The passage of No Child Left Behind legislation and the publication of the National Research Council’s Scientific Research in Education have generated much discussion and criticism of the call for educational research and evaluation that is more scientific. Using examples from their own field research and evaluation experiences, the authors illustrate their concerns with the concepts and principles of scientific-based research. They propose both qualitative and quantitative methods are critical for studying the structural, political, systemic issues that surround complex educational issues and organizations. The authors call for the creation of a space for public engagement to include the public’s collective wisdom and experiences to discuss and deliberate educational issues and generate possible solutions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20.
2.
Boruch, R., & Mosteller, F. (2002). Overview and new directions. In R. Boruch & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in educational research (pp. 1-14). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
3.
Cazden, C. (2003, April). Panorama and close-up views: The complementarity of quantitative and qualitative research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2002). Resources, instruction, and research. In R. Boruch & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in educational research (pp. 1-14). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6.
Cook, T. D. (2002). Randomized experiments in education: Why are they so rare? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 175-199.
7.
Erickson, F., & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21-24.
8.
Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.
9.
Fine, M., Weis, M., Weseen, D., & Wong, L. (2000). For Whom? Qualitative research, representations, and social responsibility. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 107-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A state wide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 2, 557-577.
11.
Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97-110.
12.
Gee, J. P. (2003). It’s theories all the way down: A response to scientific research in education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
13.
Guba, E.,& Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
House, E. (in press). Qualitative evaluation and changing social policy. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4thed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
House, E. R., Glass, G. V, McLean, L. D., & Walker, D. F. (1978). No simple answer: Critique of follow through evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 128-160.
16.
House, E., & Howe, K. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Howe, K. (2003, May). Qualitative knowing scientifically-based research. Symposium conducted at the University of Illinois, Bureau of Educational Research, Champaign.
18.
Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Larabee, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13-22.
20.
Mark, M. M., Henry, G., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
Mosteller, F., Light, R. J., & Sachs, J. A. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education lessons learned from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 797-842.
22.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education (Committee on Scientific Principles for Educational Research, R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne, Eds., Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
24.
Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000). The effects of small classes on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee class size experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 123-151.
25.
Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2002). Do low-achieving students benefit more from small classes? Evidence from the Tennessee class size experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 201-218.
26.
Pelligrino, J. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2002). Be careful what you wish for—You may get it: Educational research in the spotlight. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 15-17.
27.
Porro, B. (1994). Playing the school system: The low-achiever’s game. In E. W. Eisner (Ed.), The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed., pp. 253-272). New York: Macmillan.
28.
Ryan, K. E. (2002). Shaping educational accountability systems. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 453-468.
29.
Ryan, K. E., & DeStefano, L. (2001). Dialogue as a democratizing evaluation method. Evaluation, 7, 195-210.
30.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Evaluation as practical hermeneutics. Evaluation, 3(1), 69-83.
31.
Stake, R. (1983). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In G. Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 291-300). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
32.
St. Pierre, E. (2002). “Science” rejects postmodernism. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 25-27.
Weiss, C. A. (1983). Ideology, interest, and information: The basis for policy decisions. In D. Callahan & B. Jennings (Eds.), Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis(pp. 213-245). New York: Plenum.
35.
Willinsky, J. (2001). The strategic education research program and the value of research. Educational Researcher, 30(1), 5-14.
36.
Willinsky, J. (2003, April). The democratic responsibilities of scientific inquiry in education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
