The Case Study as a Research Method

Change Processes and Strategies at the Local Level

Previous articleNext article No AccessCommentCriterion-Referenced Measurements: LimitationsRobert L. EbelRobert L. Ebel Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 79, Number 2Feb., 1971 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/442974 Views: 28Total views on this site Citations: 20Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in The School Review (1893-1979), which is continued by the American Journal of Education (1979-present). Copyright 1971 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Mary Ratcliffe The Implementation of Criterion‐referenced Assessment in the Teaching of Science, Research in Science & Technological Education 10, no.22 (Jan 1992): 171–185.https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514920100205Jeffrey M. Turnbull What Is… Normative versus Criterion-referenced Assessment, Medical Teacher 11, no.22 (Jul 2009): 145–150.https://doi.org/10.3109/01421598909146317Wim J. van der Linden Criterion-referenced measurement: Its main applications, problems and findings, Evaluation in Education 5, no.22 (Jan 1982): 97–118.https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-765X(82)90012-XWim J. van der Linden A Latent Trait Look at Pretest-Posttest Validation of Criterion-referenced Test Items, Review of Educational Research 51, no.33 (Jun 2016): 379–402.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543051003379Anthony J. Nitko Distinguishing the Many Varieties of Criterion-referenced Tests, Review of Educational Research 50, no.33 (Jun 2016): 461–485.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050003461Carol S. Lidz Criterion Referenced Assessment: The New Bandwagon?, Exceptional Children 46, no.22 (Oct 1979): 131–132.https://doi.org/10.1177/001440297904600208William M. Gray A Comparison of Piagetian Theory and Criterion-referenced Measurement, Review of Educational Research 48, no.22 (Jun 2016): 223–249.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543048002223Ronald K. Hambleton, Hariharan Swaminathan, James Algina, Douglas Bill Coulson Criterion-Referenced Testing and Measurement: A Review of Technical Issues and Developments, Review of Educational Research 48, no.11 (Jun 2016): 1–47.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543048001001 REFERENCES, (Jan 1978): 141–149.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-021813-7.50011-XMichael J. Subkoviak, Frank B. Baker 7: Test Theory, Review of Research in Education 5, no.11 (Jun 2016): 275–317.https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X005001275Robert Wood A critical note on Harvey's ‘Some thoughts on norm-referenced and criterion-referenced measures’, Research in Education 15, no.11 (Aug 2017): 69–72.https://doi.org/10.1177/003452377601500105Huynh Huynh Statistical consideration of mastery scores, Psychometrika 41, no.11 (Mar 1976): 65–78.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291698John A. Meskauskas Evaluation Models for Criterion-Referenced Testing: Views Regarding Mastery and Standard-Setting, Review of Educational Research 46, no.11 (Jun 2016): 133–158.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543046001133T. J. Harvey Some Thoughts on Norm-Referenced and Criterion-Referenced Measures, Research in Education 13, no.11 (Aug 2017): 79–86.https://doi.org/10.1177/003452377501300105John J. Pikulski Criterion referenced measures for clinical evaluations, Reading World 14, no.22 (Jan 2010): 116–128.https://doi.org/10.1080/19388077409557262Ronald K. Hambleton Testing and Decision-Making Procedures for Selected Individualized Instructional Programs, Review of Educational Research 44, no.44 (Jun 2016): 371–400.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543044004371RONALD K. HAMBLETON, MELVIN R. NOVICK TOWARD AN INTEGRATION OF THEORY AND METHOD FOR CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTS1,2, Journal of Educational Measurement 10, no.33 (Sep 1973): 159–170.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1973.tb00793.xAnn E. Boehm Criterion-Referenced Assessment for the Teacher, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 75, no.11 (Feb 2022): 117–126.https://doi.org/10.1177/016146817307500101Jason Millman Passing Scores and Test Lengths for Domain-Referenced Measures, Review of Educational Research 43, no.22 (Jun 2016): 205–216.https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543043002205RICHARD J. SHAVELSON, JAMES H. BLOCK, MICHAEL M. RAVITCH CRITERION-REFERENCED TESTING: COMMENTS ON RELIABILITY1, Journal of Educational Measurement 9, no.22 (Jun 1972): 133–137.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1972.tb00768.x

The Elementary School Journal Volume 85, Number 3 ? 1985 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 001 3-5984/85/8503-0003$01 .00 State policies intended to improve education generally try either to set educational standards or to shape the educational process. Although states also seek to improve education through the allocation of funds, in recent years they have placed more emphasis on regulation-setting standards in the form of tests to be passed or educational procedures to be followed. Some policies are targeted on students; others, on teachers. The policies, of course, also affect schools, school systems, and, in certain cases, schools of education. In this paper, however, we focus on how policies affect the teacher-learner relationship as it occurs in classrooms.

