Facing the research-practice divide in science education

Science education researchers and science teachers have much to offer each other. In an ideal world, knowledge would flow freely between researchers and educators. Unfortunately, research and practice tend to exist in parallel universes. As long as this divide persists, classrooms will rarely benefit from research findings, and research studies will rarely be rooted in the realities of the classroom. If we care about science education, we have to face the research-practice divide.

How did it get this way?

When we talk about research and practice, we’re talking about academics and teachers. In the most typical case, we’re talking about professors of education working at universities, and teachers working at K-12 schools. The divide has its roots in historical and current differences between researchers and teachers in their training, methods, work environment, and career goals that have led to misunderstanding and mistrust. In a 2004 paper titled “Re-Visioning the academic–teacher divide: power and knowledge in the educational community” Jennifer Gore and Andrew Gitlin describe the state of the research-practice divide through the lens of the two groups of people involved, and the imbalance of power between them. Historically, they argue, the framework of science education research has been that researchers generate knowledge and materials that teachers need, but rarely recognize the need for teacher contributions. This assumed one-way flow of knowledge has certainly sparked animosity between the groups, deepened by cultural differences associated with differing career paths.

Of course, some people have been both K-12 teachers and academics in their careers. To get this perspective on the issue I reached out to a colleague, Assistant Professor of Science Education Ron Gray (Northern Arizona University). Ron has been a middle school science teacher, a teacher of science teachers, and is now a science education academic. When I asked him about the experience of transitioning from teacher to academic, he recalled:

“I don’t believe I had seen a single primary research document in education before earning my doctorate.”

Most K-12 science teachers are fairly disconnected from the research world once they leave universities and enter schools. They lack university library access, yet currently many of the best journals in the field, such as the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Science Education, and the International Journal of Science Education are not open access, and require a per-article fee to read. So how does research reach most teachers? I talked to a few science teachers about where they encounter science education research studies — many used science and education pages on Facebook, one got papers sent from an administrator, and some read practitioner journals. Many science teachers are members of the National Science Teacher’s Association (NSTA), which publishes practitioner journals and holds national and area conferences where teachers can hear about research findings. NSTA plays an invaluable role in working to connect research and practice. However, for perspective, NSTA has about 55,000 members, most but not all of which are practicing science teachers, but there are currently about two million practicing science teachers in the U.S.

The disconnect also stems from unfortunate misperceptions of professors by teachers and teachers by professors. Both groups often discount each other’s knowledge bases and workloads. Professors can harbor elitist attitudes about teachers, discounting the value of practical classroom experience in determining what works in education. Teachers frequently claim that professors suffer from “Ivory Tower Syndrome” — the assumption here is that professors live cushy lives, sheltered from the realities of schools, and therefore can’t produce knowledge that is useful in today’s classrooms. A high school teacher quoted by Gore and Gitlin explained:

“A lot of what [researchers] think is based on the past and they are out of touch. And so we call it the Ivory Tower. Welcome to our world.”

When I asked high school science teacher Laurie Almeida how she perceived the credibility of science education research, she responded:

“Somewhat credible. I work at a difficult school, so I feel that some of the research is way too out of touch with the reality of my school.”

An ivory tower of sorts. Sather Tower, U.C. Berkeley. Photo by Bernt Rostad.

An ivory tower of sorts. Sather Tower, U.C. Berkeley. Photo by Bernt Rostad.

There is sometimes truth to the ivory tower criticisms; Gore and Gitlin noted that in some academic circles, the more closely research is associated with practice, the more devalued it is. Furthermore, science education research is far from perfect. Small-scale studies with limited applicability are published more frequently in science education than they are the natural sciences. This trend hasn’t escaped notice from teachers either. When I asked about the perceived credibility of science education research among teachers, science teacher Toni Taylor told me:

“Too often I see ‘research’ that includes only a small sample population which makes me question the validity of the research,” and “Sometimes I feel like science education simply tries to reinvent the wheel.”

However, a lot of the mistrust between the two groups is based on their misunderstanding of each other’s professions. Teachers do not always appreciate that many researchers are often in the classroom regularly, conducting classroom-based studies and collecting data. This “back of the class” view can be highly illuminating, and is a valid way to know classrooms. Some researchers got their start as K-12 teachers. And higher education is certainly not immune from classroom management issues or over-filled schedules. Professors have stress — just ask the #realForbesProfessors (this hashtag exploded on Twitter following the publication of a Forbes article claiming that professors have one of the least stressful jobs). Similarly, researchers can forget that experienced teachers have a wealth of knowledge about the specific interactions of classroom context, pedagogy, and subject matter.


What can be done?

My conversation with Professor Ron Gray about what academics can do to better connect with teachers aligned well with calls in the literature for more researcher-teacher partnerships. He said:

“The best way would be to get back in the classroom but the tenure process just doesn’t let that happen.”

His response highlights the rigidity of teacher and researcher career paths. Even a former teacher who switched to the researcher path can’t switch back again without ultimately losing “traction” in both careers. Perhaps we should question the wisdom of entrenching people interested in science education in one narrowly-defined career trajectory or another. Instead, career advancement could reward the accumulation of diverse but synergistic experiences. Science education is a multidisciplinary endeavor, involving science, social science, and communication skills — why shouldn’t our career options reflect this?

