theory must yield predictions that could possible be shown to be wrong.
• The concepts in the theories in science evolve as evidence accumulates. Scientific knowledge is not infallible knowledge, but knowledge that has at least passed some minimal tests. The theories behind research-based practice can be proven wrong, and therefore they contain a mechanism for growth and advancement.
• Theories are tested by systematic empiricism. The data obtained from empirical research are in the public domain in the sense that they are presented in a manner that allows replication and criticism by other scientists.
• Data and theories in science are considered in the public domain only after publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
• Empiricism is systematic because it strives for the logic of control and manipulation that characterizes a true experiment.
• Correlational techniques are helpful when the logic of an experiment cannot be approximated, but because these techniques only help rule out hypotheses, they are considered weaker than true experimental methods.
• Researchers use many different methods to arrive at their conclusions, and the strengths and weaknesses of these methods vary. Most often, conclusions are drawn only after a slow accumulation of data from many studies.

Scientific thinking in educational practice: Reason-based practice in the absence of direct evidence

Some areas in educational research, to date, lack a research-based consensus, for a number of reasons. Perhaps the problem or issue has not been researched extensively. Perhaps research into the issue is in the early stages of investigation, where descriptive studies are suggesting interesting avenues, but no controlled research justifying a causal inference has been completed. Perhaps many correlational studies and experiments have been conducted on the issue, but the research evidence has not yet converged in a consistent direction.

Even if teachers know the principles of scientific evaluation described earlier, the research literature sometimes fails to give them clear direction. They will have to fall back on their own reasoning processes as informed by their own teaching experiences. In those cases, teachers still have many ways of reasoning scientifically.

Tracing the link from scientific research to scientific thinking in practice

Scientific thinking in can be done in several ways. Earlier we discussed different types of professional publications that teachers can read to improve their practice. The most important defining feature of these outlets is whether they are peer reviewed. Another defining feature is whether the publication contains primary research rather than presenting opinion pieces or essays on educational issues. If a journal presents primary research, we can evaluate the research using the formal scientific principles outlined above.

If the journal is presenting opinion pieces about what constitutes best practice, we need to trace the link between those opinions and archival peer-reviewed research. We would look to see whether the authors have based their opinions on peer-reviewed research by reading the reference list. Do the authors provide a significant amount of original research citations (is their opinion based on more than one study)? Do the authors cite work other than their own (have the results been replicated)? Are the cited journals peer-reviewed? For example, in the case of best practice for reading instruction, if we came across an article in an opinion-oriented journal such as Intervention in School and Clinic, we might look to see if the authors have cited work that has appeared in such peer-reviewed journals as Journal of Educational Psychology , Elementary School Journal , Journal of Literacy Research , Scientific Studies of Reading , or the Journal of Learning Disabilities .

These same evaluative criteria can be applied to presenters at professional development workshops or papers given at conferences. Are they conversant with primary research in the area on which they are presenting? Can they provide evidence for their methods and does that evidence represent a scientific consensus? Do they understand what is required to justify causal statements? Are they open to the possibility that their claims could be proven false? What evidence would cause them to shift their thinking?

An important principle of scientific evaluation--the connectivity principle (Stanovich, 2001)--can be generalized to scientific thinking in the classroom. Suppose a teacher comes upon a new teaching method, curriculum component, or process. The method is advertised as totally new, which provides an explanation for the lack of direct empirical evidence for the method. A lack of direct empirical evidence should be grounds for suspicion, but should not immediately rule it out. The principle of connectivity means that the teacher now has another question to ask: "OK, there is no direct evidence for this method, but how is the theory behind it (the causal model of the effects it has) connected to the research consensus in the literature surrounding this curriculum area?" Even in the absence of direct empirical evidence on a particular method or technique, there could be a theoretical link to the consensus in the existing literature that would support the method.

For further tips on translating research into classroom practice, see Warby, Greene, Higgins, & Lovitt (1999). They present a format for selecting, reading, and evaluating research articles, and then importing the knowledge gained into the classroom.

Let's take an imaginary example from the domain of treatments for children with extreme reading difficulties. Imagine two treatments have been introduced to a teacher. No direct empirical tests of efficacy have been carried out using either treatment. The first, Treatment A, is a training program to facilitate the awareness of the segmental nature of language at the phonological level. The second, Treatment B, involves giving children training in vestibular sensitivity by having them walk on balance beams while blindfolded. Treatment A and B are equal in one respect--neither has had a direct empirical test of its efficacy, which reflects badly on both. Nevertheless, one of the treatments has the edge when it comes to the principle of connectivity. Treatment A makes contact with a broad consensus in the research literature that children with extraordinary reading difficulties are hampered because of insufficiently developed awareness of the segmental structure of language. Treatment B is not connected to any corresponding research literature consensus. Reason dictates that Treatment A is a better choice, even though neither has been directly tested.

Direct connections with research-based evidence and use of the connectivity principle when direct empirical evidence is absent give us necessary cross-checks on some of the pitfalls that arise when we rely solely on personal experience. Drawing upon personal experience is necessary and desirable in a veteran teacher, but it is not sufficient for making critical judgments about the effectiveness of an instructional strategy or curriculum. The insufficiency of personal experience becomes clear if we consider that the educational judgments--even of veteran teachers--often are in conflict. That is why we have to adjudicate conflicting knowledge claims using the scientific method.

Let us consider two further examples that demonstrate why we need controlled experimentation to verify even the most seemingly definitive personal observations. In the 1990s, considerable media and professional attention were directed at a method for aiding the communicative capacity of autistic individuals. This method is called facilitated communication. Autistic individuals who had previously been nonverbal were reported to have typed highly literate messages on a keyboard when their hands and arms were supported over the typewriter by a so-called facilitator. These startlingly verbal performances by autistic children who had previously shown very limited linguistic behavior raised incredible hopes among many parents of autistic children.

Unfortunately, claims for the efficacy of facilitated communication were disseminated by many media outlets before any controlled studies had been conducted. Since then, many studies have appeared in journals in speech science, linguistics, and psychology and each study has unequivocally demonstrated the same thing: the autistic child's performance is dependent upon tactile cueing from the facilitator. In the experiments, it was shown that when both child and facilitator were looking at the same drawing, the child typed the correct name of the drawing. When the viewing was occluded so that the child and the facilitator were shown different drawings, the child typed the name of the facilitator's drawing, not the one that the child herself was looking at (Beck & Pirovano, 1996; Burgess, Kirsch, Shane, Niederauer, Graham, & Bacon, 1998; Hudson, Melita, & Arnold, 1993; Jacobson, Mulick, & Schwartz, 1995; Wheeler, Jacobson, Paglieri, & Schwartz, 1993). The experimental studies directly contradicted the extensive case studies of the experiences of the facilitators of the children. These individuals invariably deny that they have inadvertently cued the children. Their personal experience, honest and heartfelt though it is, suggests the wrong model for explaining this outcome. The case study evidence told us something about the social connections between the children and their facilitators. But that is something different than what we got from the controlled experimental studies, which provided direct tests of the claim that the technique unlocks hidden linguistic skills in these children. Even if the claim had turned out to be true, the verification of the proof of its truth would not have come from the case studies or personal experiences, but from the necessary controlled studies.

Another example of the need for controlled experimentation to test the insights gleaned from personal experience is provided by the concept of learning styles--the idea that various modality preferences (or variants of this theme in terms of analytic/holistic processing or "learning styles") will interact with instructional methods, allowing teachers to individualize learning. The idea seems to "feel right" to many of us. It does seem to have some face validity, but it has never been demonstrated to work in practice. Its modern incarnation (see Gersten, 2001, Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 2001) takes a particularly harmful form, one where students identified as auditory learners are matched with phonics instruction and visual and/or kinesthetic learners matched with holistic instruction. The newest form is particularly troublesome because the major syntheses of reading research demonstrate that many children can benefit from phonics-based instruction, not just "auditory" learners (National Reading Panel, 2000; Rayner et al., 2002; Stanovich, 2000). Excluding students identified as "visual/kinesthetic" learners from effective phonics instruction is a bad instructional practice--bad because it is not only not research based, it is actually contradicted by research.

A thorough review of the literature by Arter and Jenkins (1979) found no consistent evidence for the idea that modality strengths and weaknesses could be identified in a reliable and valid way that warranted differential instructional prescriptions. A review of the research evidence by Tarver and Dawson (1978) found likewise that the idea of modality preferences did not hold up to empirical scrutiny. They concluded, "This review found no evidence supporting an interaction between modality preference and method of teaching reading" (p. 17). Kampwirth and Bates (1980) confirmed the conclusions of the earlier reviews, although they stated their conclusions a little more baldly: "Given the rather general acceptance of this idea, and its common-sense appeal, one would presume that there exists a body of evidence to support it. UnfortunatelyÉno such firm evidence exists" (p. 598).