The Elementary School Journal Volume 83, Number 2 ? 1982 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 001 3-5984183/8302-0009$01o.00 Teachers approach their instructional tasks with a variety of perspectives and strategies that emphasize certain aspects of teaching and deemphasize others. For example, some teachers teach language skills using organized games, while other teachers teach the same skills by direct instruction. Teachers adopt different approaches to the same subject matter partly because their teaching situations differ. Their students may have different learning problems or their classrooms may have varied resources and facilities. Even in the

Perhaps the most vigorous movement in administration in recent years has been directed toward the development of a comprehensive theory capable of generating both hypotheses for guiding research and principles for guiding practice. Despite many specific advances in special areas, such as hospital administration, public administration, business administraton, and educational administration, there still is no general conceptual framework for systematizing and interrelating our knowledge within and among these areas. It is still impossible to speak of administration in terms that would be acceptable to, or for that matter even readily understandable by, students and practitioners in the several special fields. This failure to conceptualize administration on a general theoretical level has been a major obstacle to the development of administration as a rigorous discipline, and the elaboration of theory is accordingly receiving increased attention both in "research" and "applied" administrative settings. The purpose of the present paper is twofold: (a) to describe a socio-psychological theory of social behavior having broad application to the area of administration and (b) to illustrate the application of the theory to major issues in administration. The four major issues considered here are: the problem of institutional and individual conflict; the problem of staff effectiveness, efficiency, and satis-

School Reform: The District Policy Implications of the Effective Schools Literature

