Reimagining Schools Chapter 9

Can Educational Research Inform Educational Practice?

pg 86 - 95

In this chapter, Elliot Eisner writes about the disconnect between educational researchers and educational practitioners. Although he is the former head of the American Educational Research Association, and a university professor at Stanford, Eisner feels the researchers aren’t really taken seriously by those working in the field.

Duh? In what sand dune have these researchers hiding their heads? In my opinion, and as an ESL teacher, I would have to agree with Eisner. Although we may read some of the research that is coming out in our various educational fields, we don’t really use it to inform our practice. Instead, we, as educators, do what we must in order to meet our objectives (if as Eisner says we even bother to create them) and to deliver the content of our programs. According to Eisner’s research, a “typical” response is that research findings function in the background as a frame of reference. “After all, research in education does not provide the kind of prescriptions that are employed, say, in medical practice as a result of research in medicine. The use of research in education is more heuristic’ it provides a framework that we can use to make decisions, not a set of rules to be followed slavishly.”

Eisner tries to define this connect by breaking it down into two specific problems. Problem one concerns the use of educational research as a framework to inform practice. Basically, he states that being aware of the research does not necessarily mean the practitioner is going to make it a part of the practice. Whether the educator actually uses the results of the research to aid in the design of the curriculum remains to be seen. How the research is thus interpreted by the teacher and used within the system is an individual choice and its expression is portrayed in different ways.

The second problem is whether or not the research actually improves practice. Instead it is more of an influence over how the curriculum is delivered. Eisner agrees that “some educational practices have changed as a result of educational research.” (p 89)

What is often forgotten is the learner. How has the image of the learner changed? In what ways is that image different than in the past? Eisner talks of how research must have had an influence on the way we envision the learner but then goes on to say that research usually follows changes within the practice. First comes change, and then comes the research into the effects of those changes. This is reminiscent of the image of the dog chasing its tail. Educational research and educational practice are caught in this inextricable dance, going round and round, a Viennese waltz of sorts. Even when the dancing stops, the choreographer continues to create new steps (okay, so I’m watching So You Think You Can Dance Canada as I am writing this). My, and Eisner’s point is that research and practice really haven’t caught up with each other.

To conclude, Eisner states that in order for research to truly inform practice, a language must be allowed to develop which will be able to accurately express the research and make the connection to practice. Research must become intimate with those who are in the field and then talk to all aspects of the practice, not just the curriculum, nor the image of the student, nor the subject matter. Research must be all-inclusive and be more than a make-work project for researchers to maintain or achieve tenure. Eisner doesn’t write to be critical but rather to be constructive in his observations and to express an optimism and hope for the future of educational research. “What is pessimistic is a failure or unwillingness to recognize our condition—to look at our professional world through glasses that allow us to see only what we wish. That would be pessimistic.” (p 94)