Pedagogy and Modern teaching
methods
Kaniyeva Dilnaz
Akhmet Baitursynov Linguistic Gymnasium, Aktobe,
Kazakhstan
Reviews of teaching methods - what are the
main problems identified?
Abstract. The
purpose of this study is to identify and discuss issues related to
the tension between contextuality and generalization that are
periodically identified over time in research reviews of teaching
methods. Three main problems were identified that have faced
research over time: 1) the abundance of constraints, 2) the need
for highly qualified teachers, and 3) the gap between research and
practice. These three issues are said to reflect the contradictions
in the original research. The implications of these findings are
discussed in the article.
Keywords: internal and external validity, moderating
factors, overview, research-practice gap, review, teaching
methods.
Given the global emphasis on education as a
pathway to national and individual success, it is not surprising
that a wealth of research has been done on which teaching methods
enable education to achieve its goals. While education concerns
many areas such as education policy, educational organization,
financial systems and school governance, there seems to be
widespread agreement that teaching is ultimately a key factor in
the success of educational systems (e.g. Barber & Mourshed, 2007;
Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012; Hattie, 2003; OECD, 2016; Stigler and
Hebert, 2009).
How
learning should be best organized has been identified in a large
number of studies involving various theoretical assumptions
(Hattie, 2009). Consequently, reviews of the effectiveness or
appropriateness of teaching methods are becoming more readily
available. Creating such reviews is a logical way to combine
findings and insights from different studies. Systematic research
reviews can contribute in many ways to knowledge that can be used
in research, practice, and policy decisions (see Gough, Thomas, &
Oliver, 2012). However, baseline research results often show mixed
and sometimes even conflicting results due to many factors (eg,
Shute, 2008). Teaching methods and interventions operate in complex
systems, and their effects depend on various factors in context, as
well as on how and by whom they are implemented and applied (see
Cartwright & Hardie, 2012; Pawson, 2006; Pawson, Greenhalgh,
Harvey, & Walshe, 2005; Rycroft-Malone et al.,
2012).
The
generalization of the results and effects of numerous primary
studies inevitably entails some degree of decontextualization.
However, at a secondary level of research, researchers recognize,
relate and / or problematize the meaning and influence of context
in different ways.
In
the current research, we develop knowledge about how the tension
between contextuality and generalizability is resolved, and how it
is revealed in research reviews of teaching methods. We are
particularly interested in whether and how questions about what
works for whom and under what circumstances are problematic (see
Pawson, 2006). Thus, we explore those issues that are repeated in
the learned methods and overtime in research reviews of teaching
methods, taking into account the tension between context and
generalization. Subsequently, the identified problems will be
discussed in terms of possible implications for research at both
primary and intermediate levels.
This research is part of a research project that
aims to expand and improve our knowledge of teaching and research
teaching (Hirsh & Nilholm, 2019; Roman, Sundberg, Hirsh, Nilholm, &
Forsberg, 2018). To clarify the context in which the present
research arose, a brief description of the starting points and
assumptions underlying the entire research project follows (see
Nilholm & Göransson, 2017).
With the increase in the number of primary
studies, the number of research reviews, that is, the secondary
level that summarizes and synthesizes primary-level research on a
particular topic, has also increased. This, in turn, paves the way
for high-level research that summarizes and synthesizes research
reviews (Polanin, Maynard, & Dell, 2017). Various terms are used to
describe the type of third-order research that uses research
reviews as empirical evidence, such as review (Polanin et al.,
2017), meta-meta-analysis (Hattie, 2009; Kazrin, Durac, & Agteros)
... , 1979), metasynthesis (Cobb, Lehmann, Newman-Gonchar, &
Alwell, 2009), review of reviews (Maag, 2006), tertiary review
(Torgerson, 2007), mega-analysis (Terhart, 2011) and general review
(Grant et al. Booth, 2009). Thus, the terms used vary, but it is
common that the tertiary level aims to synthesize evidence on a
particular topic of interest by examining only the highest level of
evidence, that is, evidence presented in systematic reviews or
meta-analyzes. In our project, we decided to use the term
"overview".
A
characteristic feature of our review methodology is, among other
things, the selection of research reviews to be included. The
starting point is that it is helpful to map and analyze research
that the research community itself considers important (see Nilholm
& Göransson, 2017). Therefore, we only include recognized, highly
effective, and most cited studies listed in the Web of Science
(WoS) .1 The overall interest in the project is to explore trends
in influential research reviews on teaching methods and identify
common results and themes. to discuss issues ˗ using WoS as an
indicator of impact.
Other major differences between our review
methodology and the evidence-extraction focused methodologies (see
above) are that our review type: a) includes different types of
second-tier research methodologies, b) includes different
theoretical approaches to research. the level of review (including
reviews from a critical interpreter's point of view) and c)
displays and analyzes some aspects of the research area, such as
the topics studied, theoretical / conceptual starting points,
methodologies used, and the results and conclusions presented.