Previous articleNext article No AccessPresidential AddressCurrents Left and Right: Ideology in Comparative EducationErwin H. EpsteinErwin H. Epstein Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Comparative Education Review Volume 27, Number 1Feb., 1983 Sponsored by the Comparative and International Education Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/446343 Views: 36Total views on this site Citations: 30Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1983 The Comparative and International Education SocietyPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Joseph Zajda, Val Rust Theory in Comparative Education, (Mar 2021): 37–47.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-2054-8_3Danijela Milošević, Jelena Maksimović, Methodology of Comparative Research in Education: Role and Significance, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education 8, no.33 (Dec 2020): 155–162.https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2020-8-3-155-162Florin D. Salajan, Tavis D. Jules Exploring Comparative and International Education as a Meta-Assemblage: The (Re)Configuration of an Interdisciplinary Field in the Age of Big Data, (Jun 2020): 133–151.https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920200000039014Maren Elfert, Christine Monaghan Comparative and International Education: A Field Fraught with Contradictions, (Sep 2019): 65–71.https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920190000037007David A. Turner Comparative and International Education: Development of a Field and Its Method and Theory, (Aug 2019): 11–28.https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920190000036002Brian D. Denman Post-worldview? A dialogic meta-narrative analysis of North-South, South-South, and Southern theory, International Journal of Comparative Education and Development 19, no.2/32/3 (May 2017): 65–77.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-05-2017-0007Jose Siles Gonzalez, Carmen Solano Ruiz, Angela Gaban Gutierrez International Appraisal of Nursing Culture and Curricula: A Qualitative Study of Erasmus Students, Scientifica 2016 (Jan 2016): 1–6.https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6354045C. C. Wolhuter Quisnam Sum Ego? Crises of Identity in Comparative Education and the Call for a Comparison of Comparative Studies, (May 2015): 15–35.https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920140000026002Robert Cowen Comparative education: stones, silences, and siren songs, Comparative Education 50, no.11 (Feb 2014): 3–14.https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2013.871834Jürgen Schriewer Vergleichende Erziehungswissenschaft als Forschungsfeld, (Feb 2013): 15–41.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18937-6_2Moosung Lee, Tom Friedrich Continuously reaffirmed, subtly accommodated, obviously missing and fallaciously critiqued: ideologies in UNESCO's lifelong learning policy, International Journal of Lifelong Education 30, no.22 (Mar 2011): 151–169.https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2010.547619Supriya Baily Trajectories of Influence, (Jan 2011): 217–233.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-722-6_12Val D. Rust, Amanda Kenderes Paulston and Paradigms, (Jan 2011): 19–29.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-722-6_2Shoko Yamada, Jing Liu Between Epistemology and Research Practices, (Jan 2011): 371–393.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-722-6_20Erwin H. Epstein, Katherine T. Carroll Erasing Ancestry, (Jan 2011): 31–48.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-722-6_3Moosung Lee, Tom Friedrich Citation Network Analysis of Comparative Education Texts, (Jan 2011): 113–144.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-722-6_7Sadullah Dede, Gülsün Atanur Baskan Theoretical basis of comparative education and suggestion of a model: comparative education council in Turkish education system, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (Jan 2011): 3536–3542.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.331Erwin H. Epstein Setting the normative boundaries: crucial epistemological benchmarks in comparative education, Comparative Education 44, no.44 (Nov 2008): 373–386.https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060802481405 Erwin H. Epstein and Katherine T. Carroll Abusing Ancestors: Historical Functionalism and the Postmodern Deviation in Comparative Education Epstein and Carroll, Comparative Education Review 49, no.11 (Jul 2015): 62–88.https://doi.org/10.1086/426161 Bradley J. Cook , Steven J. Hite , and Erwin H. Epstein Discerning Trends, Contours, and Boundaries in Comparative Education: A Survey of Comparativists and Their Literature Cook, Hite, and Epstein, Comparative Education Review 48, no.22 (Jul 2015): 123–149.https://doi.org/10.1086/382619TIMOTHY J. MARTIN Divergent Ontologies with Converging Conclusions: A case study comparison of comparative methodologies, Comparative Education 39, no.11 (Feb 2003): 105–117.https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060302558Jürgen Schriewer Stichwort: Internationaler Vergleich in der Erziehungswissenschaft, Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 3, no.44 (Dec 2000): 495–515.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-000-0050-3ANTHONY R. WELCH The Cult of Efficiency in Education: Comparative reflections on the reality and the rhetoric, Comparative Education 34, no.22 (Jun 2010): 157–175.https://doi.org/10.1080/03050069828252Anthony R. Welch Class, Culture and the State in Comparative Education: problems, perspectives and prospects, Comparative Education 29, no.11 (Jul 2006): 7–27.https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006930290102Michael Crossley, Patricia Broadfoot Comparative and International Research in Education: scope, problems and potential, British Educational Research Journal 18, no.22 (Jan 1992): 99–112.https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192920180201Michael Crossley Curriculum Policy and Practice in Papua New Guinea, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 20, no.22 (Jan 1990): 141–154.https://doi.org/10.1080/0305792900200204Keith Watson Dependence or independence in education? two cases from post-colonial South-East Asia, International Journal of Educational Development 5, no.22 (Jan 1985): 83–94.https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-0593(85)90016-1William T. Trent, Jomills Henry Braddock, Ronald D. Henderson Chapter 8: Sociology of Education: A Focus on Education as an Institution, Review of Research in Education 12, no.11 (Jun 2016): 295–336.https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X012001295Traugott Sch�fthaler Multikulturelle Und Transkulturelle Erziehung: Zwei Wege Zu Kosmopolitischen Kulturellen Identit�ten, International Review of Education 30, no.11 (Jan 1984): 11–24.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00598015Michael Crossley, Graham Vulliamy Case‐Study Research Methods and Comparative Education, Comparative Education 20, no.22 (Aug 2006): 193–207.https://doi.org/10.1080/0305006840200202

