Labaree, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13-22.
In this article, David F. Labaree explores the challenges faced by education doctoral programs in the United States, particularly the difficulties in transforming experienced teachers into educational researchers. He discusses how the perceived low status of education schools and the applied, soft nature of educational knowledge contribute to these challenges. Labaree highlights the cultural clash between the normative, personal, and practical world of teaching and the analytical, intellectual, and theoretical demands of educational research. The article calls attention to the structural and epistemological differences that complicate the preparation of educational researchers.
Labaree’s approach is primarily analytical, drawing from historical and sociological perspectives to frame the institutional and cultural conflicts faced by education doctoral students. One strength of the article is its clarity in explaining the deep-rooted issues within education schools and how these impact the preparation of researchers. Labaree effectively uses his personal experience and the literature to support his claims. However, the article leans heavily on critique without offering substantial solutions or alternative models for overcoming these challenges. While the analysis is robust, the lack of specific methodological suggestions limits its practical applicability for reforming doctoral programs.
This heavy emphasis on the preparation of doctoral candidates as researchers has limited relevance to the exploration of the use of spatial technology in the classroom, except in the consideration of appropriate research methods and guidance.
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.
David C. Berliner argues that educational research is one of the most challenging fields of scientific inquiry due to the complexity of human behavior and the ever-changing context of education. Berliner critiques the tendency to compare educational research to the so-called “hard” sciences like physics or chemistry, emphasizing that the social dynamics of classrooms and the variability of human interaction make education a “hard-to-do” science. He highlights several key challenges in educational research, including the influence of context, the ubiquity of interactions, and the fleeting relevance of findings over time, calling into question the government’s push for evidence-based practices focused solely on experimental methods.
Berliner’s strength lies in his ability to frame educational research as uniquely complex, a perspective that is often overlooked. His critique of the No Child Left Behind Act’s emphasis on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the gold standard for educational research is well-supported by historical examples of educational reforms that failed to generalize across contexts. Berliner’s use of qualitative and real-world examples effectively demonstrates the limitations of relying solely on quantitative methods. However, one potential weakness is that while the article critiques existing approaches, it doesn’t offer specific alternative methods for addressing the challenges faced in educational research beyond emphasizing the need for contextual awareness.
Spatial technology, by its nature, requires educators to consider the specific learning environments and student needs when implementing new tools. Berliner’s points highlight the necessity of using mixed research methods to evaluate spatial technology, ensuring that the tools are not just tested in controlled environments but also assessed for their adaptability across various classroom settings. This approach could lead to more nuanced findings about the impact of spatial technology on critical thinking and student retention, aligning with the complexities Berliner describes.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13520289
Gutiérrez and Penuel argue for expanding the definition of rigor in educational research by focusing on the practical application of research findings. They emphasize the need for educational studies to incorporate relevance to practice, which includes studying how interventions work in real-world contexts, involving teachers, students, and community stakeholders. The authors also advocate for research methods that are collaborative and iterative, allowing for ongoing refinement of interventions based on direct observation and participation. This approach is intended to ensure that research not only contributes to theory but also addresses practical challenges faced by educators.
One of the strengths of this article is its critique of traditional notions of rigor, which often prioritize randomized controlled trials over other forms of inquiry. By highlighting the importance of context, Gutiérrez and Penuel push for research that better reflects the complexities of classroom environments. Their call for participatory and iterative methods aligns well with the demands of educational practice. However, a potential weakness is the lack of concrete examples or detailed methodological guidance for implementing these broader forms of inquiry. While the theoretical framework is robust, a more practical direction for researchers seeking to adopt these methods would have been beneficial.
Gutiérrez and Penuel’s emphasis on relevance to practice suggests that when using tools like Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in the classroom, the focus should not just be on whether the technology works in an experimental setting, but on how it supports learning in diverse, real-world contexts. Their argument for collaborative research also resonates with the need to involve teachers and students in designing and refining spatial technology interventions, ensuring that these tools are adapted to meet the unique needs of different classrooms and communities. This iterative and participatory approach could enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of spatial technology in education.
Shulman, L. S. (1981). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. Educational Researcher, 10(6), 5-23.
In this article Shulman explores the variety of research methodologies in educational research, emphasizing the importance of method and disciplined inquiry. Shulman explains how different disciplines bring distinct perspectives and procedures to the study of education. He illustrates the differences between correlational and experimental research, alongside the ideological commitments that often underlie the choice of method. He also delves into the nature of disciplined inquiry, arguing that research in education must follow a set of principles that allow for replication and scrutiny. The article highlights how the choice of research method shapes the questions being asked and the subsequent findings.
