Think back to the last conversation you had with your education colleagues. Perhaps it was during your planning time with a member of your department/grade level, perhaps it was during lunch, perhaps it was during a school-wide faculty meeting, or even perhaps with an administrator in passing.
As you discussed whatever you were discussing, everything being shared was really just anecdotal evidence surrounding whatever the topic was. It was based on your recollection and your subjective memory of what happened.
The basis for your reasoning and/or justification was either something you observed personally, or something you heard from someone else who may or may not have personally observed it.
Your thoughts should automatically have been called into question on that basis alone...
But then...
At some point, you start your next statement with the all powerful two words...
Now, like magic, every word you say thereafter is amplified in importance. Every word is now immediately justified and validated. You've become a voice of empirical evidence which no other can counter.
We've all lived through this feeling and experience...
The difficult part is it's hard to not throw out those two magical words. 'Research states' helps us as individuals to self-validate what we are saying and reaffirm our beliefs. It's these two words that make us feel credible and worthy of sharing knowledge with another.
But here's the thing...
There's research that states class size isn't really that important when you have a 'great' teacher. Tell that to an elementary teacher or any other teacher at any grade level in any content area...
There's research that states that some kind of merit pay or monetary based system for educators will lead to increased performance and enhanced collaboration. Tell that to anyone who is a part of a team working in education...
There's research that states that retaining kids when they don't meet the required levels of mastery actually helps get those kids caught up. Tell that to any at-risk or intervention specialist who has seen the limited positive results of such a measure...
There's research that states that ability grouping helps teachers best meet the needs of students based on their 'tracked' levels. Tell that to the students who are deemed 'low' and retain that stigma their entire education careers and eventually just accept their 'low' designation...
But here's the other thing... every piece of research that states one thing there is another that states quite the opposite.
So, ask yourself, when you use the 'research states' line while conversing with your colleagues, what is your intent? Is your intent to persuade toward your viewpoint, validate your contributions and wealth of knowledge, or just to sound 'educated?'
And lastly, just because someone says 'research states,' don't blindly jump in the 'I must agree with everything you say' camp and completely dismiss your own personal thoughts and beliefs.
Sure, empirical evidence tends to stand up stronger in court, but it's the anecdotal beliefs and mindsets and gut feeling soft touch that reach the hearts of kids...
As you discussed whatever you were discussing, everything being shared was really just anecdotal evidence surrounding whatever the topic was. It was based on your recollection and your subjective memory of what happened.
The basis for your reasoning and/or justification was either something you observed personally, or something you heard from someone else who may or may not have personally observed it.
Your thoughts should automatically have been called into question on that basis alone...
But then...
At some point, you start your next statement with the all powerful two words...
'research states.'
Now, like magic, every word you say thereafter is amplified in importance. Every word is now immediately justified and validated. You've become a voice of empirical evidence which no other can counter.
We've all lived through this feeling and experience...
The difficult part is it's hard to not throw out those two magical words. 'Research states' helps us as individuals to self-validate what we are saying and reaffirm our beliefs. It's these two words that make us feel credible and worthy of sharing knowledge with another.
But here's the thing...
There's research that states class size isn't really that important when you have a 'great' teacher. Tell that to an elementary teacher or any other teacher at any grade level in any content area...
There's research that states that some kind of merit pay or monetary based system for educators will lead to increased performance and enhanced collaboration. Tell that to anyone who is a part of a team working in education...
There's research that states that retaining kids when they don't meet the required levels of mastery actually helps get those kids caught up. Tell that to any at-risk or intervention specialist who has seen the limited positive results of such a measure...
There's research that states that ability grouping helps teachers best meet the needs of students based on their 'tracked' levels. Tell that to the students who are deemed 'low' and retain that stigma their entire education careers and eventually just accept their 'low' designation...
But here's the other thing... every piece of research that states one thing there is another that states quite the opposite.
So, ask yourself, when you use the 'research states' line while conversing with your colleagues, what is your intent? Is your intent to persuade toward your viewpoint, validate your contributions and wealth of knowledge, or just to sound 'educated?'
And lastly, just because someone says 'research states,' don't blindly jump in the 'I must agree with everything you say' camp and completely dismiss your own personal thoughts and beliefs.
Sure, empirical evidence tends to stand up stronger in court, but it's the anecdotal beliefs and mindsets and gut feeling soft touch that reach the hearts of kids...