Previous articleNext article No AccessTeaching and Learning in English Primary SchoolsAnn C. Berlak, Harold Berlak, Naida Tushnet Bagenstos, and Edward R. MikelAnn C. Berlak Search for more articles by this author , Harold Berlak Search for more articles by this author , Naida Tushnet Bagenstos Search for more articles by this author , and Edward R. Mikel Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 83, Number 2Feb., 1975 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/443188 Views: 7Total views on this site Citations: 17Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in The School Review (1893-1979), which is continued by the American Journal of Education (1979-present). Copyright 1975 The University of Chicago PressPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Martyn Hammersley Ethnography: problems and prospects, Ethnography and Education 1, no.11 (Mar 2006): 3–14.https://doi.org/10.1080/17457820500512697Liora Bresler Visual art in primary grades: A portrait and analysis, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 7, no.33 (Sep 1992): 397–414.https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(92)90029-XYohanan Eshel Authority Structure, Classroom Openness and Student Outcomes, Educational Psychology 11, no.22 (Jan 1991): 129–141.https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110202Bernard Spodek The implicit theories of early childhood teachers, Early Child Development and Care 38, no.11 (Jan 1988): 13–31.https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443880380102Bernard Spodek Thought processes underlying preschool teachers’ classroom decisions, Early Child Development and Care 29, no.22 (Jan 1987): 197–208.https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443870290207Benjamin Y. Chan Informal teaching in Hong Kong primary schools: A longitudinal study, Studies in Educational Evaluation 11, no.33 (Jan 1985): 327–337.https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-491X(85)90016-1L. R. Barnes, J. K. Hunter American students teach in English primary schools: a conflict of educational ideologies?, Journal of Education for Teaching 11, no.11 (Jul 2006): 77–91.https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747850110105Carl Bereiter, Ilene B. Harris, John R. Mallea Book Reviews, Curriculum Inquiry 14, no.22 (Dec 2014): 211–237.https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1984.11075922Ilene B. Harris Forms of Discourse and their Possibilities for Guiding Practice: Towards an Effective Rhetoric, Journal of Curriculum Studies 15, no.11 (Sep 2006): 27–42.https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027830150105Joel Weiss Chapter 9: Assessing Nonconventional Outcomes of Schooling, Review of Research in Education 8, no.11 (Jun 2016): 405–454.https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X008001405Ian Westbury Research into Classroom Processes: a Review of Ten Years ’ Work, Journal of Curriculum Studies 10, no.44 (Sep 2006): 283–308.https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027780100402Donald J. Cichon, George E. Olson Psychometrics and Observations: Issues in a Dual Approach to the Study of Classroom Learning Environments, Curriculum Inquiry 8, no.22 (Dec 2014): 133–153.https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1978.11075566Joseph C. Grannis Task Engagement and the Consistency of Pedagogical Controls: An Ecological Study of Differently Structured Classroom Settings, Curriculum Inquiry 8, no.11 (Dec 2014): 3–36.https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1978.11075556Louis M. Smith 8: An Evolving Logic of Participant Observation, Educational Ethnography, and Other Case Studies, Review of Research in Education 6, no.11 (Jun 2016): 316–377.https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X006001316Ann DeVaney Becker Alternate methodologies for instructional media research, AV communication review 25, no.22 (Jun 1977): 181–194.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02769782David H. Hargreaves A phenomenological approach to classroom decision‐making, Cambridge Journal of Education 7, no.11 (Jul 2006): 12–20.https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764770070103 Harold, Ann Berlak Toward a political and social-psychological theory of schooling: An analysis of English informal primary schools, Interchange 6, no.33 (Sep 1975): 11–22.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02145095

This essay is a call for world-systems analysis of education. Increasingly, the field of comparative education is moving toward more sophisticated examinations of education in relationship to economic, political, and social forces. Studies of the ecology of educational institutions and processes, however, often fail to take into account an international context of transactions. To date, most macro studies of education have taken the nation-state as the basic unit of analysis.' An examination of the international forces impinging upon education systems is no less essential than an examination of the international economic order would be to an

added by over 1,000 teachers to a survey of teachers' practices. Results of the survey of 3,700 teachers in about 600 schools in Maryland are described in Becker and Epstein (in this issue). The teachers' comments reflect the variation in years of experience and in the number and types of contacts individual teachers have had with parents. Each theme can be viewed from two perspectives-there are potential advantages, but there are also potential problems, with any parent-involvement technique. Teachers' comments reveal their contrasting opinions on the benefits expected from parent assistance at home and on the organizational structures used to conduct parent-involvement activities. Some teachers are very positive about parent involvement; others have been discouraged by their attempts to communicate and work with parents.

to general feelings such as liking/disliking of mathematics, nor is it meant to exclude perceptions of the difficulty, usefulness, and appropriateness of mathematics as a school subject. There are several ways affective variables are related to mathematics learning. It is likely that a student who feels very positive about mathematics will achieve at a higher level than a student who has a negative attitude toward mathematics. It is also likely that a high achiever will enjoy mathematics more than a student who

While education researchers have drawn on the work of a wide diversity of theorists over the years, much contemporary theory building in these areas has revolved around the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Theory as Method in Research develops the capacity of students, researchers and teachers to successfully put Bourdieu’s ideas to work in their own research and prepare them effectively for conducting Masters and Doctoral scholarships. Structured around four core themes, this book provides a range of research case studies exploring educational identities, educational inequalities, school leadership and management, and research in teacher education. Issues as diverse as Chinese language learning and identity, school leadership in Australia and the school experience of Afro-Trinidadian boys, are covered, intertwined with a set of innovative approaches to theory application in education research. This collection brings together, in one comprehensive volume, a set of education researchers who place Pierre Bourdieu’s key concepts such as habitus, capital and field at the centre of their research methodologies. Full of insight and innovation, the book is an essential read for practitioners, student teachers, researchers and academics who want to harness the potential of Bourdieu’s core concepts in their own work, thereby helping to bridge the gap between theory and method in education research.

