Rationale and Conceptual Framework

In 2004 the NCTM Board of Directors declared that “linking research and practice” was a strategic priority, and it established the Linking Research and Practice Task Force [LRPTF], which presented its advisory report to the NCTM Board of Directors in January 2005 (LRPTF, 2005). The LRPTF proposed a conceptual framework to guide efforts toward linking practice and research. The framework envisioned a pathway in which research was disseminated to teacher leaders, who then shared research with practitioners using a set of tools (e.g., research briefs, publications, web content), after which practitioners implemented those findings, documented results, and reported to the teacher leaders, who would then feed those results back to researchers. In subsequent professional discussions of this framework, attention has been given to the human intermediaries (i.e., the teacher leaders) and the need for productive interchange and communication between researchers and practitioners.  Less attention has been paid to the tools that are viewed in this framework as key intermediary agents.  

In this research study we view the NCTM practitioner journals -- Teaching Children Mathematics (TCM), Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School (MTMS), and Mathematics Teacher (MT) – as potential intermediary tools in efforts to link research to practice. Taking this perspective we examine how they may already function in that role, by carefully examining the content of the journals for evidence of the presence of research and efforts to communicate research or apply it in ways that resonate with their practitioner audience.   

Because the journals are published by NCTM and made available to its members as a benefit of membership, and because evidence suggests that education practitioners depend on professional, discipline-based membership organizations for information (Nelson, Leffler, & Hansen, 2009; Rowan, 2002), there is good reason to expect that the journals could play an important intermediary role.  These journals do reach a considerable number of teachers -- The circulation numbers for each print issue ranges between 40,000 and 44,000 recipients and about 20,000 people are the recipients of the electronic version. Yet there are reasons to be skeptical about the role that these journals might play in mediating what many view as the impenetrable boundary between researchers and practitioners. 

             A fairly large literature exists in which the “cultural differences” between researchers and teachers are treated as major reasons for what most observers see as a gap between research and practice in education (Biesta, 2007; Bracey, 2009; Labaree, 2003; McIntyre, 2005). Researchers and teachers are described as having diverse knowledge and experiences due to variation in the norms and institutional structures that shape their professional roles, responsibilities, and rewards. Such differences are thought to explain why practitioners do not view research as applicable or helpful (Heid, et al, 2006).

The two-culture thesis has a high degree of resonance, but it is also limited because it disregards the heterogeneity that exists within each community (Ginsburg & Gorostiaga, 2003). Whereas some educational researchers have a very limited view of practice, other researchers are committed to practice and strive to address the interests and needs of practitioners. Likewise, teachers have varying beliefs about the value of research and its relationship to their profession (Kennedy, 1999; Williams & Cole, 2003; Zeuli, 1994). Consequently, some commentators has envisioned the possibility of individuals crossing the border (or building a bridge) between the world of researchers and that of practitioners (Silver, 2003).

In this study, we conceptualize NCTM’s journals as a tool used by researchers and practitioners engaged in border crossing. Given that NCTM’s journals may be tools to connect researchers to the world of practice and practitioners to research, we examine how and by whom research is represented in these journals.

Methodology

Sample

            We focused on the past three volumes (2008-2011) of each journal. Each volume consists of 10 issues (September-May) with a combined issue published in December. We eliminated special departments, such as calendar problems, and focused on content labeled as feature articles. Doing so resulted in a set of 382 feature articles across the three journals.

Content Analysis

Content analysis is helpful for organizing and systematically analyzing large volumes of oral and written forms of communication (Krippendorff, 2004). To ensure validity and reliability we designed a coding protocol consisting of three sections. In section one, general citation information for each article was noted as were the categories and keywords used by the journal to classify the article. Section two attended to the number of authors, names of authors (up to three) and their characteristics (institution, department, role, tenure, and degree). In the third section we used a process that blended deductive and inductive coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to develop coding categories to characterize the ways in which research appeared in the article, if at all. The categories attend to the type of article, the nature and extent of research appearing in the article. For example, we attend to the apparent purpose of research citations (e.g., problem definition, problem solution, rationale for instructional intervention). The reliability of the coding scheme was subjected to rigorous testing, and we demanded a minimum of 90% agreement between independent raters before finalizing a code.

Data Analysis

            The coding scheme is still undergoing testing to finalize all codes.  Therefore, it has not yet been used to analyze the articles in the sample. We hope to analyze the entire data set in time for reporting at the NCTM research Presession, but we will begin with a random sample of 100 articles from the sample.  This will ensure that a sizeable set of articles will be examined and the findings will be available to report at the meeting. 

General descriptive statistics (e.g. frequencies and means) will be run for each of the variables. The results from these tests will inform our decision about the use of additional tests (e.g. chi=square, one-way ANOVA) for determining differences among article content by author characteristics. Findings will be included on the final poster.

References

Biesta, G. (2007). Bridging the gap between educational research and practice: The need for critical distance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3), 295-301.

Bracey, G. W.  (2009). Some thoughts as “research” turns 25. Phi Kappa Delta, 90(7), 530-531.

Ginsburg, M. B. & Gorostiaga, J. M. (2003). Relationships between theorists/researchers and policy makers/practitioners: Rethinking the two-culture thesis and the possibility of dialogue. Comparative Education Review, 45(2), 173-196.

Heid, M. K., Larson, M., Fey, J. T., Strutchens, M. E., Middleton, J. A., Gutstein, E., Karen, K., & Tunis, H. (2006). The challenge of linking research and practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(2), 76-86.

Kennedy, M. M. (1999). A test of some common contentions about educational research. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 511-541.

Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Labaree, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13-22.

Linking Research and Practice Task Force. (2005). Harnessing the power of research for practice. Report presented to the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Board of Directors, Reston, VA.

McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(3), 357-382.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2^nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Nelson, S. R., Leffler, J. C., & Hansen, B. A. (2009).  Toward a research agenda for understanding and improving the use of research evidence. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3-4), 283-314.

Silver, E. A. (2003).  Border crossing: Relating research and practice in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(3), 182-184.

Williams, D., & Coles, L.  (2003). The use of research by teachers: Information literacy, access, and attitudes. (Report 14). Retrieved from The Robert Gordon University, Department of Information Management Web site: http://www4.rgu.ac.uk/files/ACF2B02.pdf.

Zeuli, J. S. (1994). How do Teachers understand research when they read it? Teaching & Teacher Education, 10(1), 39-55.