Thought Leaders Blog

Since the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) will soon be hiring a new Director, this is the time to ask questions about the direction in which it should move next. We educational researchers have a new paradigm to guide our work if we choose to use it-a model from the medical sciences called "translational research" that recognizes the gap between research and practice and aims to give doctors the latest research information in usable form. In education there is a similar gap. Vital knowledge too often remains with the researchers and is unavailable to practitioners. Most basic research on learning is conducted by neuroscientists and cognitive- and learning-science faculty members who OFTEN are unaware of the work of their applied-research colleagues in schools of education, who in turn often disregard the work of teacher education professors. These groups, distrustful of one other, will have to build better working relationships to meet the challenge of improving student learning. If the IES of the future were to adopt a model that funds translational research, such relationships might be fostered.

A new IES agenda could support cooperation and collaboration in education research. Grants to basic researchers could include an outreach component that requires linkages with schools, teachers and students. Social scientists could be encouraged to apply basic research findings to the contexts where students learn. And education professors could be encouraged to translate applied psychology and neuroscience findings into PRACTICAL strategies for aspiring teachers to teach K-12 students. Teachers need to have usable knowledge about how children learn and how to teach them better. And the federal government and higher education need to apply the same urgency to this area that they do to making basic research available to health practitioners.

What can we do? University presidents, provosts, faculties, and grant makers can help. They have encouraged interdisciplinary work to address health issues, and they could do the same for teaching and learning. Conversations between basic and applied researchers could change some of the questions asked by basic researchers, who might come to understand the complexity of schools. Knowledge of the realities imposed by school budgets, conversations with teachers, and visits to schools could encourage applied researchers to test their predictions in a real context. Teacher Educators could learn more about statistical and measurement methodologies. The public could help by accepting the fact that changing education outcomes is complex and takes time. And all groups would need to keep the focus on practices that affect learning outcomes.

Support from all these groups and a research budget closer to that of the NIH could give us a chance to bridge the "clinic to classroom" gap in education research. It will be interesting to observe the responses of the various groups as we look at new directions and funding for IES.