Between now and December 7, 2011, entries are being accepted for the YouTube Space Lab contest. Individuals or teams up to three students aged 14–18 can submit up to three experiments that could be accomplished in a microgravity flight. As expected, the entries are in the form of a YouTube video such as in these example videos:

Reading publications from other organizations related to literacy, administration, and technology provides a context for science instruction. An article I recently read has relevance for science teachers: 10 Things Every Literacy Educator Should Know About Research.
The article, by Nell Duke and Nicole Martin, was in the September 2011 issue of The Reading Teacher. TRT’s editors have provided access to the article here. The authors wrote for an audience of reading teachers, but you can easily substitute “science” or other content areas for literacy.
It seems educators have a hot/cold relationship with educational research. We’re hot on studies validating our experiences and existing practices. And we’re cool toward research whose findings challenge our beliefs or “tried and true” practices. I worked with a teacher who refused to do any cooperative learning, stating it was just play time for students. The department chair showed her many studies demonstrating how cooperative learning (when appropriately implemented) can assist student learning. He offered her an opportunity to observe his students working cooperatively on activities. A colleague’s own action research indicated students enjoyed learning this way, after some modeling and guidance by the teacher. At that point, her response became, “You don’t know my students. They aren’t mature enough.”(She taught 10^th graders.)
The authors, writing in conversational language, demystify research and make the point that educators should be critical consumers of research. The 10 items discussed in the article include a discussion of each:

1. What research can do.
2. What research is.
3. What research is not.
4. The difference between research-based and research-tested.
5. Many kinds of research have valuable contributions to make to our understanding of literacy learning, development, and education.
6. Different kinds of research are good for different questions.
7. High-quality research has a logic of inquiry.
8. Conclusions drawn from research are only as sound as the research itself.
9. Where and how research is published or presented requires particular attention.
10. Educational research proceeds through the slow accumulation of knowledge.

In my conversations with teachers and administrators, I’ve seen some of the misconceptions addressed in this article.

• The word research is often used for anything published in an educational journal. Looking through NSTA publications, we see many articles on lesson plans, position statements, instructional strategies, and descriptions of projects. The ideas in these are very helpful, but they cannot be considered “research” (although the ideas may combine elements from research studies). To identify research articles, Duke and Martin provide a Research Study Summary Sheet with characteristics of true research. This would be helpful if you’re doing a “review of the literature” for a graduate thesis. (Rather than a separate page for each study, I used similar topics as column headers of a spreadsheet and was able to make comparisons of the studies in the document.)

• Publishers and vendors of assessments, instructional materials, and professional development often use the terms “research-based” and “research-tested” interchangeably. The article shows how to differentiate between these two terms. (I saw a website where the vendor used the term “research-inspired”—I wonder what that means?

• I attended a presentation that described a case study of laboratory science teaching. Another attendee was outraged that the study was called research, demanding to know the treatment and control groups. He considered any other experimental design “soft and fluffy.” This article includes an excellent table summarizing 14 types of research methodologies, such as experimental and quasi-experimental, surveys, meta-analysis, historical research, and case studies. These are listed alphabetically, implying there is no hierarchy. The authors point out the methodology needs to match the research question.

This article could be discussed as a professional development activity or at the beginning of a graduate course. It would be fascinating to have a science-related example of each type of research.
Unfortunately, research is often inaccessible to teachers. Studies are frequently published in subscription-only journals (both print and online). They are also written in “scholarly” language that takes a while to process. But there are ways to make research more available to teachers. For example, the July 2011 issue of Science Scope includes Current Research: 2011 Summer Reading Suggestions with summaries of several studies relevant to science teaching and learning.  It might be helpful for reviews such as this to be included more frequently in NSTA publications.
A final point made in the article is that “action research” is not one of the types of research in their table. The authors note teachers can and do conduct classroom-based research that fits into these types. When conducting classroom research, the teacher has expanded his or her role from a consumer of research to a producer. And NSTA publications are often a venue for sharing the results.
Graphic: http://www.flickr.com/photos/crystaljingsr/3914729343/sizes/z/in/photostream/