The strength of Shulman’s article lies in its comprehensive discussion of multiple research methodologies and its ability to contextualize these methods within broader ideological frameworks. His analysis of the distinctions between correlational and experimental methods is particularly robust, offering a clear explanation of how these methods address different types of research questions. Shulman effectively uses historical examples to demonstrate how methodological choices are often tied to underlying social and political ideologies, adding depth to his argument.
Shulman’s emphasis on the importance of selecting the appropriate research method for the specific research question is directly applicable to the integration of spatial technology in educational settings. In the context of using tools like Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to enhance student learning, Shulman’s framework suggests that educators should carefully consider whether their objectives are better served by experimental methods (e.g., testing the effectiveness of a new spatial technology-based teaching strategy) or by correlational research (e.g., examining the relationship between spatial thinking skills and academic achievement).
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Chapter 1 Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences(p. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
In the first chapter of The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, R. Keith Sawyer introduces the emerging field of the learning sciences, outlining its origins and its foundational differences from traditional instructionist approaches to education. Sawyer discusses how learning sciences integrate insights from psychology, computer science, philosophy, and sociology to focus on deeper conceptual understanding rather than rote memorization. He explains that the traditional model of education, which treats knowledge as a collection of facts to be transmitted from teacher to student, is insufficient in today’s knowledge economy. Instead, the learning sciences advocate for learning environments that encourage active participation, reflection, and the application of knowledge to real-world situations. Sawyer emphasizes that the goal of education should be to develop learners who can think critically, solve complex problems, and continue learning throughout their lives.
One of the key strengths of Sawyer’s chapter is its comprehensive synthesis of interdisciplinary research that challenges conventional educational practices. The chapter effectively presents the historical context of instructionism, contrasting it with the principles of the learning sciences, which are backed by decades of research. Sawyer’s ability to distill complex ideas into accessible language is particularly commendable, making the chapter suitable for a wide audience, including educators, policymakers, and researchers. The chapter is well-organized, beginning with a critique of traditional schooling methods and progressing towards a detailed explanation of the benefits of learning sciences. Additionally, the use of evidence from cognitive science and educational psychology to support claims about the effectiveness of deeper learning practices enhances the credibility of the arguments presented.
Sawyer’s exploration of the learning sciences is directly applicable to the integration of spatial technology in the classroom, particularly in enhancing student retention and fostering critical thinking. The emphasis on creating learning environments that encourage active participation and reflection aligns with the use of spatial technology, which can provide interactive and immersive experiences for students. For example, using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or virtual reality in a lesson plan can help students visualize and engage with complex spatial data, leading to a deeper understanding of the material. Furthermore, the learning sciences’ focus on connecting new knowledge to prior experiences and promoting inquiry-based learning can be effectively supported by spatial technology, which allows students to explore real-world problems in a controlled environment. This approach not only improves retention by making learning more relevant but also encourages students to think critically about the information they are processing.
Bransford, J.D., Barron, B., Pea, R. D., Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Bell, P. et al. (2006). Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences(p. 19-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.
In this chapter, Bransford and his co-authors argue for a new interdisciplinary approach to the learning sciences, which they describe as being poised for a “decade of synergy.” The authors explore three major strands of research: implicit learning and the brain, informal learning, and designs for formal learning and beyond. They emphasize that these areas have traditionally operated independently but have significant potential to influence one another and transform our understanding of learning. By integrating insights from these different domains, the authors believe that it is possible to create more effective learning environments that cater to both informal and formal educational settings. The chapter also explores the implications of neuroscience for education, the role of informal learning outside the classroom, and the importance of designing adaptive learning environments that promote both efficiency and innovation.
The chapter is well-structured, providing a comprehensive overview of the current state of learning sciences while highlighting the potential for interdisciplinary collaboration. One of the strengths of this chapter lies in its methodical approach to integrating diverse research traditions. The authors do an excellent job of presenting complex concepts from neuroscience, psychology, and education in a way that is accessible to a broad audience. Their discussion on the role of implicit learning and the brain, for instance, is supported by well-referenced research studies that underline the importance of unconscious learning processes in everyday life. Moreover, the chapter’s emphasis on the mutual influence between different strands of learning research is a compelling argument for more holistic educational practices.
The interdisciplinary approach advocated by Bransford et al. aligns closely with the integration of spatial technology in the classroom, particularly in efforts to enhance student retention and foster critical thinking. The emphasis on informal learning and adaptive expertise is particularly relevant, as spatial technology, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and virtual simulations, can provide students with rich, interactive environments that support these types of learning. By leveraging these technologies, educators can create learning experiences that mirror real-world challenges, allowing students to apply their knowledge in practical contexts. This approach not only makes learning more engaging and memorable but also cultivates the critical thinking and problem-solving skills necessary for success in the 21st century.