Similarly, certain aspects of teacher training might be due for a change. Teacher education could be a crucial time to break the mold  that has placed researchers as producers and teachers as consumers of research. Gore and Gitlin suggest that student-teachers at the undergraduate or master’s levels could be attached to ongoing education research projects as research assistants. They would become intimately familiar with the purpose and methods of educational research and could become significant contributors to it. This would take some restructuring, as many programs focus on more “immediate” concerns such as classroom management, but the benefit could be the production of teachers who recognize the value of research and feel capable of making contributions to it.

The open access movement in scholarly publishing could also have a crucial role in breaking down barriers. Toll-access journals can function as practically impenetrable “ivory fortresses” where valuable knowledge is locked away from practitioners. However, open access will likely prove necessary, but not sufficient in closing the research-practice gap. Teachers I’ve spoken to are very positive about open access but guarded about how much more time they’ll spend reading research articles. Time is a huge issue for teachers. But the alternative — locking up research findings in places where both time and money can be barrier for teachers — is certainly not helping to connect research with practice.

For the short-term, most education research articles are still in toll-access journals. For those without easy access to the primary literature in science, research blogs have become an incredible resource. However, the science education research blogging community pales in comparison to the science research blogging community. While teachers can find the latest science news and engaging resources to share with their students by following the science blogging community, they are not as likely to find quick-and-easy write-ups of science education research findings that are relevant to their pedagogy, curriculum development, assessment practices. As the Sci-Ed blog establishes itself, I hope that my fellow writers and I can attempt to partially fill this role. And I hope that many others in science education continue to follow the research blogging model.


Jennifer M. Gore & Andrew D. Gitlin (2004): [RE]Visioning the academic–teacher divide: power and knowledge in the educational community, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10:1, 35-58. 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
This entry was posted in Science education research, Science teaching and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Facing the research-practice divide in science education

  1. Norm says:

    Really enjoyed your thinking about to this critical issue in this post. How will reform happen unless this problem is addressed? Opening lines of communication between these two cultures is surprisingly challenging. Just finished my doctorate while teaching full time at a MS, hoping all along to find/build this bridge but it still escapes me. Still wondering how to translate research findings and constructs into forms of practice that can survive in classrooms. Even in my research, I wondered if I was constructing orchids and asking them to survive in the desert. How do we translate research findings into forms of practice that will survive? The fixed environment metaphor (desert) doesn’t quite work since some teachers have autonomy and control over their teaching environment. If research findings of best practices die on the vine its because we teachers who know of them let them -we don’t give these practices high enough priority. Yet even when research findings and practices are known and adopted by some teachers these teachers are often alone in a school. What should be given priority in teaching is constantly challenged admin, colleagues and by the time limitations of answering to a bell. And different and possibly conflicting priorities and agendas between teachers in the same school generate challenges for teachers attempting to pursue an ambitious research-based pedagogy, and that is if we are fortunate to get the chance to collaborate at all. I wonder if strategy of theory-practice bridge construction might be to make the problems of researcher the problem of teachers. Could T and R come to a common understanding of misconceptions and would it inspire joint problem solving on ways to address them. AAAS ‘s assessment work seems like it a paves away for this to begin since their items provide information about student misconceptions. And their easy to use website provides easy access to these items. By making misconceptions more salient to practicing teachers, we might distribute and get them to take up the problem solving load and find that solutions teachers create have a better chance of surviving in the environment of practice. Its strikes me as a constructivist lens might help to address teachers’ misconceptions of practice. We teachers have persistent beliefs formed from experience, our conceptions of practice exist for a reason. – teacher practices persist because they work based on some criteria. What might provide dissonance to dislodge misconceptions of practice might be about keeping student misconceptions front and center and making these changing these student conceptions the criterion teachers judge their success.

  2. Pingback: Science education at Science Online 2013 | Education QA

  3. Pingback: Science education at Science Online 2013 | Education News

  4. Pingback: The Science Research – Education Research Divide | Small Pond Science

  5. Pingback: #overlyhonestmethods – Reaching out with humour | Mr Epidemiology

  6. Lirah Luna says:

    Having two doctorates and an undergraduate major in chemistry, I know one issue of the disconnect. The translator. The researcher’s role is to add to the knowledge base. (my opinion). Often it then needs to be translated to how to USE that information to teach so that students will learn. Some teachers are fantastic, but cannot “translate”. With the cyberworld today, a demo of utilization would be a niche to disseminate relevant-to-the-classroom- now information. *Lirah Luna*

  7. Pingback: Facing the research-practice divide in science education | Sci-Ed | Exploring Life Course Resources | Scoop.it

  8. Brian says:

    I think one of the other challenges might be that if professors do not have teaching certificates then they can’t teach at the high school/jr high level (in many states) but the high school/jr high teacher can teach at a college. Maybe job sharing or swapping might provide some insight. At my graduate school, someone from the public sector came in and taught class while the professor was working in the public sector position.

  9. Pingback: Facing the research-practice divide in science education | Susan Elizabeth D'Auria – STEM Director

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>