More recently, the idea of modality preferences (also referred to as learning styles, holistic versus analytic processing styles, and right versus left hemispheric processing) has again surfaced in the reading community. The focus of the recent implementations refers more to teaching to strengths, as opposed to remediating weaknesses (the latter being more the focus of the earlier efforts in the learning disabilities field). The research of the 1980s was summarized in an article by Steven Stahl (1988). His conclusions are largely negative because his review of the literature indicates that the methods that have been used in actual implementations of the learning styles idea have not been validated. Stahl concludes: "As intuitively appealing as this notion of matching instruction with learning style may be, past research has turned up little evidence supporting the claim that different teaching methods are more or less effective for children with different reading styles" (p. 317).

Obviously, such research reviews cannot prove that there is no possible implementation of the idea of learning styles that could work. However, the burden of proof in science rests on the investigator who is making a new claim about the nature of the world. It is not incumbent upon critics of a particular claim to show that it "couldn't be true." The question teachers might ask is, "Have the advocates for this new technique provided sufficient proof that it works?" Their burden of responsibility is to provide proof that their favored methods work. Teachers should not allow curricular advocates to avoid this responsibility by introducing confusion about where the burden of proof lies. For example, it is totally inappropriate and illogical to ask "Has anyone proved that it can't work?" One does not "prove a negative" in science. Instead, hypotheses are stated, and then must be tested by those asserting the hypotheses.

Reason-based practice in the classroom

Effective teachers engage in scientific thinking in their classrooms in a variety of ways: when they assess and evaluate student performance, develop Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for their students with disabilities, reflect on their practice, or engage in action research. For example, consider the assessment and evaluation activities in which teachers engage. The scientific mechanisms of systematic empiricism--iterative testing of hypotheses that are revised after the collection of data--can be seen when teachers plan for instruction: they evaluate their students' previous knowledge, develop hypotheses about the best methods for attaining lesson objectives, develop a teaching plan based on those hypotheses, observe the results, and base further instruction on the evidence collected.

This assessment cycle looks even more like the scientific method when teachers (as part of a multidisciplinary team) are developing and implementing an IEP for a student with a disability. The team must assess and evaluate the student's learning strengths and difficulties, develop hypotheses about the learning problems, select curriculum goals and objectives, base instruction on the hypotheses and the goals selected, teach, and evaluate the outcomes of that teaching. If the teaching is successful (goals and objectives are attained), the cycle continues with new goals. If the teaching has been unsuccessful (goals and objectives have not been achieved), the cycle begins again with new hypotheses. We can also see the principle of converging evidence here. No one piece of evidence might be decisive, but collectively the evidence might strongly point in one direction.

Scientific thinking in practice occurs when teachers engage in action research. Action research is research into one's own practice that has, as its main aim, the improvement of that practice. Stokes (1997) discusses how many advances in science came about as a result of "use-inspired research" which draws upon observations in applied settings. According to McNiff, Lomax, and Whitehead (1996), action research shares several characteristics with other types of research: "it leads to knowledge, it provides evidence to support this knowledge, it makes explicit the process of enquiry through which knowledge emerges, and it links new knowledge with existing knowledge" (p. 14). Notice the links to several important concepts: systematic empiricism, publicly verifiable knowledge, converging evidence, and the connectivity principle.

Teachers and Research Commonality in a "what works" epistemology

Many educational researchers have drawn attention to the epistemological commonalities between researchers and teachers (Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Stanovich, 1993/1994). A "what works" epistemology is a critical source of underlying unity in the world views of educators and researchers (Gersten & Dimino, 2001; Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000). Empiricism, broadly construed (as opposed to the caricature of white coats, numbers, and test tubes that is often used to discredit scientists) is about watching the world, manipulating it when possible, observing outcomes, and trying to associate outcomes with features observed and with manipulations. This is what the best teachers do. And this is true despite the grain of truth in the statement that "teaching is an art." As Berliner (1987) notes: "No one I know denies the artistic component to teaching. I now think, however, that such artistry should be research-based. I view medicine as an art, but I recognize that without its close ties to science it would be without success, status, or power in our society. Teaching, like medicine, is an art that also can be greatly enhanced by developing a close relationship to science (p. 4)."

In his review of the work of the Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties for the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), Pearson (1999) warned educators that resisting evaluation by hiding behind the "art of teaching" defense will eventually threaten teacher autonomy. Teachers need creativity, but they also need to demonstrate that they know what evidence is, and that they recognize that they practice in a profession based in behavioral science. While making it absolutely clear that he opposes legislative mandates, Pearson (1999) cautions:

We have a professional responsibility to forge best practice out of the raw materials provided by our most current and most valid readings of research...If professional groups wish to retain the privileges of teacher prerogative and choice that we value so dearly, then the price we must pay is constant attention to new knowledge as a vehicle for fine-tuning our individual and collective views of best practice. This is the path that other professions, such as medicine, have taken in order to maintain their professional prerogative, and we must take it, too. My fear is that if the professional groups in education fail to assume this responsibility squarely and openly, then we will find ourselves victims of the most onerous of legislative mandates (p. 245).

Those hostile to a research-based approach to educational practice like to imply that the insights of teachers and those of researchers conflict. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Take reading, for example. Teachers often do observe exactly what the research shows--that most of their children who are struggling with reading have trouble decoding words. In an address to the Reading Hall of Fame at the 1996 meeting of the International Reading Association, Isabel Beck (1996) illustrated this point by reviewing her own intellectual history (see Beck, 1998, for an archival version). She relates her surprise upon coming as an experienced teacher to the Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh and finding "that there were some people there (psychologists) who had not taught anyone to read, yet they were able to describe phenomena that I had observed in the course of teaching reading" (Beck, 1996, p. 5). In fact, what Beck was observing was the triangulation of two empirical approaches to the same issue--two perspectives on the same underlying reality. And she also came to appreciate how these two perspectives fit together: "What I knew were a number of whats--what some kids, and indeed adults, do in the early course of learning to read. And what the psychologists knew were some whys--why some novice readers might do what they do" (pp. 5-6).

Beck speculates on why the disputes about early reading instruction have dragged on so long without resolution and posits that it is due to the power of a particular kind of evidence--evidence from personal observation. The determination of whole language advocates is no doubt sustained because "people keep noticing the fact that some children or perhaps many children--in any event a subset of children--especially those who grow up in print-rich environments, don't seem to need much more of a boost in learning to read than to have their questions answered and to point things out to them in the course of dealing with books and various other authentic literacy acts" (Beck, 1996, p. 8). But Beck points out that it is equally true that proponents of the importance of decoding skills are also fueled by personal observation: "People keep noticing the fact that some children or perhaps many children--in any event a subset of children--don't seem to figure out the alphabetic principle, let alone some of the intricacies involved without having the system directly and systematically presented" (p. 8). But clearly we have lost sight of the basic fact that the two observations are not mutually exclusive--one doesn't negate the other. This is just the type of situation for which the scientific method was invented: a situation requiring a consensual view, triangulated across differing observations by different observers.

Teachers, like scientists, are ruthless pragmatists (Gersten & Dimino, 2001; Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000). They believe that some explanations and methods are better than others. They think there is a real world out there--a world in flux, obviously--but still one that is trackable by triangulating observations and observers. They believe that there are valid, if fallible, ways of finding out which educational practices are best. Teachers believe in a world that is predictable and controllable by manipulations that they use in their professional practice, just as scientists do. Researchers and educators are kindred spirits in their approach to knowledge, an important fact that can be used to forge a coalition to bring hard-won research knowledge to light in the classroom.

• Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Adler, J. E. (1998, January). Open minds and the argument from ignorance. Skeptical Inquirer , 22 (1), 41-44.
• Anderson, C. A., & Anderson, K. B. (1996). Violent crime rate studies in philosophical context: A destructive testing approach to heat and Southern culture of violence effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 , 740-756.
• Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers . Washington, D. C.: National Institute of Education.
• Arter, A. and Jenkins, J. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal, Review of Educational Research , 49 , 517-555.
• Beck, A. R., & Pirovano, C. M. (1996). Facilitated communications' performance on a task of receptive language with children and youth with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 26 , 497-512.
• Beck, I. L. (1996, April). Discovering reading research: Why I didn't go to law school . Paper presented at the Reading Hall of Fame, International Reading Association, New Orleans.
• Beck, I. (1998). Understanding beginning reading: A journey through teaching and research. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 11-31). New York: Guilford Press.
• Berliner, D. C. (1987). Knowledge is power: A talk to teachers about a revolution in the teaching profession. In D. C. Berliner & B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 3-33). New York: Random House.
• Bjorklund, D. F. (1995). Children's thinking: Developmental function and individual differences (Second Edition) . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices . New York: Guilford Press.
• Bronowski, J. (1956). Science and human values . New York: Harper & Row.
• Bronowski, J. (1973). The ascent of man . Boston: Little, Brown.
• Bronowski, J. (1977). A sense of the future . Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Burgess, C. A., Kirsch, I., Shane, H., Niederauer, K., Graham, S., & Bacon, A. (1998). Facilitated communication as an ideomotor response. Psychological Science , 9 , 71-74.
• Chard, D. J., & Osborn, J. (1999). Phonics and word recognition in early reading programs: Guidelines for accessibility. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 14 , 107-117.
• Cooper, H. & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.), (1994). The handbook of research synthesis . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Cunningham, P. M., & Allington, R. L. (1994). Classrooms that work: They all can read and write . New York: HarperCollins.
• Dawkins, R. (1998). Unweaving the rainbow . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life . New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Dennett, D. C. (1999/2000, Winter). Why getting it right matters. Free Inquiry , 20 (1), 40-43.
• Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S., Stahl, S., & Willows, D. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research , 71 , 393-447.
• Foster, E. A., Jobling, M. A., Taylor, P. G., Donnelly, P., Deknijff, P., Renemieremet, J., Zerjal, T., & Tyler-Smith, C. (1998). Jefferson fathered slave's last child. Nature , 396 , 27-28.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. R. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education (Third Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.
• Geertz, C. (1979). From the native's point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding. In P. Rabinow & W. Sullivan (Eds.), Interpretive social science (pp. 225-242). Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Gersten, R. (2001). Sorting out the roles of research in the improvement of practice. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice , 16 (1), 45-50.
• Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research-based instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 33 (5), 445-457.
• Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (2001). The realities of translating research into classroom practice. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice , 16 (2), 120-130.
• Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997).What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30 (5), 466-476.
• Goswami, U. (1998). Cognition in children . Hove, England: Psychology Press.
• Gross, P. R., Levitt, N., & Lewis, M. (1997). The flight from science and reason . New York: New York Academy of Science.
• Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis . New York: Academic Press.
• Holton, G., & Roller, D. (1958). Foundations of modern physical science . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Hudson, A., Melita, B., & Arnold, N. (1993). A case study assessing the validity of facilitated communication. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 23 , 165-173.
• Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1995). A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience. American Psychologist , 50 , 750-765.
• Kamil, M. L. (1995). Some alternatives to paradigm wars in literacy research. Journal of Reading Behavior , 27 , 243-261.
• Kampwirth, R., and Bates, E. (1980). Modality preference and teaching method: A review of the research, Academic Therapy , 15 , 597-605.
• Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification . Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Levin, J. R., & O'Donnell, A. M. (2000). What to do about educational research's credibility gaps? Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology , 5 , 1-87.
• Liberman, A. M. (1999). The reading researcher and the reading teacher need the right theory of speech. Scientific Studies of Reading , 3 , 95-111.
• Magee, B. (1985). Philosophy and the real world: An introduction to Karl Popper . LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
• Mayer, R. E. (2000). What is the place of science in educational research? Educational Researcher , 29 (6), 38-39.
• McNiff, J.,Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (1996). You and your action research project . London: Routledge.
• Medawar, P. B. (1982). Pluto's republic . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Medawar, P. B. (1984). The limits of science . New York: Harper & Row.
• Medawar, P. B. (1990). The threat and the glory . New York: Harper Collins.
• Moats, L. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science . Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
• National Reading Panel: Reports of the Subgroups. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction . Washington, DC.
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology , 2 , 175-220.
• Pearson, P. D. (1993). Teaching and learning to read: A research perspective. Language Arts , 70 , 502-511.
• Pearson, P. D. (1999). A historically based review of preventing reading difficulties in young children. Reading Research Quarterly , 34 , 231-246.
• Plotkin, D. (1996, June). Good news and bad news about breast cancer. Atlantic Monthly , 53-82.
• Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching . New York: Guilford Press.
• Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokol, L. (1996). A survey of the instructional practices of outstanding primary-level literacy teachers. Elementary School Journal , 96 , 363-384.
• Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 Years of research. Psychological Bulletin , 124 , 372-422.
• Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002, March). How should reading be taught? Scientific American , 286 (3), 84-91.
• Reading Coherence Initiative. (1999). Understanding reading: What research says about how children learn to read . Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
• Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin , 118 , 183-192.
• Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist , 44 , 1276-1284.
• Shankweiler, D. (1999). Words to meaning. Scientific Studies of Reading , 3 , 113-127.
• Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology , 1 , 1-57.
• Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.) (2002). Scientific research in education . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Siegler, R. S. (1991). Children's thinking (Second Edition) . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Snowling, M. (2000). Dyslexia (Second Edition) . Oxford: Blackwell.
• Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What science offers teachers of reading. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice , 16 (1), 51-57.
• Stahl, S. (December, 1988). Is there evidence to support matching reading styles and initial reading methods? Phi Delta Kappan , 317-327.
• Stanovich, K. E. (1993/1994). Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher , 47 (4), 280-291.
• Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers . New York: Guilford Press.
• Stanovich, K. E. (2001). How to think straight about psychology (Sixth Edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
• Swanson, H. L. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes . New York: Guilford Press.
• Tarver, S. G., & Dawson, E. (1978). Modality preference and the teaching of reading: A review, Journal of Learning Disabilities , 11, 17-29.
• Vaughn, S., & Dammann, J. E. (2001). Science and sanity in special education. Behavioral Disorders , 27, 21-29.
• Warby, D. B., Greene, M. T., Higgins, K., & Lovitt, T. C. (1999). Suggestions for translating research into classroom practices. Intervention in School and Clinic , 34 (4), 205-211.
• Wheeler, D. L., Jacobson, J. W., Paglieri, R. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation , 31 , 49-60.
• Wilkinson, L. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist , 54 , 595-604.
• Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge . New York: Knopf.

For additional copies of this document:

Contact the National Institute for Literacy at ED Pubs PO Box 1398, Jessup, Maryland 20794-1398

Phone 1-800-228-8813 Fax 301-430-1244 [email protected]

Date Published: 2003 Date Posted: March 2010

40+ Reasons Why Research Is Important in Education

Do you ever wonder why research is so essential in education? What impact does it really have on teaching and learning?

These are questions that plague many students and educators alike.

According to experts, here are the reasons why research is important in the field of education.

Joseph Marc Zagerman, Ed.D. 

Assistant Professor of Project Management, Harrisburg University of Science and Technology 

Wisdom is knowledge rightly applied. Conducting research is all about gaining wisdom. It can be an exciting part of a college student’s educational journey — be it a simple research paper, thesis, or dissertation. 

Related: What Is the Difference Between Knowledge and Wisdom?

As we know, there is primary research and secondary research: 

• Primary research is first-hand research where the primary investigator (PI) or researcher uses a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methodology approach in gaining original data. The process of conducting primary research is fascinating but beyond the scope of this article. 
• In contrast, secondary research examines secondhand information by describing or summarizing the work of others. This article focuses on the benefits of conducting secondary research by immersing oneself in the literature.  

Research develops students into becoming more self-sufficient

There are many benefits for college students to engage in scholarly research. For example, the research process itself develops students into becoming more self-sufficient. 

In other words,  students enhance their ability to ferret out information  regarding a specific topic with a more functional deep dive into the subject matter under investigation. 

The educational journey of  conducting research allows students to see the current conversations  taking place regarding a specific topic. One can parse out the congruity and incongruity among scholars about a particular topic. 

Developing one’s  fundamental library skills  is a tremendous upside in becoming self-sufficient. And yet another benefit of conducting scholarly research is reviewing other writing styles, which often enhances one’s reading and writing skills.   

Conducting an annotated bibliography is often a critical first step in conducting scholarly research. Reviewing, evaluating, and synthesizing information from several sources further  develops a student’s critical thinking skills. 

Related: 9 Critical Thinking Examples

Furthermore, in becoming immersed in the literature, students can recognize associated gaps , problems , or opportunities for additional research. 

From a doctoral perspective, Boote & Beile (2005) underscore the importance of conducting a literature review as the foundation for sound research and acquiring the skills and knowledge in analyzing and synthesizing information.  

So, if conducting research is beneficial for college students, why do some college students have problems with the process or believe it doesn’t add value? 

First off, conducting research is hard work . It takes time. Not to make a sweeping generalization, but some college students embrace a  “fast-food”  expectation of academic assignments. 

For example, finish a quiz, complete a discussion board, or watch a YouTube video and check it off your academic to-do list right away. In contrast, conducting a literature review takes time. It’s hard work.

It requires discipline, focus, and effective time management strategies. 

Yet, good, bad, or indifferent, it remains that the process of conducting research is often perceived as a non-value-added activity for many college students. Why is this so? Is there a better way?   

From an educational standpoint, research assignments should not be a “one and done.” Instead, every course should provide opportunities for students to engage in research of some sort. 

If a student must complete a thesis or dissertation as part of their degree requirement, the process should begin early enough in the program. 

But perhaps the most important note for educators is to align the research process with real-world takeaways . That builds value . That is what wisdom is all about. 