This book discusses possible contributions of sociology and anthropology to agricultural research. It is based on investigations carried out from 1981 to 1985 in the Dominican Republic in the Adaptive Agricultural Research (AAR) project, a cooperative effort between the Agricultural University of Wageningen and the Dominican Ministry of Agriculture. The origins of this project can be found in the growing interest, during the last decade, in the potential benefits of the participation of sociologists and anthropologists in interdisciplinary research teams involved in applied agricultural research.Chapter 1 reviews the state of the art of sociology and anthropology in agricultural research. On the basis of the literature, a number of roles for the non-economic social scientists are discussed, as well as various topics for sociological and anthropological research. Also, some of the problems of interdisciplinary research involving biological scientists, economists and noneconomic social scientists are examined.In Chapter 2 the methodology of the AAR rice research is presented, and related to the diagnostic research methodology of the most well-known approach to small farm development: Farming Systems Research. Particular attention is paid to the introduction of the diagnostic case study in the research process, as a means to obtain, in a cost-effective way, a wealth of information on the how's and why's of farmer decision making.In Chapter 3, background information is given on the Dominican Republic, Dominican rice cultivation and the three areas where the AAR rice research took place.In Chapter 4, the linkages between Dominican rice researchers, extension agents and farmers are analyzed. It is shown that small Dominican rice farmers lack ways of indicating their needs for new technology to rice researchers, and therefore do not participate in the setting of research priorities. The virtual absence of an information flow from the small farm to the research level is described as a result of institutional constraints and the prevalence among officials of the stereotype of the small farmer as uneducated, traditional and backward. A result of the lack of communication is that an important part of the technology generated at the research station is not or only partly applicable in small farm production conditions.Chapter 5 presents an example of the effectiveness of small farmer practices in obtaining good production results with limited resources. The case presented is that of the growing of a ratoon crop, i.e., obtaining a second rice crop from the stubble of the first - sown - crop. It is demonstrated that both from a micro and a macro point of view ratooning is an efficient way of producing rice, particularly in production systems that face constraints in access to irrigation water and machinery for land preparation.Chapters 6 to 9 elaborate on the central argument of this thesis, which is that an important contribution of sociology and anthropology to applied agricultural research for small farmers can be made in the area of diagnostic methodology. Chapter 6 contends that in the first phase of diagnostic research, the reconnaissance, all potentially relevant factors should be appraised with the purpose of selecting for further analysis those that are found to have the strongest impact on farmer decision making. A framework for such an appraisal is presented, together with the results of its application to the three areas where AAR rice research took place. It is concluded that the principal factors influencing the decision making of the farmers. investigated are of an agro-infrastructural and economic nature: access to irrigation water, machinery for land preparation and credit, and plot levelling and drainage.In Chapter 7, the weaknesses are discussed of the currently predominant diagnostic research methods in applied agricultural research: Rapid Rural Appraisal and the formal survey. It is argued that in most instances the combination of these two techniques is unlikely to yield the thorough understanding of complex small farm systems that is needed to establish guidelines for the development of adapted technology. Therefore, it is suggested to add a more qualitative and in-depth research method, the diagnostic case study. The inclusion of case studies in diagnostic research methodology also permits a more participatory approach to the development of technology for small farmers by incorporating the latter's perspective in setting research priorities and orienting research programmes.In Chapter 8, it is argued that the fact that agronomists and economists are neither trained in qualitative research nor in the analysis of farmer perceptions, ambitions, goals and perceived needs, justifies the participation of sociologists and anthropologists in interdisciplinary teams involved in technology development. However, to function properly in such teams, the social scientist must be able to produce rapid results that can be used as a basis for technology design. Since the time available for diagnostic research is usually quite limited, this may mean that the social scientist will have to trade some scientific thoroughness for speed.In Chapter 9, it is shown how the social science methods of case study and survey can be combined with agronomic trial research to create a more complete picture of specific small farm problems. The case presented is that of the late transplant of rice seedlings. Case studies provided information on the causes of the problem and the way farmers coped with it by adapting certain management practices; survey research yielded estimates of the number of farmers affected by the problem; and trial research resulted in quantitative estimates on yield losses and the effectiveness of farmer adaptations.In Chapter 10, the categorization is discussed of the farmers of the three research areas according to the aforementioned five factors of plot levelling, drainage, and access to irrigation water, machinery and credit. It is demonstrated that for the overall research population, as well as two of the three research areas, the used method of categorization is effective in differentiating farmers on three important indicators for technology development: yields, cropping intensity and income earned from rice production. On the basis of these results, two general recommendation domains with "good" and "poor" production conditions are established and recommendations for the development of appropriate technology are made for each.The conclusions of this book, presented in Chapter 11, start with a review of the research topics and roles of the social scientist, discussed in Chapter 1, that were taken into account in the AAR rice research. It is concluded that a mayor sociological contribution was made in the area of research methodology, by supplementing the information gathered through the "traditional" diagnostic methods of rapid appraisal and survey with the qualitative, in-depth knowledge generated by the case studies. Other important roles fulfilled by the AAR sociologist were that of an ex-post evaluator of the adoption and adaptation of new rice technology, that of a two-way translator and broker who fosters communication between biological scientists and farmers, and that of an indicator of needs for new agricultural technology. Of the topics for research mentioned in Chapter 1 particular attention was paid to the analysis of farmer decision making, motivation and perceptions, and to the analysis of local knowledge on rice cultivation. Other important research foci were household composition and organization, the linkages between farmers and officials, and farmer organization.After a brief review of the conclusions regarding the desirability of the incorporation of local knowledge in technology development, some comments are made on the specific characteristics of the local knowledge of the investigated rice farmers. It is argued that in spite of the short history of rice farming in the research areas, a considerable body of local knowledge had already been developed, based for an important part on adaptations to constraints in production conditions. However, due to the fact that the research population consisted of a socially heterogeneous and atomized group of settlers with a western-Latin background, for whom rice was a relatively new crop, the influence of social and cultural factors on decision making in rice cultivation was relatively limited. In other situations, where specific cropping systems have formed the basis of existence for farming families for centuries, social and cultural factors will be likely to determine farmer practices and decision making to a much greater extent. Consequently, in development oriented research such factors will need more attention than was the case in the research reported here.

