Science [makes] practice: what works well in instruction?
One of the central tasks of empirical educational research concerns the genesis of scientific findings that can serve as a basis for decision-making in education. Yet, both scientists and practitioners are unhappy owing to an often unsatisfactory transfer of research findings. Researchers have complained that the adaptation of findings to practice is often delayed. On the other hand, practitioners have argued that research findings are not sufficiently compatible with their daily practice.
For the thematic area of “good instruction“, scientists and educational practitioners jointly discussed their ideas in an innovative workshop-based setting. Semi-standardised interviews were administered to ten scientists and school practitioners (teachers) respectively to query their concepts, theories and ideas regarding the essentials of “good instruction”. Six months later, a workshop was held that brought together 50 representatives from both groups (science and school practice), and first findings from the interview transcripts and discussions were presented. Differences and similarities between the two perspectives were demonstrated and specific challenges were identified regarding successful transfer to practice. Participants worked in groups, focusing their mutual exchange on “instructional quality” and challenges to the transfer between educational research and school practice.
Hartmann, U. & Decristan, J. (2018). Brokering activities and learning mechanisms at the boundary of educational research and school practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 114–124. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.016
- Prof. Dr. Jasmin Decristan
- Dr. Ulrike Hartmann
- Prof. Dr. Marcus Hasselhorn
- Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Eckhard Klieme
12/2014 – 03/2016