Dr. John Clark, PMP 

Corporate Faculty (Project Management), Harrisburg University of Science and Technology 

Research provides a path to progress and prosperity

The research integrates the known with the unknown. Research becomes the path to progress and prosperity. Extant knowledge, gathered through previous research, serves as the foundation to attaining new knowledge. 

The essence of research is a continuum.

Only through research is the attainment of new knowledge possible. New knowledge, formed through new research, is contributed back to the knowledge community. In the absence of research, the continuum of knowledge is severed. 

Reminiscent of the continuum of knowledge, the desire and understanding to conduct research must transcend into the next generation. This magnifies the relevance to convey the techniques and the desire to seek new knowledge to the younger generations. 

Humbly, it is argued that education possibly serves to facilitate the importance of research. The synergy between research and education perpetuates the continuum of knowledge. 

Through education, the younger generations are instilled with the inspiration to address the challenges of tomorrow. 

Related: Why Is Education Important in Our Life?

It plants the seeds for scientific inquiry into the next generation

Research, whether qualitative or quantitative , is grounded in scientific methods . Instructing our students in the fundamentals of empirically-based research effectively plants the seeds for scientific inquiry into the next generation. 

The application and pursuit of research catalyze critical thinking . Rather than guiding our students to apply pre-existing and rote answers to yesterday’s challenges, research inspires our students to examine phenomena through new and intriguing lenses. 

The globalized and highly competitive world of today effectively demands the younger generations to think  critically  and  creatively  to respond to the new challenges of the future. 

Consequently, through research and education, the younger generations are  inspired  and  prepared  to find new knowledge that advances our community. Ultimately, the synergy between research and education benefits society for generations to come. 

Professor John Hattie and Kyle Hattie

Authors, “ 10 Steps to Develop Great Learners “

Research serves many purposes

Imagine your doctor or pilot disregarding research and relying on experience, anecdotes, and opinions. Imagine them being proud of not having read a research article since graduation. Imagine them depending on the tips and tricks of colleagues.

Research serves many great purposes, such as:

• Keeping up to date with critical findings
• Hearing the critiques of current methods of teaching and running schools
• Standing on the shoulders of giants to see our world better

Given that so much educational research is now available, reading syntheses of the research, hearing others’ interpretation and implementation of the research, and seeing the research in action helps. 

What matters most is the interpretation of the research — your interpretation, the author’s interpretation, and your colleagues’ interpretation. It is finding research that improves our ways of thinking, our interpretations, and our impact on students. 

There is also much to be gained from reading about the methods of research, which provide ways for us to question our own impact, our own theories of teaching and learning, and help us critique our practice by standing on the shoulders of others. 

Research also helps to know what is exciting, topical, and important.

It enables us to hear other perspectives

Statements without research evidence are but opinions. Research is not only about what is published in journals or books, but what we discover in our own classes and schools, provided we ask,  “What evidence would I accept that I am wrong?” 

This is the defining question separating research from opinion. As humans, we are great at self-confirmation — there are always students who succeed in our class, we are great at finding evidence we were right, and we can use this evidence to justify our teaching. 

But what about those who did not succeed? We can’t be blind about them, and we should not ascribe their lack of improvement to them (poor homes, unmotivated, too far behind) but to us. 

We often need to hear other perspectives of the evidence we collect from our classes and hear more convincing explanations and interpretations about what worked best and what did not; who succeeded and who did not; and were the gains sufficient. 

When we do this with the aim of improving our impact on our students, then everyone is the winner.

It provides explanations and bigger picture interpretations

Research and evaluation on your class and school can be triangulated with research studies in the literature to provide alternative explanations, to help see the importance (or not) of the context of your school. And we can always write our experiences and add to the research.

For example, we have synthesized many studies of how best parents can influence their children to become great learners. Our fundamental interpretation of the large corpus of studies is that it matters more how parents think when engaged in parenting. 

For instance, the expectations, listening and responsive skills, how they react to error and struggle, and whether their feedback was heard, understood, and actionable. 

Research is more than summarizing ; it provides explanations and bigger picture interpretations, which we aimed at in our “10 steps for Parents” book.

Dr. Glenn Mitchell, MPH, CPE, FACEP

Vice Provost for Institutional Effectiveness , Harrisburg University of Science and Technology 

Research gives us better knowledge workers

There is a tremendous value for our society from student participation in scientific research. At all levels – undergraduate, master’s, and Ph.D. —students learn the scientific method that has driven progress since the Enlightenment over 300 years ago. 

• They learn to observe carefully and organize collected data efficiently. 
• They know how to test results for whether or not they should be believed or were just a chance finding. 
• They learn to estimate the strength of the data they collect and see in other scientists’ published work. 

With its peer review and wide visibility, the publication process demands that the work be done properly , or it will be exposed as flawed or even falsified. 

So students don’t just learn how to do experiments, interviews, or surveys. They learn that the process demands rigor and ethical conduct to obtain valid and reliable results. 

Supporting and educating a new generation of science-minded citizens makes our population more likely to support proven facts and take unproven allegations with a grain of salt until they are rigorously evaluated and reviewed. 

Thus, educating our students about research and involving them with hands-on opportunities to participate in research projects gives us better knowledge workers to advance technology and produce better citizens.

Chris A. Sweigart, Ph.D.

Board Certified Family Physician | Education Consultant, Limened

Research plays a critical role in education as a guide for effective practices, policies, and procedures in our schools. 

Evidence-based practice, which involves educators intentionally engaging in instructional practices and programs with strong evidence for positive outcomes from methodologically sound research, is essential to ensure the greatest probability of achieving desired student outcomes in schools.

It helps educators have greater confidence to help students achieve outcomes

There are extensive options for instructional practices and programs in our schools, many of which are promoted and sold by educational companies. In brief, some of these works benefit students, and others don’t, producing no results or even negatively impacting students.

Educators need ways to filter through the noise to find practices that are most likely to actually produce positive results with students. 

When a practice has been identified as evidence-based, that means an array of valid, carefully controlled research studies have been conducted that show significant, positive outcomes from engaging in the practice. 

By choosing to engage in these practices, educators can have greater confidence in their ability to help students achieve meaningful outcomes.

There are organizations focused on evaluating the research base for programs and practices to determine whether they are evidence-based. 

For example, some websites provide overviews of evidence-based practices in education while my website provides practical guides for teachers on interventions for academic and behavioral challenges with a research rating scale. 

Educators can use these resources to sift through the research, which can sometimes be challenging to access and translate, especially for busy teachers.

It supports vulnerable student populations

Schools may be especially concerned about the success of vulnerable student populations, such as students with disabilities , who are at far greater risk than their peers of poor short and long-term outcomes. 

In many cases, these students are already behind their peers one or more years academically and possibly facing other challenges.

With these vulnerable populations, it’s imperative that we engage in practices that benefit them and do so faster than typical practice—because these students need to catch up! 

That said, every minute and dollar we spend on a practice not supported by research is a gamble on students’ well-being and futures that may only make things worse. 

These populations of students need our best in education, which means choosing practices with sound evidence that are most likely to help.  

If I were going to a doctor for a serious illness, I would want them to engage in practice guided by the cutting edge of medical science to ensure my most significant chance of becoming healthy again. And I want the same for our students who struggle in school.

Will Shaw PhD, MSc

Sport Scientist and Lecturer | Co-founder, Sport Science Insider

Research creates new knowledge and better ideas

At the foundation of learning is sharing knowledge, ideas, and concepts. However, few concepts are set in stone; instead, they are ever-evolving ideas that hopefully get closer to the truth . 

Research is the process that underpins this search for new and better-defined ideas. For this reason, it is crucial to have very close links between research and teaching. The further the gap, the less informed teaching will become. 

Research provides answers to complicated problems

Another key concept in education is sharing the reality that most problems are complicated — but these are often the most fun to try to solve. Such as, how does the brain control movement? Or how can we optimize skill development in elite athletes?

Here, research can be used to show how many studies can be pulled together to find answers to these challenging problems. But students should also understand that these answers aren’t perfect and should be challenged.

Again, this process creates a deeper learning experience and students who are better equipped for the world we live in.

Basic understanding of research aids students in making informed decisions

We’re already seeing the worlds of tech and data drive many facets of life in a positive direction — this will no doubt continue. However, a byproduct of this is that data and science are commonly misunderstood, misquoted, or, in the worst cases, deliberately misused to tell a false story. 

If students have a basic understanding of research, they can make informed decisions based on reading the source and their own insight. 

This doesn’t mean they have to mean they disregard all headlines instead, they can decide to what extent the findings are trustworthy and dig deeper to find meaning. 

A recent example is this BBC News story  that did an excellent job of reporting a study looking at changes in brain structure as a result of mild COVID. The main finding of a 2% average loss in brain structure after mild COVID sounds alarming and is one of the findings from the study. 