An Experimental Study of Effective Teaching in First-Grade Reading Groups

For many years, researchers have bemoaned the fact that practitioners and policy makers take little notice of their findings.As Shymansky and Kyle (1992 p. 756) put it, "Why does so much effort result in such little apparent benefit?"Some time ago, Amabile and Stubbs (1982) addressed the research-practice gap.They pointed out that many objective, quantitative findings were not valued by teachers, who considered that most researchers did not understand life in real classrooms, and, closeted in their ivory tower, wrote research reports and journal articles which "consisted of convoluted prose and specialized terminology which takes far too much time to decode into meaningful material" (Stubbs, 1982, p. 25).Teachers had more interest in anecdotal reports, which they found more meaningful and to which they could relate more readily than traditional research methods (Amabile, 1982).At about the same time, White (1984) responded to what he considered unduly pessimistic criticism of the state of educational research with specific examples of how research has changed to focus more on the role of participants in teaching and learning.More recent comment about bringing the research-practice gap in science education also has focused on changing research methodologies to include teachers as collaborators (Krockover & Shepardson, 1995) or teachers as researchers (Pekarek, Krockover, & Shepardson, 1996).Today, much more of the research in science education, at least, has resemblance to the "anecdotal reports" referred to by Amabile (1982), because, as we shall see, most of the research published in mainstream science education journals in 1996 used qualitative rather than quantitative methodologies (to use a gross oversimplification of research methods).However, the gap between research and practice remains.In his 1997 address, retiring NARST President Tom Koballa quoted teachers' views that science education research was not useful to them.He, too, recommended collaboration with practitioners, but also that "we rethink how science education research is communicated to science teachers" (Koballa, 1997, p. 4) as one way to narrow the research-practice gap.It is the communication of research results that I wish to address herein, and specifically the communication of quantitative results.We cannot simply dispense with approaches to research that provide quantitative results, because there remain questions to be asked that require