Skip to main content
Why Do Teachers Resist Research? And, Why Should We?
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

Let’s imagine that you show me research suggesting that students remember the words they draw better than the words they write down.

After some thought…perhaps some experimentation on my own…I decide not to follow this research advice.

Why did I “resist” these research findings? What prompted me to do so?

Education researcher Tim Cain divides possible answers into four categories. The verbs he uses to describe each one are all synonyms. But, he gives each one distinct meaning to distinguish among the possibilities.

And, as you’ll see, three of the four choices sound really bad.

3 Bad Choices

Denial: denialists basically pretend that there is reasonable disagreement on a topic where none really exits. Example: companies that say smoking isn’t bad for your lungs, or historians who pretend the Holocaust didn’t happen.

For the most part, in Cain’s analysis, deniers strive to “protect self-esteem and status.”

Opposition: whereas denialists typically have power and want to protect it, oppositionists don’t have much power, and reject scientific findings that might continue their subjugation.

For instance, I might have rejected the drawing strategy because I didn’t think it worked (see below). But, I might reject it because – as a teacher with relatively little cultural power – I don’t want to be bossed around by scientific researchers – who have more cultural standing than I do.

Rejection: Rejections gets a little complicated. In this model, I accept research findings only if they BOTH help students learn AND make me look good. But, if they don’t hit both targets, I’m not interested.

So, for example, if drawing does help students remember, but doesn’t win me esteem in the faculty room, then I’m just not interested.

As you can see, these first three choices don’t seem very appealing. I’m oversimplifying a bit – but not a lot – to say that teachers who resist research for these reasons are being jerks.

Frankly, I’m feeling a bit stressed right now. Does Cain acknowledge that teachers have any good reasons to resist research findings?

One More?

Indeed, Cain does give us one more choice.

Dissent: if teachers think critically about research, we might see gaps, flaws, or logical leaps. Rather than being driven by the sinister motives outlined above, we might honestly – even insightfully – disagree with the arguments put before us.

Being a researcher, Cain wanted to know: which is it? Why do teachers ultimately decide not to follow researchers’ advice?

Are we protecting the power we have (“denial”)? Fighting to prevent others from getting even more power over us (“opposition”)? Focusing on prestige more than usefulness (“rejection”)?

Or, are we enhancing educational debate by thinking critically (“dissent”)?

The Big Reveal

I’ll cut to the chase: for the most part, Cain finds that we’re in the critical thinking business.

To arrive at this conclusion, Cain worked with several teachers at two schools in northern England. He gave them some research articles, and asked them to try out the researchers’ findings. He then met with them to talk over their work, and interviewed them about their conclusions.

Here’s what he found:

First: teachers ultimately agreed with and accepted significant chunks of the researchers’ conclusions and advice. There didn’t simply reject everything they read and undertook.

Second: at the same time, teachers didn’t see researchers’ conclusions as more important than their own. As Cain puts it:

Essentially, almost all the teachers saw the authority of the published research reports as provisional. They did not see the research as having greater authority than their own experience or other forms of information.

Third: when teachers did resist researchers’ conclusions, they did so for entirely plausibly reasons.

They (plausibly) thought some of the studies contained contradictions. They (plausibly) saw some findings as out of date. And, they (plausibly) raised objections to research methodology.

They also – and I think this is very good news – emphasized the narrow particularity of research findings. As one teacher said:

If you researched in different schools, it would be different. If you had an inner-city school, a wealthy middle-class school, a private school, every one would be totally, totally different.

And another:

Does anything work for every single person? No, I don’t think there’s anything that will work exactly the same. It’s finding what’s right for your group: the age, the personalities.

(Regular readers of the blog know that I bang on about this point all the time, so I’m DELIGHTED to see it articulated so clearly here.)

Closing Thoughts

Cain (rightly) emphasizes that his study is early and exploratory. He worked with volunteers: that is, people who are likely to be interested in research in the first place. (If they weren’t interested, they wouldn’t have volunteered.)

And, like any study, this one has lots of limitations. For instance: these teachers worked in “Gifted and Talented” programs. Findings in other settings might be different.

But, at least initially, Cain’s finding shows that teachers can be great partners for researchers. We’re not resisting for the sake of resisting.

Instead, we’re thinking critically about the limits of research, and the goodness of fit for our particular classrooms.

Which is exactly what we should do.

 

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

We often post about the unreliability of “brain training.”

Heck, even though I live in Boston and am a Patriots fan, I made fun of Tom Brady’s website claiming to “increase brain speed” and other such nonsense. (I don’t even know what “increase brain speed” might mean.)