However, if students have the ability to scan the full article  linked in the BBC article, they could learn that: 

• The measure that decreased by 2% was a ‘proxy’ (estimate) for tissue damage 
• Adults show 0.2 – 0.3% loss every year naturally
• Some covid patients didn’t show any loss at all, but the average loss between the COVID and control group was 2%
• We have no idea currently if these effects last more than a few weeks or months (more research is in progress)

This is an excellent research paper, and it is well-reported, but having the ability to go one step further makes so much more sense of the findings. This ability to understand the basics of research makes the modern world far easier to navigate.

Helen Crabtree

Teacher and Owner, GCSE Masterclass

It enables people to discover different ideas 

Research is crucial to education. It enables people to discover different ideas, viewpoints, theories, and facts. From there, they will weigh up the validity of each theory for themselves. 

Finding these things out for oneself causes a student to think more deeply and come up with their personal perspectives, hypotheses, and even to question widely held facts. This is crucial for independent thought and personal development.

To distortion and manipulation — a frighteningly Orwellian future awaits us if research skills are lost. 

You only need to look at current world events and how freedom of the media and genuine journalistic investigation (or research) is distorting the understanding of the real world in the minds of many people in one of the most powerful countries in the world. 

Only those who are able to conduct research and evaluate the independence of facts can genuinely understand the world. 

Genuine research opens young people’s eyes to facts and opinions

Furthermore, learning how to conduct genuine research instead of merely a Wikipedia or Google search is a skill in itself, allowing students to search through archives and find material that is not widely known about and doesn’t appear at the top of search engines. 

Genuine research will open young people’s eyes to facts and opinions that may otherwise be hidden. This can be demonstrated when we look at social media and its algorithms.

Essentially, if you repeatedly read or “like” pieces with a specific worldview, the algorithm will send you more articles or videos that further back up that view. 

This, in turn, creates an echo chamber whereby your own opinion is repeatedly played back to you with no opposing ideas or facts, reinforcing your view in a one-sided way.

Conducting genuine research is the antidote.

Lastly, by conducting research, people discover how to write articles, dissertations, and conduct their own experiments to justify their ideas. A world without genuine, quality research is a world that is open.

Pritha Gopalan, Ph.D.

Director of Research and Learning, Newark Trust for Education

It allows us to understand progress and areas of development

Research is vital in education because it helps us be intentional about how we frame and document our practice. At The Trust , we aim to synthesize standards-based and stakeholder-driven frames to ensure that quality also means equity.

Research gives us a lens to look across time and space and concretely understand our progress and areas for improvement. We are  careful  to include all voices through representative and network sampling to include multiple perspectives from different sites.

Good research helps us capture variation in practice, document innovation, and share bright spots and persistent challenges with peers for mutual learning and growth. 

This is key to our work as educators and a city-based voice employing and seeking to amplify asset-based discourses in education.

Research represents stakeholders’ aspirations and needs

When done in  culturally sustaining  and  equitable ways , research powerfully represents stakeholder experiences, interests, aspirations, and needs. Thus, it is critical to informed philanthropy, advocacy, and the continuous improvement of practice. 

Our organization is constantly evolving in our own cultural competence . It embodies this pursuit in our research so that the voices of the educators, families, children, and partners that we work with are harmonized .

This is done to create the “big picture” of where we are and where we need to get together to ensure equitable and quality conditions for learning in Newark.

Jessica Robinson

Educator | Human Resources and Marketing Manager, SpeakingNerd

Research makes the problem clearer

In the words of Stanley Arnold,  “Every problem contains within itself the seeds of its own solution.”  These words truly highlight the nature of problems and solutions. 

If you understand a problem thoroughly, you eventually approach closer to the solution for you begin to see what makes the problem arise. When the root of the problem is clear, the solution becomes obvious. 

For example, if you suffer from headaches frequently, your doctor will get specific tests done to understand the exact problem (which is research). Once the root cause of the headache becomes clear, your doctor will give you suitable medicines to help you heal. 

This implies that to reach a solution, it is crucial for us to understand the problem first. Research helps us with that. By making the problem clearer, it helps us pave closer to the solution. 

As the main aim of education is to produce talented individuals who can generate innovative solutions to the world’s problems, research is of utmost importance. 

Research boosts critical thinking skills

Critical thinking is defined as observing, understanding, analyzing, and interpreting information and arguments to form suitable conclusions. 

In today’s world, critical thinking skills are the most valued skills. Companies look for a candidate’s critical thinking skills before hiring him. This is because critical thinking skills promote innovation, and innovation is the need of the hour in almost every sector. 

Further, research is one of the most effective ways of developing critical thinking skills. When you conduct research, you eventually learn the art of observing, evaluating, analyzing, interpreting information, and deriving conclusions. So, this is another major reason why research is crucial in education. 

Research promotes curiosity

In the words of Albert Einstein ,  “Curiosity is more important than knowledge.”  Now, you may wonder why so? Basically, curiosity is a strong desire to learn or know things. It motivates you to pursue an everlasting journey of learning. 

Every curious individual observes things, experiments, and learns. It seems that knowledge follows curiosity, but the vice versa is not true. An individual may gain a lot of knowledge about multiple things despite not being curious. But, then, he might not use his knowledge to engage in innovation because of the lack of curiosity. 

Hence, his knowledge might become futile, or he may just remain a bookworm. So, curiosity is more important than knowledge, and research promotes curiosity. How? 

The answer is because research helps you plunge into things. You observe what is not visible to everyone. You explore the wonders of nature and other phenomena. The more you know, the more you understand that you don’t know, which ignites curiosity. 

Research boosts confidence and self-esteem

Developing confident individuals is one of the major goals of education. When students undertake the journey of research and come up with important conclusions or results, they develop immense confidence in their knowledge and skills. 

Related: Why is Self Confidence Important?

They feel as if they can do anything. This is another important reason why research is crucial in education. 

Research helps students evolve into independent learners

Most of the time, teachers guide students on the path of learning. But, research opportunities give students chances to pave their own learning path. 

It is like they pursue a journey of learning by themselves. They consult different resources that seem appropriate, use their own methods, and shape the journey on their own. 

This way, they evolve into independent learners, which is excellent as it sets the foundation for lifelong learning. 

Theresa Bertuzzi

Chief Program Development Officer and Co-founder, Tiny Hoppers

Research helps revamp the curriculum and include proven best techniques

Research is critical in education as our world is constantly evolving, so approaches and solutions need to be updated to  best suit  the current educational climate. 

With the influx of child development and psychology studies, educators and child product development experts are  honing  how certain activities, lessons, behavior management, etc., can impact a child’s development.

For example, child development research has led to the development of toy blocks, jigsaws, and shape sorters, which have proven to be linked to: 

• Spatial thinking
• Logical reasoning
• Shape and color recognition

There is  no one-size-fits-all  when approaching educational practices; therefore, we can  revamp  the curriculum and include proven best techniques and methodologies by continuously researching past strategies and looking into new tactics. 

Effective teaching requires practical evidence approaches rather than making it a guessing game. 

The combination of work done by child educators of all ages, and research in child development psychology allow new developments in toys, activities, and practical resources for other educators, child care workers, and parents. Such ensures children can  reap  the benefits of child development research. 

It enables a better understanding of how to adapt methods of instruction

In addition, with all of the various learning styles, researching the diversity in these types will enable a better understanding of how to adapt methods of instruction to all learners’ needs. 

Child development research gives educators, child care workers, and parents the ability to guide the average child at specific age ranges, but  each child is unique in their own needs . 

It is important to note that while this is the average, it is up to the educator and childcare provider to  adapt accordingly  to each child based on their individual needs. 

Scott Winstead

Education Technology Expert | Founder, My eLearning World

It’s the most important tool for expanding our knowledge

Research is an integral part of education for teachers and students alike. It’s our most important tool for expanding our knowledge and understanding of different topics and ideas.

• Educators need to be informed about the latest research to make good decisions and provide students with quality learning opportunities.
• Research provides educators with valuable information about how students learn best so they can be more effective teachers. 
• It also helps us develop new methods and techniques for teaching and allows educators to explore different topics and ideas in more detail.
• For students, research allows them to explore new topics and develop critical thinking skills along with analytical and communication skills.

In short, research is vital in education because it helps us learn more about the world around us and improves the quality of education for everyone involved.

Connor Ondriska

CEO, SpanishVIP

It creates better experiences and improves the quality of education

Research continues to be so important in education because we should constantly be improving as educators. If one of the goals of education is to continually work on making a better world, then the face of education a century ago shouldn’t look the same today. 

You can apply that same logic on a shorter scale, especially with the technological boom . So research is a way that educators can learn about what’s working, what isn’t, and what are the areas we need to focus on. 

For example, we focus purely on distance learning, which means we need to innovate in a field that doesn’t have a ton of research yet. If we’re being generous, we can say that distance education became viable in the 1990s, but people are just now accepting it as a valid way to learn. 

Since you can’t necessarily apply everything you know about traditional pedagogy to an online setting, It’s an entirely different context that requires its own study. 

As more research comes out about the effectiveness and understanding of this type of education, we can adapt as educators to help our students. Ultimately, that research will help us create better experiences and improve the quality of distance education. 

