If textbook publishers are to be believed, we are living in a golden age of curriculum. Never before has every single K-12 textbook been tested and validated by researchers. This is just a tremendous achievement, and the entire industry should congratulate themselves on a job well done. Nice job, guys!
When I say literally every K-12 textbook, I mean something close to every single product released by every major textbook publisher. The studies are typically funded by the publisher, a coincidence. The i-Ready product improved outcomes for students on an end-of-year exam. Students made significant gains while using Math in Focus. HMHCo has an entire research library which remarkably shows that every single one of their products is absolutely effective.
Even though there is no study supporting the Transition to Algebra books, we are reassured that they are “research-based.” Everyday Math is “research-grounded.” Singapore Math’s Math in Focus is “built on a research-based framework.” And, thankfully, Illustrative Mathematics is “using high leverage research based math teaching practices.”
Teachers might profess to care nada about research, but that would be news to all these marketing departments. It would also be news to the ridiculously popular YouCubed, which is dedicated to “transforming the latest research on maths into accessible and practical forms.” NCTM is committed to “research-informed” teaching. The word “research” appears 70 times in Peter Liljedahl’s Building Thinking Classrooms.
How should we think about the appeal of research for teachers?
It’s clearly not “unbriddled enthusiasm.” People will talk cynically about how everybody seems to have their study. As a profession I would be inclined to say that we’re skeptical and dismissive of research—except for the fact that we seem drawn to it, whenever it appeals to us.
Now you might say, well of course teachers like research when it agrees with their views. But if research is fake, then we shouldn’t care at all. Nobody slaps labels on textbooks that say “necromancy-based.” So research for teachers is in this weird place somewhere between “totally fake” and “absolutely essential.” How should we think about what that weird place is like?
I honestly don’t know. Here are some possibilities:
Even though we think everybody else’s research is fake, we think our own preferred research is real (because it’s true).
Even though we think all research is fake, it impresses some people (e.g. principals) who think research is real.
We know that some research is fake but we also know that some research is real, but we have no way of knowing in advance which is which. So it’s nice when something has research, because it might be real.
I think some combination of these ideas is probably right.
Whatever the explanation, there is clearly a demand for research from teachers. People want to believe. We want the assurance that it’s not just us, not just our weird teaching idea, but it’s already been checked out—it works. Teaching is famously a profession riddled with doubt. Good teaching does not yield immediate or visible results. It’s not like medicine. We do not heal students.
There is demand for research, but everybody is a supplier. Which makes it very hard for the truth to stand out from the crowd. I see no easy solution, but anyone out there trying to be heard with quality stuff has to find a way to rise above this research-based racket.
I think a big piece you might not have visibility into is that teachers aren't the primary audience for curriculum/textbook marketing and sales copy. 😬 The decision makers are usually defined as district-level admins/coordinators/whatever-title who have to defend their (often quite large!) purchasing decisions to a school board (or some kind of other governing body). And wHeRe'S tHe ReSeArCh?! has become a common-enough demand that publishers feel pressured to be able to address it (whether what they're addressing it with is meaningful or not.) I believe that some individual adoption committees might not care, but it's a question you hear every day from customers at a publisher.
I would absolutely use necromancy-based textbooks in my class.