The Limitations of Traditional Dissemination Processes
Even though most teachers genuinely want to improve their instructional effectiveness and value research findings, the impact of such findings on classroom behavior has traditionally been weak. Most dissemination approaches have relied on the expository mode (both verbal and print) to distribute research findings to teachers. Such approaches are only marginally effective, at best.
Although we learn through experience and the use of multiple senses, teachers are often expected to change personal and complex teaching behaviors by simply reading about research findings or listening to someone present the findings. Moreover, the research in question has usually been conducted by college professors. While professors might be best suited to conduct research studies, teachers often perceive many, if not most, college professors as having an unrealistic understanding of real-world preK–12 classrooms, and their findings, as a result, lack credibility with teachers. Further, teachers find many research conclusions to be vague or even contradictory. As a result, they often have difficulty thinking of specific things they can do in their classrooms to benefit from those conclusions (Eaker & Huffman, 1980).
Jim and I sought to develop a new process for disseminating research findings, one in which teachers would actively engage with the findings on effective instructional practices in their classrooms. We felt that higher education’s findings should be validated by those teachers who are intended to use them. Just as Consumer Reports researchers test product claims of effectiveness, teachers would test instructional practices, following the consumer-validation model.
A New Model for Testing and Implementing Research Findings
Using our previous work with teachers in the Murfreesboro, Tennessee, school system, Jim and I decided to create a dissemination model that would go beyond informing and actually affect teachers’ classroom behavior. Our primary source of research studies was the Institute for Research on Teaching at Michigan State University. At that time, the institute was heavily involved in researching such areas as teacher decision making; reading diagnosis and remediation; classroom management strategies; instruction in language arts, reading, and mathematics; teacher education; teacher planning; effects of external pressures on teachers’ decisions; socio-cultural factors; and teachers’ perceptions of student affect. Some of the most highly respected researchers in the United States conducted these studies and many others, such as Lee Shulman, Jere Brophy, Christopher Clark, Andrew Porter, and Larry Lezotte, to name a few. Additionally, we utilized the research from others outside the institute, namely Thomas Good, Barak Rosenshine, and Jacob Kounin.
As we conceptualized this new dissemination model, our goals began to emerge (Eaker & Huffman, 1980).
We planned our framework and activities based on certain assumptions. First, we assumed that the quality of interpersonal relations between us and the teachers, as well as within the participant group, would be a key factor in the success of the project. We knew that if our goal was to encourage experimentation, creativity, imagination, and a willingness to try new things, the process would need to be as nonthreatening as possible.
Second, teachers would need to feel secure and confident in their knowledge and understanding of the research. Simply put, we recognized that unless teachers developed a clear and accurate understanding of the findings, implementing them would be problematic and the odds of changing teacher behavior slim.
Third, we recognized that to be effective, the dissemination plan would have to focus on teacher behavior in K–12 classrooms. We would have to shift the focus from the university classroom, where teachers were informed of research findings, to K–12 classrooms, where teachers could apply, use, and test the practicality of specific research findings—an approach that in later years came to be known as action research.
And, finally, we assumed we would need a tool for collecting data from teachers’ experiences as they tried new instructional behaviors:
If teachers were to reflect on the effects of their teaching, and if they were to share information with others, then some sort of format needed to be developed in which teachers’ ideas, activities, insights, criticisms, attitudes, and feelings could be recorded. (Eaker & Huffman, 1980, p. 5)
The plan that eventually emerged contained four types of activities, or steps.
1. Seminars
2. Implementation
3. Classroom visitations
4. Sharing sessions
Seminars
Seminars provided deep, rich discussion around specific research findings related to instructional effectiveness. To avoid information overload, we decided to limit our seminars to four research areas.
1. Planning and organization of classroom activities
2. Student planning and time on task
3. Discipline and classroom management
4. Affective teaching skills
Research findings in each of these four areas were synthesized by myself and Jim and made as clear and concise as possible. Gathering, synthesizing, translating, and discussing research findings so that they could be more easily understood by teachers became a central aspect of the consumer-validation approach (Eaker & Huffman, 1980).
Implementation
Once teachers felt confident they understood the specifics and implications of a set of research findings, they implemented the findings in their day-to-day classroom instruction and recorded their observations and outcomes on a simple form:
• Section One contained a brief description of the specific research findings that the teacher was integrating into classroom instruction.
• Section Two was a blank page with the heading “Description of Classroom Behaviors Engaged in While Implementing the Above Research Findings.” Teachers were asked to list and briefly describe the things they did in their classrooms to implement specific research findings.
• Section Three was another blank page with the heading “Analyze What You Think and Feel About What Happened When You Tried Each of the Behaviors Listed in Section Two.” The purpose of this section was to prompt teachers to reflect on the results or impact of their implementation. We wanted the teachers to analyze what occurred and evaluate the classroom efficacy of specific research findings. Recording their perceptions also enabled teachers to be better equipped to share their experiences with the other participant teachers. (Eaker & Huffman, 1980, p. 7)
After each seminar, teachers worked to integrate the research findings into their regular classroom routines and keep the record form up to date.
Classroom Visitations
We recognized that teachers would have questions during implementation. Some would need simple reassurance, while others would need more technical assistance. To a great extent, success of the consumer-validation project hinged on our classroom visitations to support teachers.
My years of focus on the clinical supervision process with its