In education, we hear the term “research-based” frequently, specifically when talking about a strategy or resource being used. We obviously want to teach what is best for students, so many districts and publishers want to ensure that the strategies being used are sound. But what does this really mean?
For anyone who may not know, the term “research-based” basically means that there is research backing the resource or curriculum. Cindy Downend, Associate Director of Literacy Programs at Lesley University, writes a great article that differentiates between “research-based” and “evidence-based,” which is an important distinction. She boils this difference down to research being about the learning theories, while evidence has studies specifically to back it (Downend, 2024). Why does this matter? Well, it comes down to publishing.
Let’s look at the commonly used learning theory, the “Workshop Model.” This is the practice of giving concise direct instruction, known as a “mini-lesson,” and sending students off to work in groups or independently on practicing the skill. During this time, the teacher is pulling groups, usually reinforcing the lesson or hitting gaps with students who need the reteaching or extra guided practice. The workshop model, specifically in writing, is truly evidence-based, which is great! We know that, when done correctly, teaching kids to write through this model will be beneficial. Here’s where things get tricky…
If “research-based” means that the resource uses learning models, such as the workshop, then any resource can call itself researched, regardless of what the lessons actually contain, as long as it is structured around a learning model with evidence backing it. It is important, however, to recognize how difficult it can be to prove one resource works better than another. Since data would have to be found in student grades and assessments through the year, there are multiple factors and variables to consider, such as the specific students work ethic, comparable districts, etc. Even so, this is not an excuse for publishers to advertise their resources or curriculum as “research-based.”
Now that you and I know the what “research-based” really means, it’s easy to recognize when a resource has proof behind its effectiveness or not. We can also, as professionals, gauge effectiveness from our background experience and knowledge of education itself. The issue with this term being used to advertise curriculums is that districts spend a lot of money to purchase these resources, oftentimes while promoting how great it is BECAUSE it’s “research-based” (even though we now know that there is more to it than that).
If you are an educator and have been for at least a few years, you may have been aware of the whole “Lucy reading debacle” as I call it. Basically, a podcast came out with many voices speaking against a particular resource, saying it went against the “Science of Reading,” which has been a huge push in recent years. As someone who taught Kindergarten using this resource, I won’t dive in here with my opinions on this piece, but it does go to prove my point. Calling something “research-based” because of one part can backfire on kids, teachers, and districts.
Going forward, I hope you will look closer into those resources being pushed at you, whether you are a teacher or an administrator.
Downend, C. (2024, April 24). Evidence-based? Research-based? What does it all mean? Center for Literacy Teaching and Instructional Leadership, Lesley University. https://centerliteracyteaching.lesley.edu/evidence-based-what-does-it-mean/
Leave a Reply