The key here is to make sure that research is available and that teachers actually respond to it. In that sense, ongoing research and continual teacher training can go hand-in-hand. 

It leads to more effective educational approaches

Research in the field of language learning is significant. We’re constantly changing our understanding of how languages are learned. Over just the last century, there have been dozens of new methodologies and approaches. 

Linguists/pedagogues have frequently re-interpreted the language-learning process, and all of this analytical research has revolutionized the way we understand language. 

We started with simple Grammar Translation (how you would learn Latin), and now research focuses on more holistic communication techniques. So we’ve definitely come a long way, but we should keep going. 

Now with distance education, we’re experiencing another shift in language learning. You don’t need to memorize textbook vocabulary. You don’t need to travel abroad to practice with native speakers. 

Thanks to ongoing research, we’ve developed our own method of learning Spanish that’s been shown to be 10x more efficient than traditional classroom experiences. 

So if we’ve been able to do so, then maybe someone will develop an even better methodology in the future. So research and innovation are only leading to more effective educational approaches that benefit the entire society.  

Research helps everyone in the education field to become better

This stands in both the public and private sectors. Even though we’re an education business, public schools should also be adapting to new ways to utilize distance learning. 

As more technology becomes readily available to students, teachers should capitalize on that to ensure everyone receives a better education.

Related: How Important Is Technology in Education  

There is now a vast body of research about technology in the language classroom, so why not take advantage of that research and create better lesson plans? 

So as new research appears, everyone in the education field will become a better teacher. And that statement will stand ten years from now. Education needs to adapt to the needs of society, but we need research to know how we can do that appropriately .  

James Bacon, MSEd

Director of Outreach and Operations, Edficiency

Research gives schools confidence to adopt different practices

Research in education is important to inform teachers, administrators, and even parents about what practices have been shown to impact different outcomes that can be important, like:

• Student learning outcomes (often measured by test scores)
• Graduation and/or attendance rates
• Social-emotional skills 
• College and/or job matriculation rates, among many others

Research can give insights into which programs, teaching methods, curricula, schedules, and other structures provide which benefits to which groups and thus give schools the confidence to adopt these different practices.

It measures the impact of innovations 

Research in education also enables us to measure different innovations that are tried in schools, which is also essential to push the field of education further. 

It also ensures that students learn individually and collectively more than those we’ve educated in the past, or at least in different ways, to respond to changes and help shape society’s future. 

Research can give us the  formal feedback  to know if innovations happening in classrooms, schools, and districts across the country (and the world) are having the  intended  impact and whether or not they should be continued, expanded, discontinued, or used only in specific contexts.

Without research, we might continue to innovate to the detriment of our students and education system without knowing it.

Loic Bellet

Business English Coach, Speak Proper English

It provides numerous advantages to explore profession

Developing a research-based approach to enhance your practice gives you the evidence you need to make changes in your classroom, school, and beyond. 

In the light of the ongoing discussion over what works and why, there are numerous advantages to exploring your profession, whether for immediate improvement via action research and, more broadly, for acquiring awareness and knowledge on topics of interest and significance. 

There are several advantages to incorporating research into your practice. This is why research is a part of teacher education from the beginning. 

Research can be used to:

• Assist you in discovering solutions to specific issues that may arise in your school or classroom.
• Support professional knowledge, competence, and understanding of learning
• Connect you to information sources and expert support networks.
• When implementing change, such as curriculum, pedagogy, or assessment, it’s important to spell out the goals, processes, and objectives.
• Improve your organizational, local, and national grasp of your professional and policy environment, allowing you to educate and lead better strategically and effectively.
• Inside your school and more broadly within the profession, develop your agency, impact, self-efficacy, and voice.
• Each of these may entail an investigation based on evidence out of your environment and evidence from other sources.

Although research methodologies have progressed significantly, the importance of research alone has grown . 

We’ve seen online research gaining popularity, and the value of research is increasing by the day. As a result, companies are looking for online access researchers to work with them and carry out research for accurate data from the internet. 

Furthermore, research became a requirement for survival. We’ll have to do it nonetheless. We can’t make business judgments, launch businesses, or prove theories without extensive research. There has been a lot of effort to create research a base of info and advancement.

Saikiran Chandha

CEO and Founder, Typeset

It offers factual or evidence-based learning approach

It’s evident that research and education are intertwined! On a broader spectrum, education is something that you perceive as a fundamental part of your learning process (in your institutions, colleges, school, etc.). 

It improves your skills, knowledge, social and moral values. But on the other hand, research is something that you owe to as it provides you with the scientific and systemic solution to your educational hardships. 

For example: Research aids in implementing different teaching methods, identifying learning difficulties and addressing them, curriculum development, and more. 

Accordingly, research plays a significant role in offering a factual or evidence-based learning approach to academic challenges and concerns. 

And the two primary benefits of research in education are:

Research helps to improve the education system

Yes, the prime focus of research is to excavate, explore and discover a new, innovative, and creative approach to enhance the teaching and learning methods based on the latest educational needs and advancements. 

Research fuels your knowledge bank

Research is all about learning new things, data sourcing, analysis, and more. So, technically, research replenishes your knowledge bank with factual data. 

Thus, it helps educators or teachers develop their subject knowledge, aids in-depth harvest erudition, and increases overall classroom performance.

Chaye McIntosh, MS, LCADC

Clinical Director,  ChoicePoint Health

It improves the learning curve

Research, I believe, is a fundamental part of education, be it by the student or the teacher. 

When you research a topic, you will not just learn and read about stuff related to the topic but also branch out and learn new and different things. This improves the learning curve, and you delve deeper into topics, develop interest and increase your knowledge. 

Academically and personally, I can grow every day and attain the confidence that the abundance of information brings me.

It builds up understanding and perspective

Research can help you build up understanding and perspective regarding the niche of choice; help you evaluate and analyze it with sound theories and a factual basis rather than just learning just for the sake of it.

Educationally, it can help you form informed opinions and sound logic that can be beneficial in school and routinely. Not only this,  when you do proper research on any educational topic and learn about the facts and figures, chances are you will score better than your classmates who only have textbook knowledge.  

So the research will give you an edge over your peers and help you perform better in exams and classroom discussions.

Matthew Carter

Attorney,  Inc and Go

Solid research is a skill you need in all careers

That goes double for careers like mine. You might think that attorneys learn all the answers in law school, but in fact, we know how to find the answers we need through research. 

Doctors and accountants will tell you the same thing. No one can ever hold all the knowledge they need. You have to be able to find the correct answer quickly. School is the perfect place to learn that.

Research enables you to weigh sources and find the best ones

How do you know the source you have found is reliable? If you are trained in research, you’ve learned how to weigh sources and find the best ones. 

Comparing ideas and using them to draw bigger conclusions helps you not only in your career but in your life. As we have seen politically in the last few years, it enables you to be a more informed citizen.

Research makes you more persuasive

Want to have more civil conversations with your family over the holidays? Being able to dig into a body of research and pull out answers that you actually understand makes you a more effective speaker. 

People are more likely to believe you when you have formed an opinion through research rather than parroting something you saw on the news. They may even appreciate your efforts to make the conversation more logical and civil.

As for me, I spend a lot of time researching business formation now, and I use that in my writing. 

George Tsagas

Owner, eMathZone

Research helps build holistic knowledge

Your background will cause you to approach a topic with a preconceived notion. When you take the time to see the full context of a situation, your perspective changes. 

Researching one topic also expands your perspective of other topics. The information you uncover when studying a particular subject can inform other tangential subjects in the future as you build a greater knowledge of the world and how connected it is. 

As a result, any initial research you do will be a building block for future studies. You will begin each subsequent research process with more information. You will continue to broaden your perspective each time.

Research helps you become more empathic

Even if you don’t change your mind on a subject, researching that topic will expose you to other points of view and help you understand why people might feel differently about a situation. 

The more knowledge you gain about how others think, the more likely you are to humanize them and be more empathetic to diverse viewpoints and backgrounds in the future.

Research teaches you how to learn

Through the research process, you discover where you have information gaps and what questions to ask in order to solve them. It helps you approach a subject with curiosity and a willingness to learn rather than thinking you have the right answer from the beginning.

Georgi Georgiev

Owner, GIGA calculator

It helps us learn about the status quo of existing literature

The starting point of every scientific and non-scientific paper is in-depth literature research.

It helps to:

• gather casual evidence about a specific research topic
• answer a specific scientific question
• learn about the status quo of existing literature
• identify potential problems and raise new questions

Anyone writing a scientific paper needs evidence based on facts to back up theories, hypotheses, assumptions, and claims. However, since most authors can’t derive all the evidence on their own, they have to rely on the evidence provided by existing scientific (and peer-reviewed) literature. 

Subsequently, comprehensive literature research is inevitable. Only by delving deeply into a research topic will the authors gather the data and evidence necessary for a differentiated examination of the current status quo. 

