THE ROLE OF POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS

IN DISSEMINATION AND USE OF RESEARCH

IN SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL SYSTEMS

Sid Bourke & Allyson Holbrook

The University of Newcastle

Colleagues at the respondent's school were seen as the most important sources for and initiators of new ideas and developments in schools. Other colleagues, professional associations and universities were also important for the majority of postgraduate students. The types of information on which new developments were based were principally research and accumulated wisdom/experience. More than three-quarters of postgraduates recognised the impact of university research on their own activities, and three-fifths recognised its impact on education generally. In descending order, the research projects most often listed by postgraduates were in the area of educational processes and structures which included three sub-topic areas: (1) internal educational processes, (2) social and philosophical views of education and, to a lesser extent, (3) curriculum organisation, educational levels and qualifications. Other prominent areas were learning and development, human society, special education, politics and economics, and curriculum areas, for example, key learning areas.

___________________________

Key words: Impact of research, Postgraduate education

INTRODUCTION

In Australia, the USA and Britain an intense interest in the impact of educational research has emerged in recent years although in each country the context is somewhat different (Blackmore & Lingard 1998, Hargreaves 1998, Hegarty 1997, Hillage et al 1998, McGaw et al 1992, NERPPB 1998, NRC 1999, PCAST 1997, Rudduck & McIntyre 1998, Selby-Smith et al 1998). In the USA, the focus appears to be on a perceived failure of large research projects to yield generalisable and sustainable results; a sense of failure within urban schools; and the difficulty of implementing the results of research in a large, decentralised system of education. In Britain concern with the impact of educational research appears to be related to a determination to reform education and raise educational achievement in comparison with that of other countries. In Australia the source of the focus on research impact is less clear, but appears to be linked to a desire to improve practice and to increase the return of investment in research. Foremost among concerns are the quality of educational research and whether or not unsubstantiated findings and fads are driving educational change.

Despite such differences in focus, there is a common interest in establishing the most effective ways to support, coordinate, prioritise, and evaluate research. And there is widespread concern to understand the processes through which new knowledge based on rigorous enquiry is generated, disseminated and utilised. This is in the context of the explosion of knowledge as policy makers, managers and practitioners seek to integrate research into other forms of usable knowledge (Lindblom & Cohen 1979, Backer 1993, Davenport 1997).

Australian concerns had arisen in part from a relatively recent discipline review of education in Australia (McGaw et al 1992), and, from a number of investigations into research use in Britain (Kerr et al 1997, Tooley & Darby 1997, Hillage et al 1998). A key conclusion of the McGaw review was that, while Australian education research exhibited many strengths and much excellent work was being done, the whole enterprise was a fragile resource that required reorientation and increased support if it was to contribute more effectively to the challenge of improving Australian education. The report made a range of recommendations for improving the dissemination and application of research. These were built around the key idea of more closely integrating researchers, funding agencies and the users of research in the processes of identifying research priorities, conducting research, and monitoring its uptake and impact. The report also pointed to the need for a better understanding of research impact - that is whether research is used, what kinds of research are influential, and what forms of interaction are most effective. Submissions to the review panel had suggested there was widespread suspicion or dismissal of research within the practitioner and policy-maker communities, and that researchers had to take the needs of those groups more into account and work more closely with them.

It was argued that one of the major constraints on the effectiveness of educational research was its fragmented nature. Overall resources were low, research for most academics was a part-time activity fitted around other pressing demands, and there were few instances of sustained programs of research as opposed to small-scale individual projects. It concluded that one way to address the issues of relevance and effectiveness was priority setting and a concentration of research effort, especially more extensive use of teams of researchers, and research centres. With the exception of research on VET, this has not occurred at a systemic level, although there are many individual examples of universities and academics developing more effective relationships with schools and educational authorities during the 1990s. As a result of a recent governmental paper (DETYA 2000), it appears that future research funding may come to depend on restructuring of this kind.

The review raised serious questions about research use, but empirical research about research impact has been relatively limited until now. Common reasons suggested for low levels of research use include poor or inappropriate dissemination of research findings, alienating language and alien concepts, poorly targeted and inapplicable research findings, and problems associated with different 'cultures' including the receptiveness and knowledge of potential users (Kennedy 1997).

A recent Australian study (Holbrook et al 1999), a small part of which is reported here, sought to map total research activity, and explore the outcomes of research from some hitherto unexamined perspectives, including the work and viewpoints of postgraduate students.

POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS

Much of the literature concerned with knowledge utilisation suggests that a range of people and organisations provide a linking and integrating function between the worlds of research and practice. Linkage agents assume considerable importance in summarising and interpreting the findings of educational research in ways that make them more accessible to practitioners. As a result of their roles, linkage agents provide important perspectives on the impact of research.

