Teacher-led research vs. top-down mandates
I came across an interesting article the other day. In it, the author opines about an unfortunate divide between the type of education research valued and funded in academic circles versus that which has practical utility for teachers in our classrooms. Small-scale action research studies conducted by teachers, whilst potentially highly useful, often struggle to get recognition or financial support. The studies granted the most money and influence tend to involve large datasets, complex statistical analyses, and a focus on standardized test results - and, not mentioned in the article but added from my experience - driven by BigEd.
Yet, the author notes, these technical, large-scale studies frequently fail to provide helpful insights to the teachers and schools they are ostensibly meant to inform. Teachers strive for research findings that illuminate the realities inside classrooms and offer concrete suggestions for instructional improvement. But much academic research dwells in abstractions, advanced mathematical models, and theoretical frameworks detached from daily teaching needs. There is a serious disconnect between the questions and methodologies researchers choose to study and the practical wisdom schools urgently require.
Take-away: researchers could do more to empower teachers to carry out small but scientifically sound studies in our own classrooms focusing on issues that matter to us. Providing training in techniques like action research would allow teachers to investigate concerns and innovations in teaching whilst still meeting validity standards. Teachers should also be encouraged to explicitly articulate the educational theories motivating their instructional decisions. Bringing practitioner knowledge and academic research into closer dialogue is key for improving education. Greater recognition of teacher-led inquiry as a complement to technical studies could help bridge the unproductive divide between research and practice in education.
And yet …
What about the ethics of conducting research on human subjects in such settings, I asked myself after reading the article?
Wow, Dr. H. You raise an excellent ethical consideration regarding teacher action research.
Why thank you, (blushes).
You see, when teachers conduct “research studies” in their own classrooms involving their students, it does potentially raise issues around consent, transparency, and potential harm. This is opposed to the normal function within Universal Design for Learning (UDL) that has teachers using data to inform instruction, grouping, etc.
A few thoughts on this:
Having teachers unilaterally decide to test different instructional methods on some students but not others could be seen as experimenting without informed consent. The students and their parents are not necessarily aware they are subjects in a study. This must be explicitly stated and parents / students must either give informed consent or have the ability to opt-out.
It could be argued that teachers constantly test and refine techniques in their teaching practice. Seeking more rigorous evidence to inform this through structured classroom research is not intrinsically unethical. But transparency about changes in teaching and the rationale behind them is important.
Perhaps the solution is to have clearer mechanisms, protocols, and ethical guidelines for teacher action research. Parental consent and child safeguarding policies adapted for education research projects could be helpful. Community review boards (similar in function to Institutional Review Boards or IRBs) involving families may provide oversight of proposed teacher studies.
As with academic research, assessing, and minimising potential harm to student wellbeing from disruptive interventions should be paramount. And research should enhance, not replace, a teacher’s responsibility for educating all students ethically and equitably.
The ethical issues I found around informal teacher experimentation as mentioned in the article are real. Guidelines and systems for ethical teacher action research, informed by academic precedent but tailored to classrooms, may help resolve concerns whilst still nurturing valuable teacher inquiry. Harm prevention and consent should be cornerstones of any such procedures. Raising this question highlights important considerations for the practice.