This, in turn, will allow them to develop new ideas and raise new questions. 

Craig Miller

Co-Founder,  Academia Labs LLC

Research supplements knowledge gaps

In the academe, research is critical. Our daily lives revolve around research, making research an integral part of education.

If you want to know which restaurant in your area serves the best steak, you’d have to research on the internet and read reviews. If you want to see the procedure for making an omelet, you’d have to research on the internet or ask your parents. Hence, research is part of our lives, whether we want it or not.

It is no secret that there are a lot of knowledge gaps in the knowledge pool. Research is the only thing that can supplement these gaps and answer the questions with no answers.

It will also provide the correct information to long-debated questions like the shape of the Earth and the evolution of man.

With every information readily available to us with just a click and a scroll on the internet, research is crucial in identifying which data are factual and which are just fake news . More than that, it helps transfer correct information from one person to another while combating the spread of false information.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the importance of research.

Research plays a critical role in advancing our knowledge and understanding of the world around us. Here are some key reasons why research is so important:

• Generates new knowledge : Research is a process of discovering new information and insights. It allows us to explore questions that have not yet been answered, and to generate new ideas and theories that can help us make sense of the world.

• Improves existing knowledge : Research also allows us to build on existing knowledge, by testing and refining theories, and by uncovering new evidence that supports or challenges our understanding of a particular topic.

• Drives innovation : Many of the greatest innovations in history have been driven by research. Whether it’s developing new technologies, discovering new medical treatments, or exploring new frontiers in science, research is essential for pushing the boundaries of what is possible.

• Informs decision-making : Research provides the evidence and data needed to make informed decisions. Whether it’s in business, government, or any other field, research helps us understand the pros and cons of different options, and to choose the course of action that is most likely to achieve our goals.

• Promotes critical thinking : Conducting research requires us to think critically, analyze data, and evaluate evidence. These skills are not only valuable in research, but also in many other areas of life, such as problem-solving, decision-making, and communication.

What is the ultimate goal of a research?

The ultimate goal of research is to uncover new knowledge, insights, and understanding about a particular topic or phenomenon. Through careful investigation, analysis, and interpretation of data, researchers aim to make meaningful contributions to their field of study and advance our collective understanding of the world around us.

There are many different types of research, each with its own specific goals and objectives. Some research seeks to test hypotheses or theories, while others aim to explore and describe a particular phenomenon. Still, others may be focused on developing new technologies or methods for solving practical problems.

Regardless of the specific goals of a given research project, all research shares a common aim: to generate new knowledge and insights that can help us better understand and navigate the complex world we live in.

Of course, conducting research is not always easy or straightforward.

Researchers must contend with a wide variety of challenges, including finding funding, recruiting participants, collecting and analyzing data, and interpreting their results. But despite these obstacles, the pursuit of knowledge and understanding remains a fundamental driving force behind all scientific inquiry.

How can research improve the quality of life?

Research can improve the quality of life in a variety of ways, from advancing medical treatments to informing social policies that promote equality and justice. Here are some specific examples:

• Medical research : Research in medicine and healthcare can lead to the development of new treatments, therapies, and technologies that improve health outcomes and save lives.

For example, research on vaccines and antibiotics has helped to prevent and treat infectious diseases, while research on cancer has led to new treatments and improved survival rates.

• Environmental research : Research on environmental issues can help us to understand the impact of human activities on the planet and develop strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

For example, research on renewable energy sources can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment for future generations.

• Social research : Research on social issues can help us to understand and address social problems such as poverty, inequality, and discrimination.

For example, research on the effects of poverty on child development can inform policies and programs that support families and promote child well-being.

• Technological research : Research on technology can lead to the development of new products and services that improve quality of life, such as assistive technologies for people with disabilities or smart home systems that promote safety and convenience.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

As you found this post useful...

Share it on social media!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

The Editors

The importance of research and its impact on education

Tertiary education is indeed a big investment, so looking for the right university takes time, patience, and dedication. In case you hadn’t noticed, most universities tend to highlight research as one of their most distinguished and competitive strengths. But the question here is why ?

From an individual point of view, the advantages of research extend beyond having an impressive degree certificate. Through detailed research, students develop critical thinking expertise, as well as effective analytical, research, and communication skills that are globally sought-after and incredibly beneficial. Ultimately, research is essential to economic and social development of our globalised society, forming the foundations governmental policies around the world.

“Knowledge generated by research is the basis of sustainable development, which requires that knowledge be placed at the service of development, be converted into applications, and be shared to ensure widespread benefits,” says Mary-Louise Kearney, Director of the UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge.

One institution which understands this is the University of Skovde . Though the university is actually much younger than most, its education and internationally-competitive research are highly respected, particularly within the School of Bioscience . The university has a well-developed collaboration between education, research, the business community, and society on both a national and international level.

The school has three divisions : – The Division for Bioinformatics and Ecology, The Division for Cognitive Neuroscience and Philosophy, and The Division for Molecular Biology; offering a total of 13 academic programs at the undergraduate and advanced levels. Besides providing an impressive array of courses, the school has its own research centre known as the Systems Biology Research Center , where research is conducted in the following areas:- Infection Biology , Bioinformatics , Biotechnology , Cognitive Neuroscience and Philosophy and Ecological Modeling . Here are some examples of what Skovde’s experienced research teams have been working on:

Infection Biology

Research from the Infection Biology Group focuses on the development of mathematical and statistical models as well as experimental methodology used to help understand the complex systems that make up infection biology. The Group’s current funded projects focus on:

• Identifying new biomarkers to help diagnose sepsis patients at an early stage
• Identifying biomarker profiles for immunosuppressive drugs
• Developing new methods for the detection of plant pathogens

Bioinformatics

Formed by computer science researchers, this area of investigation focuses on the development and application of algorithms for the analysis of biological data. Skovde’s research has incorporated the development of algorithms, software and databases, as well as solving biological research problems with these tools. As part of the research team, students get to work with other researchers such as stem cell and tumour biologists from other groups within the university , industrial partners and other establishments.

Cognitive neuroscience and philosophy

Research in cognitive neuroscience seeks to increase knowledge and understanding of human abilities, reflected in the form of cerebral activity. One of the main goals of the research is to increase our understanding of human consciousness, as well as to study methods that might increase human wellbeing.

Biotechnology

Defined as the application of biological organisms, systems, or processes by various industries, stakeholders and researchers, Biotechnology encompasses science and life, improving the value of materials and organisms through pharmaceuticals, crops, livestock and the environment. While research in plant biotechnology seeks to identify specific genes to eliminate various forms of arsenic contamination, Skovde’s research projects in microbial biotechnology can also be used to develop microbial bioreactors. The mussel research project that is run together with ecologists includes development of molecular markers that will enable scientists to identify different mussel species.

Skovde’s high-impact research also extends far beyond the laboratory, where the school collaborates with  Life Science companies, public organisations and other universities to strengthen its research. Through these partnerships, the school has access to specific expertise, highly advanced laboratories and equipment, as well as PhD studies.

Additionally, the university works with business partners like AstraZeneca , Abbott Diagnostics AB and EnviroPlanning to teach industrial PhD students, and also conduct research in the interest of the company. Students who register for an industrial PhD will be employed by these companies, and receive PhD training at the School of Bioscience – a great career experience that enhances their CV tremendously.

In short, studying at a university with a reputable research foundation not only gives you a firm platform on which you can continue learning, but the skills you master also provide a real advantage over others in the real-world.

Click here to view Skovde’s recent research publications

Follow University of Skovde on Facebook and YouTube

All images courtesy of University of Skovde

Liked this then you’ll love these….

​The phenomenal growth of Life Sciences in emerging markets

The role of university research in tackling social challenges and driving economic growth

Popular stories

Us$75,000 to taste pet food: the weird and interesting jobs that pay well.

Bonjour Europe! 8 great universities that’ll let you study in France in English

Stetson’s small classes and top professors bring big success for student from India 

Afghanistan refugee, MBA holder, social entrepreneur: Meet the woman who took charge of her life for the better

• Book a Speaker

Introduction

Keeping benefits packages competitive.

The SHRM Employee Benefits Survey returns with new insights for 2024, headlined by modern additions and updated definitions across a wide berth of potential benefits offerings. Evolving upon nearly 30 years of employee benefits research, this comprehensive annual survey of HR professionals captures the prevalence across the spectrum of various employee benefits and perks provided by organizations.

A competitive job market comes with a need for organizations to provide equally competitive benefits offerings. As organizations face labor shortages, those who adapt their total compensation and benefits packages with creative and modern offerings put themselves in better positions to attract and retain talent. The goal of the SHRM Employee Benefits Survey is to gain an accurate representation of benefits offerings throughout the United States. SHRM members can use the findings to discover and benchmark the benefits changes organizations have implemented. With the inclusion of even more items in 2024—as well as new research diving into the average vacation, sick, and PTO days granted by employers—SHRM hopes to provide an even more comprehensive picture of the employee benefits landscape than ever before.