However, one particular article cannot cover all of these aspects,
and the present study focuses on the findings and conclusions
presented, with particular attention to the tension between
contextuality and generalizability.
During the careful reading that the coding
process entailed, it became apparent that the baseline reviews
mainly discussed similar issues, reached similar conclusions and /
or indicated similar implications for practice and / or research,
regardless of the learning method being studied. This, in turn, has
led to further analysis based on a shared interest in inductively
and deeper exploration of the most frequent problems in order to
identify recurring problems and group problem models into
categories (see Saini & Shlonsky, 2012; Thomas and Harden, 2008).
Before presenting the main findings of the current study, that is,
the three overview findings, we briefly outline some general
observations regarding the format of the baseline reviews, as well
as their temporal and geographical distribution.
Revealing the gap between research and practice
is neither new nor unique to the research field of teaching
methods. We have shown that the gap is explained, on the one hand,
by factors at the teacher and context level, and, on the other
hand, by the fact that primary research is not sufficiently
naturalistic, didactic and specific. A high degree of experimental
purity, which can be achieved, for example, in a laboratory
setting, can provide high internal confidence, but at the same time
limit the external or environmental validity of the results
(Bernstein, 2018; Khorsan & Crawford, 2014). The failure of primary
research to confirm why a particular teaching method works or not
in a particular context is highlighted in many reviews as the cause
of the gap between research and practice. In addition, some reviews
contain elements of self-criticism regarding the secondary level of
research.
We
would also like to suggest that the long-standing gap between
research and practice is a problem that needs to be addressed in
both first and second order research. In the introduction, we
argued that review writing is a logical and reasonable way to
integrate the results and conclusions of different studies, and
that systematic research reviews can contribute in different ways
to knowledge that has the potential to advance research and inform
both practice and policy. According to Gough et al. (2012, p. 5)
research reviews are vital for a variety of reasons:
reviews allow us to establish not only what is
known from research; but also that which is unknown. They can
inform decisions about what further research can best be
undertaken, thereby creating a favorable cycle. They enable
researchers, policymakers and practitioners to answer key
questions: "what do we know, how do we know it?" And "what else do
we want to know and how can we find out?"
In
our review findings, we have highlighted issues that are often
challenged in reviews of high-impact studies of teaching methods
over a four-decade period. The significant aspects of the results
are neither surprising nor previously unknown. The strength of this
study lies in how we were able to show patterns and consistency of
conclusions on the issues studied over time and their relevance to
the tension between context and generalization.
Trying to determine where the effect of the
method itself ends and where the influence of the context begins is
perhaps an impossible mission. What can be done in both primary and
second-order exploration is explicitly acknowledge (to a greater
extent), explore, and discuss contextual complexity. Like the other
researchers mentioned above, we want to emphasize the importance of
considering validity as a multidimensional concept that includes
both internal, external and environmental aspects. Essentially,
there are two questions that research on teaching methods must
answer: does a particular way of teaching affect student learning
and achievement, and what and how others can learn from the
completed research. Both are equally important, but the intrinsic
credibility of the research seems to be more valuable than the
extrinsic and ecological ones. As Bernstein (2018) argues,
promoting one to the fore at the expense of the other does not
contribute to the development of an area of
knowledge:
If
we cannot determine if what we are doing is working, we are in an
evidence-free zone where we cling in the dark to find the most
effective ways to teach our content. In addition, if we cannot
generalize our work to other contexts, we do not create a field and
do not allow teaching practice to move beyond our individual
classrooms. (p. 123)
Thus, more detailed descriptions and
problematization of context are needed so that both practitioners
and reviewers can define credibility in a multidimensional way.
Last but not least - and because many teaching methods are both
comprehensive and complex - it is important to emphasize the need
for well-articulated research questions indicating which aspects of
the intervention or method are being studied and that there is a
limit to the territory that the survey can cover.
REFERENCES:
-
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N.
J., & Tenenbaum, H. R.
(2011).
Does
discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18.
Crossref.
-
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M.
(2007).
How the
world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. London:
McKinsey &
Co.
-
Bernstein, J. L.
(2018).
Unifying SoTL methodology: Internal and
external validity. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 6(2), 115–126.
Crossref.
-
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J.
(2012).
Evidence-based policy: A practical guide
to doing it better. New York: Oxford University Press.
Crossref.
-
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J.
(2017).
Predicting what will happen when you
intervene. Clinical Social Work Journal, 45(1),
270–279.
-
Cavanagh, S.
(1997).
Content
analysis: Concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher,
4(3), 5–16.
Crossref.