An international perspective of monitoring educational research quality: Commonalities and differences

Richard K. Coll, Wen Hua Chang, Justin Dillon, Rosária Justi, Eduardo Mortimer, Kim Chwee Daniel Tan, David F. Treagust, Webb Paul

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This chapter considers the notion of educational research quality and evaluation from an international perspective. We consider how and why these approaches differ from the US-based Gold Standard design (i.e., research based on randomized controlled trials [RCTs] mimicking third-stage drug trials; see Shelley, Yore, & Hand, Chap. 1). The Gold Standard is based on the assumption that RCT design alone, regardless of other factors, provides the desired quality. We suggest here that the notion of quality in research and the mechanisms used to evaluate research quality are highly dependent on the overarching aim of education. To illustrate, the governments of many countries see education, especially science education, as a key component in economic progress and as a means of delivering on social services (Coll & Taylor, 2008). Hence, there are a number of reasons why we need to evaluate research quality in science education. We need to provide evidence that our science education regimes (and vocational education and training) do in fact produce outputs in terms of qualified people needed to drive economic success. There is then the notion of accountability; the expenditure of taxpayer monies by government-especially in the area of education-is subject to much public scrutiny and often to criticism. There also is accountability to specific legalization in which governments require the education sector to deliver on education aims, such as scientific literacy. In each of these examples, we need to be as sure as we can that the research findings are trustworthy-to use Guba and Lincoln's (1989) term-or believable. New curricula and teaching and learning approaches often prove highly controversial (e.g., Bell, Jones, & Carr, 1995; Coll & Taylor; Matthews, 1994), and education stakeholders-including government-naturally want to see convincing evidence that costly educational interventions actually work.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationQuality Research in Literacy and Science Education
Subtitle of host publicationInternational Perspectives and Gold Standards
PublisherSpringer Netherlands
Pages107-137
Number of pages31
ISBN (Print)9781402084263
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009 Dec 1

Fingerprint

educational research
monitoring
education
gold standard
science
aim of education
responsibility
economic success
legalization
Educational Research
Education
Monitoring
vocational education
Vocational Education
mobile social services
research planning
evidence
expenditures
money
criticism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Cite this

Coll, R. K., Chang, W. H., Dillon, J., Justi, R., Mortimer, E., Tan, K. C. D., ... Paul, W. (2009). An international perspective of monitoring educational research quality: Commonalities and differences. In Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards (pp. 107-137). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_6

An international perspective of monitoring educational research quality : Commonalities and differences. / Coll, Richard K.; Chang, Wen Hua; Dillon, Justin; Justi, Rosária; Mortimer, Eduardo; Tan, Kim Chwee Daniel; Treagust, David F.; Paul, Webb.

Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards. Springer Netherlands, 2009. p. 107-137.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Coll, RK, Chang, WH, Dillon, J, Justi, R, Mortimer, E, Tan, KCD, Treagust, DF & Paul, W 2009, An international perspective of monitoring educational research quality: Commonalities and differences. in Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards. Springer Netherlands, pp. 107-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_6
Coll RK, Chang WH, Dillon J, Justi R, Mortimer E, Tan KCD et al. An international perspective of monitoring educational research quality: Commonalities and differences. In Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards. Springer Netherlands. 2009. p. 107-137 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_6
Coll, Richard K. ; Chang, Wen Hua ; Dillon, Justin ; Justi, Rosária ; Mortimer, Eduardo ; Tan, Kim Chwee Daniel ; Treagust, David F. ; Paul, Webb. / An international perspective of monitoring educational research quality : Commonalities and differences. Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education: International Perspectives and Gold Standards. Springer Netherlands, 2009. pp. 107-137
@inbook{d7305585503f4dc4890ad9099692ef86,
title = "An international perspective of monitoring educational research quality: Commonalities and differences",
abstract = "This chapter considers the notion of educational research quality and evaluation from an international perspective. We consider how and why these approaches differ from the US-based Gold Standard design (i.e., research based on randomized controlled trials [RCTs] mimicking third-stage drug trials; see Shelley, Yore, & Hand, Chap. 1). The Gold Standard is based on the assumption that RCT design alone, regardless of other factors, provides the desired quality. We suggest here that the notion of quality in research and the mechanisms used to evaluate research quality are highly dependent on the overarching aim of education. To illustrate, the governments of many countries see education, especially science education, as a key component in economic progress and as a means of delivering on social services (Coll & Taylor, 2008). Hence, there are a number of reasons why we need to evaluate research quality in science education. We need to provide evidence that our science education regimes (and vocational education and training) do in fact produce outputs in terms of qualified people needed to drive economic success. There is then the notion of accountability; the expenditure of taxpayer monies by government-especially in the area of education-is subject to much public scrutiny and often to criticism. There also is accountability to specific legalization in which governments require the education sector to deliver on education aims, such as scientific literacy. In each of these examples, we need to be as sure as we can that the research findings are trustworthy-to use Guba and Lincoln's (1989) term-or believable. New curricula and teaching and learning approaches often prove highly controversial (e.g., Bell, Jones, & Carr, 1995; Coll & Taylor; Matthews, 1994), and education stakeholders-including government-naturally want to see convincing evidence that costly educational interventions actually work.",
author = "Coll, {Richard K.} and Chang, {Wen Hua} and Justin Dillon and Ros{\'a}ria Justi and Eduardo Mortimer and Tan, {Kim Chwee Daniel} and Treagust, {David F.} and Webb Paul",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_6",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781402084263",
pages = "107--137",
booktitle = "Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
address = "Netherlands",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - An international perspective of monitoring educational research quality

