For many decades, the educational research process has followed an established pattern, with the inquirer first defining an overall territory of interest and then undertaking a review of the literature so as to appreciate the current state of knowledge, increase their understanding of the issues involved, and develop a focus for the more practical work to come.
Typically, what is learnt via the “desk research” guides the subsequent collection and analysis of data. This sequence is reflected in the structure that usually underpins the writing up of the study in the formal report, with discoveries emerging from the literature set down before the findings of the first-hand investigative element.
By no means do all experts support this order of research activity, however. Some believe that consulting the literature first can prejudice the individual’s thinking when they gather their own data. I, myself, have written elsewhere that, when teaching young children how to conduct research, it can be wise to commence with their personal quest for data, as this gives them more direct experience of the issues involved; they may access relevant published information later.
A more natural approach
In recent months I have experimented with how the recognised sequence of research activity may be inverted in another context. The revised version begins with a teacher converging on a general matter for scrutiny, then carrying out their own small-scale research project, which starts with them collecting and analysing data in order to identify matters worthy of pursuing.
This may be little more than a formal and structured adaptation of the kind of appraisal of a classroom activity or assessment of students’ performance that is routinely undertaken by teachers.
Further investigation involves going to published information sources, and the individual’s ultimate understanding comes as much from the literature as the first-hand data.
If, in the course of their study, a teacher encounters a source that they feel would be of benefit to their colleagues, it is shared with other members of staff in a future CPD event.
The ultimate aim, at either a group or individual level, lies in the improvement – or development – of professional practice.
This approach offers various attractions. It is more natural and consistent with much of what happens in schools since, for many professionals, their first insights into major teaching and learning issues that affect them come from experiences in the classroom, not from academic journals or even websites.
It is also inherently flexible, with the individual able to tailor the research they undertake according to their own circumstances and interests. Teachers may find the conventional format for investigation something of a straitjacket, as it stipulates a range of areas the individual should consider in both the research itself and the final report.
It must be said that some of the coverage in research texts which seeks to distinguish between the fundamental concepts of “aims” and “objectives”, “methodology” and “method”, and the reporting of “results” and “discussion” can confuse rather than enlighten.
In contrast, under the revised paradigm, once alerted to the importance of particular matters through first-hand investigation – itself no more than an extension of their existing practices – teachers are free to concentrate on any areas within their overall territory that they deem important.
Indeed, the starting point in this new model is the first-hand investigation element. Professional reading on the part of the practitioner/researcher is stimulated by and grounded in direct experience.
In the conventional model, perhaps the most important feature is the results obtained from the first-hand data. The problem can arise that these are very specific to the researcher’s situation; an increased emphasis on the literature often offers a more generic perspective which, potentially, may be transferable to various scenarios.
Research which emphasises literature searching affords the opportunity to explore the salient issues from the perspective of different disciplines – many teaching and learning challenges can be illuminated from the viewpoints of, for example, sociology, psychology, communication studies and information science, as well as education. Coming at issues from several angles may help the individual see them in other contexts and in relation to concepts they had not considered.
There is, of course, the problem that, unless they have personal links with a university, teachers will not have available to them the full range of academic research relevant to their area of interest. Still, in recent years, tools such as Google Scholar and Access to Research have significantly increased the extent of scholarly literature practitioners can read and nowadays the results and implications of research are being disseminated ever more widely through non-traditional channels.
Steps should also be taken to ensure that conducting research is not an intimidating prospect; teachers must not feel obliged to devise and implement a rigorous project that they will be expected to defend in the face of scrutiny from others.
“Scrutiny” as it is understood in the traditional model of research may become instead a more relaxed process of sharing, possibly in an end-of-year research fair, for example, what the individual has learnt. The centrepiece of each presentation may be a research poster of the individual’s own design.
An example
Let us examine for a moment an instance where the “data first” approach is seen in practice. I recently conducted a project on confirmation bias in independent learning.
I began by gathering data from my own extended project qualification (EPQ) candidates pertaining to the problem. This alerted me to different types of confirmation bias and where in the overall processes of finding and using information they are likely to emerge. I then drew on this knowledge to explore a range of pertinent sources on the inherent issues. In looking to ascertain the reasons for confirmation bias, I interacted with published material from a variety of fields. Finally, I formulated recommendations for practice from the totality of what I had discovered.
I have termed the research strategy advocated here the “3Rs”. It commences with work in the classroom. The individual recognises a matter worthy of study and uncovers the main issues through first-hand investigation; they read to shed light on these, and respond by developing a solution, which will, in time, itself be subject to research in order to determine its effectiveness and wider applicability.
Final thoughts
The research-engaged school can take many forms. It may be tempting for practitioners of an academic disposition to think in terms of carrying out research according to the classic model, especially if they have done so previously in work for a dissertation or thesis, but this does not always fit the needs and circumstances of their colleagues, and the constraints within which they must operate.
This article has presented an arrangement in which insights from the collection and analysis of data become the driver for the individual to explore relevant areas in more detail via the consultation of published information sources. It is a modus operandi that has been effective in my own experience; other practitioners may well either adopt/adapt the model for their own situation or develop alternative ways of being “research-engaged” which work for them.
- Dr Andrew K. Shenton worked as a teacher, school librarian and EPQ supervisor in various schools for more than 30 years. He is now retired. To read his previous articles for SecEd go to www.sec-ed.co.uk/authors/dr-andrew-k-shenton. You can email him at ashenton1@outlook.com