So, you think I’d be especially wary of these claims. But, even I can fall into such traps — at least temporarily. Last week, it happened TWICE.

Fool Me Once

Many researchers have claimed to be able to increase working memory capacity.

(It would be great if we could do so, because working memory is so important for all classroom learning.)

Alas, very consistently, we find that such programs don’t really work. (For instance, here and here.)

And so, I was very excited to see a new approach to the problem.

We have long known that the cerebellum helps control motor function. More recently, scientists have discovered that it also supports working memory performance.

Perhaps, we could strengthen cerebellar function, and that way enhance WM. Worth a try, no?

Although this explanation makes good sense, and the accompanying graphs looked impressive, I was drawn up short by a serious problem: the researchers didn’t measure working memory.

You read that right. Instead of a WM test, they gave participants a short-term memory test.

So, this research shows that cerebellar training might increase STM. But, it shows nothing about WM.

Brain training hopes dashed…

Fool Me Twice

Unlike WM training, we have had some luck with attention training.

For instance, Green and Bavalier have shown that playing certain computer games can increase various kinds of visual attention.

A recent study claimed that a specially designed iPad game could enhance sustained visual attention. I was gearing up to review the research so I could write about it here, when…

I learned that the test to measure students’ attention was very similar to the game itself. (H/t: Michael Kane)

In other words: participants might have gotten better because they (basically) practiced the test, not because their sustained attention improved.

To measure such progress, researchers would need a test that wasn’t similar to the game participants played.

Brain training hopes re-dashed…

The Big Take Away for Teachers

I’m basically an optimistic person, and I really don’t like being a grinch.

But, sometimes my job requires me to be grinchy.

At this point, I’ve been inspired by “brain training” claims so many times, only to be disappointed by an analysis of the research underlying those claims.

So, from now on, I’m just going to assume that new claims are highly likely to be false.

If brain training claims are subsequently replicated by many research teams; if the methodologies are scrutinized and approved by several scholars in the field; well, if that happens, I’ll relent.

For now, I don’t want to be fooled again.

The Joys (and Stresses) of Teacher/Neuroscientist Collaboration
Andrew Watson
Andrew Watson

In an ideal world, teachers and researchers collaborate to bring out the best in each other.

So, I might invite Pooja Agarwal to study retrieval practice in my 10th grade English classroom.

My students and I benefit because we learn more about this great study technique.

Dr. Agarwal’s research benefits because she sees how the theory of the technique functions in the real messy world of schools.

What’s not to like?

Theory, Meet Reality

Of course, our world rarely lives up to that ideal. Teacher/researcher collaboration creates all sorts of challenges.

We speak very different languages.

We operate within very different time frames.

At times, we highlight very different values.

All these differences can make communication, progress, and success difficult to achieve.

Today’s Example

Over at the Blog on Learning Development, Meeri Kim has recently written about a collaboration between neuroscientists and Head Start teachers. More precisely, she interviewed two of the scientists in the program.

The result: a refreshingly frank description of the benefits and stresses of this collaboration.

For instance: the curriculum that the scientists created improved social skills and selective attention, while reducing problem behaviors. What teacher wouldn’t like those results?

As researcher Lauren Vega O’Neil noted:

A lot of the activities were packaged as fun games. The teachers loved having these ready-made activities that would help them long-term in the classroom.

And yet, this collaboration included confusions and stresses as well.

I worked mostly with teachers in classrooms during the study, and many of them jumped on board right away. But there was some pushback, particularly since some teachers saw this as yet another curriculum that they were being asked to implement. […] So they just saw our training program as something else that was being asked of them.

Suggestions?

Researcher Eric Pakulak has some surprisingly direct advice for colleagues who want to do classroom research:

Unfortunately, it seems to be all too common that researchers come in and don’t listen as much as they should to educators, thinking that it should be all about neuroscience, and only using education to implement what they know, as opposed to something more bi-directional.

Instead, we need to work together and really understand the ways that the experience of teachers and administrators can inform our work.

I agree with this advice wholeheartedly.

And, I likewise think that teachers can do more to understand the pressures on researchers.

For instance: research works by isolating variables.

Classroom researchers might have very particular scheduling needs. They can be certain that retrieval practice produces a benefit only if nothing else in the class was different. So, they might have to insist we schedule quizzes at a very specific point in the class — even if that schedule is highly inconvenient for us.

The more that teachers understand these research requirements, the more effectively we can create classroom research paradigms that both help our individual students learn and help researchers discover enduring truths about learning.