T2 - Commonalities and differences

AU - Coll, Richard K.

AU - Chang, Wen Hua

AU - Dillon, Justin

AU - Justi, Rosária

AU - Mortimer, Eduardo

AU - Tan, Kim Chwee Daniel

AU - Treagust, David F.

AU - Paul, Webb

PY - 2009/12/1

Y1 - 2009/12/1

N2 - This chapter considers the notion of educational research quality and evaluation from an international perspective. We consider how and why these approaches differ from the US-based Gold Standard design (i.e., research based on randomized controlled trials [RCTs] mimicking third-stage drug trials; see Shelley, Yore, & Hand, Chap. 1). The Gold Standard is based on the assumption that RCT design alone, regardless of other factors, provides the desired quality. We suggest here that the notion of quality in research and the mechanisms used to evaluate research quality are highly dependent on the overarching aim of education. To illustrate, the governments of many countries see education, especially science education, as a key component in economic progress and as a means of delivering on social services (Coll & Taylor, 2008). Hence, there are a number of reasons why we need to evaluate research quality in science education. We need to provide evidence that our science education regimes (and vocational education and training) do in fact produce outputs in terms of qualified people needed to drive economic success. There is then the notion of accountability; the expenditure of taxpayer monies by government-especially in the area of education-is subject to much public scrutiny and often to criticism. There also is accountability to specific legalization in which governments require the education sector to deliver on education aims, such as scientific literacy. In each of these examples, we need to be as sure as we can that the research findings are trustworthy-to use Guba and Lincoln's (1989) term-or believable. New curricula and teaching and learning approaches often prove highly controversial (e.g., Bell, Jones, & Carr, 1995; Coll & Taylor; Matthews, 1994), and education stakeholders-including government-naturally want to see convincing evidence that costly educational interventions actually work.

AB - This chapter considers the notion of educational research quality and evaluation from an international perspective. We consider how and why these approaches differ from the US-based Gold Standard design (i.e., research based on randomized controlled trials [RCTs] mimicking third-stage drug trials; see Shelley, Yore, & Hand, Chap. 1). The Gold Standard is based on the assumption that RCT design alone, regardless of other factors, provides the desired quality. We suggest here that the notion of quality in research and the mechanisms used to evaluate research quality are highly dependent on the overarching aim of education. To illustrate, the governments of many countries see education, especially science education, as a key component in economic progress and as a means of delivering on social services (Coll & Taylor, 2008). Hence, there are a number of reasons why we need to evaluate research quality in science education. We need to provide evidence that our science education regimes (and vocational education and training) do in fact produce outputs in terms of qualified people needed to drive economic success. There is then the notion of accountability; the expenditure of taxpayer monies by government-especially in the area of education-is subject to much public scrutiny and often to criticism. There also is accountability to specific legalization in which governments require the education sector to deliver on education aims, such as scientific literacy. In each of these examples, we need to be as sure as we can that the research findings are trustworthy-to use Guba and Lincoln's (1989) term-or believable. New curricula and teaching and learning approaches often prove highly controversial (e.g., Bell, Jones, & Carr, 1995; Coll & Taylor; Matthews, 1994), and education stakeholders-including government-naturally want to see convincing evidence that costly educational interventions actually work.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892300118&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84892300118&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_6

DO - 10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_6

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84892300118

SN - 9781402084263

SP - 107

EP - 137

BT - Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education

PB - Springer Netherlands

ER -