THE Journal

 

The no child left behind act has brought research, particularly scientifically based research, beyond discussions in graduate schools and back into the consciousness of educators in the field. For many educators, it has been a long time since those discussions, and key concepts about educational research may have become hazy. In this fourth article in our six-part series, edited by guest editor Therese Mageau, T.H.E. Journal turns to a refresher primer on how to evaluate educational research. The first is an article by Dr. Doris Redfield, a noted researcher at AEL. The second is a checklist, which can be found on our Web site (www.thejournal.com), put out by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the organization overseeing the What Works Clearinghouse. The IES contracted with the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance to create a report titled "Identifying and Implementing Educational Practices Supported by Rigorous Evidence: A User Friendly Guide."

Because the what works Clearinghouse (WWC) cannot possibly evaluate the effectiveness of every product, program, practice or policy that schools might be likely to use, educators are going to increasingly find themselves in the role of research evaluators. However, many education practitioners do not have the kind of research background necessary to enable them to expertly evaluate research. According to the U.S. Education Department, when evaluating educational research, evaluators should look for the following:

Educational relevance. The research should address interventions, outcomes, participants and settings representative of the school's interests and needs.

Rigorous, systematic and objective methods. The research should offer the highest quality evidence of what really caused the changes in the outcomes measured. According to the Education Department, the best way to produce such evidence is to conduct an experiment, referred to by some as "the gold standard" of research.

Sufficient detail for replication. The research methods and instruments should be described in enough detail that other researchers can replicate the study.

Submitted to independent, expert review. There should be evidence that the research was reviewed by research and content experts other than the researchers. A typical form of expert review is publication in a refereed journal.

To help educators better understand how to review research studies, we offer some rules of thumb on research evaluation by way of a comprehensive list of questions created by Dr. Doris Redfield, vice president for research and director of the Regional Educational Laboratory at AEL (Appalachia Educational Laboratory). AEL houses one of the 10 educational research and development laboratories funded by the Institute for Education Sciences, which oversees the work of the WWC.

• Next »
• 1. 1
  2. 2