See How Your Benefits Stack Up

To help you compare your organization’s benefits against those surveyed, we’ve provided an online, interactive benchmarking tool. The power is in your hands to explore results for the last five year and to filter results according to your organization’s industry, size and location.  Do you work in health care in California? Results are available specifically for an organization like yours. What about a medium-sized trucking company in the South? Yep, results are available for that as well.*

This tool not only equips you to see the overall results of the SHRM Employee Benefits Survey, but also allows you to call up custom-filtered results any time you need them. You can also export the results for later reference.

We’re excited to share these results and equip you with the information to help you build better workplaces. Select any of the benefits categories on the navigation bar to get started.

*For confidentiality purposes, a minimum of five responses is required to show filtered results. For filters resulting in 5-19 responses, results will display with an asterisk to denote a low response count.

License Agreement

By using the employee benefits survey results interactive online tool you agree to our license agreement. click to see full details..

LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR THE SHRM EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SURVEY RESULTS INTERACTIVE ONLINE TOOL, SURVEY RESULTS AND REPORT

By opening and using the SHRM Employee Benefits Survey Results interactive online tool (the "Interactive Online Tool"), the Benefits Survey Results (the “Results”), and generating a Report (the “Report”) (and together the “Results and Report”), you (“User”) hereby agree as follows:

(i) That the Society for Human Resource Management is the exclusive provider and owner of the Interactive Online Tool and exclusive copyright owner of the Results and Report.

(ii) User has the right, by this License, to use the Interactive Online Tool and Results and Report solely for the internal purposes of their employer (“Company”) or for the internal purposes of a single client of Company (“Single Client”), and to make or distribute copies of the Results and Report to other employees within the Company or to employees within the Single Client, provided that such other Company employees or Single Client employees may only use the Results and Report for the internal purposes of the Company or Single Client. The Results and Report may not be shared to external third parties by any Company employees, Single Client employees or User. Except as allowed above with respect to use by employees of Company for the internal purposes of Company or employees of Single Client for the internal purposes of Single Client, User, Company and Single Client are strictly prohibited from printing, making or distributing any copies of the Results and Report in any type of media.

(iii) All materials, reports, data, records, including all export files and reports generated from the Interactive Online Tool, regardless of format (e.g., PDF, CSV), and any other intellectual property created or compiled by SHRM for the Results or in generating the Report, contained in the Results and Report and all copies thereof, collectively the “SHRM Intellectual Property”, shall be the sole property of SHRM.  

(iv) Neither User, Company nor Single Client has any right to sell or sublicense, loan or otherwise convey or distribute the Interactive Online Tool, the Results or the Report or any copies thereof in any media to any third parties outside of the Company or Single Client.

© 2024 Society for Human Resource Management. All rights reserved.

SHRM is a member-driven catalyst for creating better workplaces where people and businesses thrive together. As the trusted authority on all things work, SHRM is the foremost expert, researcher, advocate and thought leader on issues and innovations impacting today’s evolving workplaces. With nearly 340,000 members in 180 countries, SHRM touches the lives of more than 362 million workers and their families globally. Discover more at SHRM.org.

This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the Society for Human Resource Management, 1800 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA.

This report is published by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). SHRM cannot accept responsibility for any errors or omissions or any liability resulting from the use or misuse of any such information.

HR Daily Newsletter

New, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

Juneteenth: What to know about the historical celebration that's now a federal holiday

On june 19, 1865 slaves in galveston, texas were given the news that they were freed by president abraham lincoln. now, the day is a holiday that celebrates the "second independence day" in america..

Three years after it was made a federal holiday , Juneteenth 2024 marks a day of celebration as well as education.

The federal holiday known as “Second Independence Day,” marks the day the last African American slaves were notified that they had been freed from their masters, the National Museum of African American History and Culture said.

Dr. Tim Goler, a professor of urban affairs and sociology courses and director of research for the Center for African American Public Policy at Norfolk State University, told USA TODAY that Juneteenth or "Freedom Day" is a day that shows the "beauty of our culture" that everyone should participate in.

The origins of Juneteenth date back to June 19, 1865 – more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation - when the Union Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and announced the end of the Civil War and the emancipation of enslaved African Americans, Goler said.

“This delay and the enforcement of the emancipation in Texas was due to a lack of enforcement until this general arrived," Goler said. "Then Juneteenth thus became this kind of powerful symbol of freedom and the long struggle for civil rights."

The Juneteenth National Independence Day A ct was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate in June 2021. The bill was signed by President Joe Biden on June 17, 2021, which officially made the day a federal holiday.

Here's what you need to know about Juneteenth.

An African American holiday: Predating Juneteenth was nearly lost to history. It's back.

Black History, Juneteenth becoming more cemented in fabric of US

Although Juneteenth is now becoming a part of the conversation regarding Black History, there was a time when Black History was not widely discussed within the educational system, especially for historians, said Dr. Alan Singer, a professor of teaching, learning and technology at Hofstra University who writes about the history of slavery and racism.

“I didn't learn it (until) I was an adult, really (in the) 1990s, when as a teacher, I started studying more, so I (could) incorporate it into my lessons,” he said. “I went to City College in the 1960s and they had first introduced a course called ‘American Negro History’ and that was the first time I had learned about any of these things. I took the course because I became a political activist while at City College and I needed to know more about the African American civil rights struggles.”

Singer also adds that he attended high school during the Civil Rights Movement and was never taught about Black History. To change that, he decided to educate himself more to properly teach his students.

“I just felt a heavy responsibility as a teacher to really present a much more accurate picture of the history of the United States,” he said.

Goler adds that Juneteenth has been recognized for years within the Black community and history. Now, the day has become more publicly known.

"In recent years, Juneteenth has gained a much wider recognition. It's only been since 2021 that it became that designated as a federal holiday," he said. "Many Black people and Black communities around the country have celebrated Juneteenth. It's just becoming much more wider and much more visible now."

Commercialization of Juneteenth

Since Juneteenth has been declared a federal holiday, many retailers have unveiled Juneteenth attire through clothing, footwear, hats and other merchandise.

"The question is, 'who benefits from the commercialization of Juneteenth?' I’d definitely like to see more African American (and) more Black businesses benefit," Goler said. "The trend of commercialization, we risk the overshadowing of the historical context, and the ongoing struggle for racial equality that Juneteenth represents."

Singer hopes that companies that are selling Juneteenth products are also advocating for more inclusivity.

“What I'm arguing is that what we need to do is to use a day like Juneteenth as a launching pad to build a more just society,” he said. “It should not just be about the past, it has to be about the future.”

Goler hopes that the holiday will bring everyone together but also educate them about this important day in Black History.

"I think as we observe Juneteenth, it's important to focus on the education, reflection, the community engagement aspect and really ensure that the day remains of a pungent reminder of our continued and enduring fight for freedom and justice," he said.

Ahjané Forbes is a reporter on the National Trending Team at USA TODAY. Ahjané covers breaking news, car recalls, crime, health, lottery and public policy stories. Email her at  [email protected] . Follow her on  Instagram ,  Threads  and  X (Twitter) .

By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies and similar tracking technologies described in our privacy policy .

Voice of the Discipline

News and publications.

Access AHA news and publications supporting the work of historians.

Stay up-to-date with the AHA

June 21, 2024

AHA Signs On to CIE Letter Urging HEA-Title VI Funding for FY 2025

The AHA has signed on to a letter from the Coalition for International Education (CIE) to leaders in the US…

June 18, 2024

Welcome to the AHA’s New Website

May 30, 2024

AHA Signs on to ACLS Statement on 2024 Campus Protests

May 23, 2024

AHA Partners with Wiki Education for New Member Benefit

The American Historical Review is the flagship journal of the AHA and the journal of record for the historical discipline in the United States, bringing together scholarship from every major field of historical study.

Perspectives on History is the newsmagazine of the AHA and is the principal source for news and information about the discipline of history. Since 1962, Perspectives has promoted our work by publishing articles and commentary on all aspects of the historical discipline.

History in Focus Podcast

Environmental Crisis and Recovery

Collaborative history + revisiting marion thompson wright, teaching historiography + chilling affects, aha booklets.

The AHA publishes booklets that address a diversity of topics to serve the needs of history students and historians in all professions. Our publications include career advice for history graduates, overviews and syntheses of current historical topics and fields, and guides to teaching and learning in history.

For the Press

The AHA is pleased to provide resources for journalists and press. If you are a member of the media and would like to submit a request for a referral or interview, please email [email protected] . Please provide any pertinent deadlines and we will do our best to accommodate your request. The AHA can find you a historian for any topic, and assists with dozens of inquiries each year.

The AHA encourages the reading of history with periodic reading challenges.

Permission to Use AHA Copyrighted Material

All material published by the American Historical Association in any medium is protected by copyright.

Join the AHA

The AHA brings together historians from all specializations and all work contexts, embracing the breadth and variety of activity in history today.