One such group in relation to the impact of educational research is postgraduate students in faculties of Education. The idea that exposure to research affects the beliefs and practices of teachers has received support previously (Green & Kvidahl, 1990; Zeuli, 1992). Not only are postgraduates exposed to university research activities, but also many become researchers, at least in the short term, through project work and through writing theses. In addition to creating research information, many would be involved, either during or subsequent to their postgraduate work, in disseminating and diffusing research in both formal and informal ways. It could also be expected that their studies would lead many to use research findings in their professional roles. As many postgraduates are part time students who are working full time as teachers or educational administrators, and others are currently full time students who will return to schools and education systems on completing their degrees, these students are clearly in a key position as potential linkage agents between university research and its conduct and any implementation of findings in schools and school systems.

METHOD: SAMPLE AND QUESTIONNAIRE

Questionnaires were sent to postgraduate students in Education in all States and Territories of Australia in the latter half of first semester, 1999. The students were approached indirectly through their faculties because, for privacy reasons, most universities would have been unwilling to provide their students' names and addresses without the students' prior permission. All 36 universities with a Faculty/School/Department of Education were asked to forward a questionnaire to each of their postgraduate students if they had up to 100 such students, and to randomly select 100 students across the range of postgraduate qualifications they offered if they had more than 100 eligible students. One university found itself unable to do this, so the potential sample of postgraduate students was no more than 3500. However, as some universities would have had fewer than 100 postgraduate students in education, the potential sample was estimated to be about 3100 students.

Useable responses were received from 1267 postgraduate students, a disappointing response rate of only 41% of the estimated potential sample. However, it was also of interest to estimate the achieved sample as a proportion of all postgraduate education students in Australia by type of course. Comparable information was available only for students undertaking doctorates and masters degrees, whether by research or coursework (DETYA 2000, 56). As postgraduate diploma and certificate qualifications had been classified differently by the universities, these students were omitted from this estimate. The achieved sample of doctoral degree students in the present study was 19.4% of the total number of these students, the research masters sample was 15.2% of that population and the coursework masters sample was 6.8% of the total. Thus the combined sample of masters and doctoral students represented 10.9% of the national total of these students in 1999.

It was also necessary to check the extent to which the achieved sample represented the Australian States. Five of the six States and both Territories were represented approximately as expected, given their populations. As the State including the one major university which was unable to participate effectively, Victoria was the exception having a lower proportion than expected in a national sample.

The questionnaire had three major focuses. Firstly, it requested detailed background personal and employment information about postgraduate students in education. Secondly, it sought their views of the sources and importance of research, and on their research interests (and research topic if they were engaged in a research project). Finally, it covered the views of postgraduate students regarding the usefulness of their studies as well as their views of the impact of educational research more generally. Subsequently, 24 of these postgraduate students, who had indicated their willingness to do so, were interviewed by telephone to provide more detailed information on their motivation to study and their use of their postgraduate studies in the workplace.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDENT SAMPLE

It would first seem appropriate to describe the postgraduate students who responded to the questionnaire by type of degree and by gender, two of the more interesting and important differences found within the discipline of Education. These are related here to two key variables, age and mode of enrolment (full or part time candidature).

In the Australian context, the experience of postgraduate study is likely to be very different for students between coursework degrees and other qualifications, and research degrees either at masters or doctoral level. Clearly the task for coursework students is taking and passing subjects, although some may also do a minor thesis as part of their degree. Conversely, although research-degree students may engage in some coursework, their main or only assessable task is completing a thesis. However, the professional doctorate (EdD) does not fit neatly into this framework, normally requiring both coursework and a major thesis.

Ignoring gender differences for the moment (these are briefly discussed below), Table 1 shows that students doing coursework masters degrees formed the largest single group (40%), although the total of students doing PhD and research masters degrees is more than comparable (42%). If we grouped all students who undertake major research projects, that is we included the EdD students with the PhD and research masters students, this would constitute a clear majority of the postgraduate sample (57%).

For the total sample, 63.0% of the postgraduates were female, but only 55.6% of the doctoral candidates were female. These figures, although slightly lower, are comparable with those for the national population of postgraduates in Education where females are 66.0% of the postgraduate and 57.2% of the doctoral candidates (DETYA 2000, 56).

Returning to Table 1, there were clear differences in the type of degree between genders. Although the proportions of postgraduate males and females doing PhDs were similar, there was almost twice the proportion of males doing the EdD degree compared with females, but a considerably greater proportion of females doing coursework masters degrees than males.

Degree of enrolment was also looked at by age. Respondents were grouped into 5 age bands, ranging from younger than 25 years to older than 54 years. The classification of type of degree by age band is shown in Table 2. One reason for not grouping the EdD students with the other research students is evident in this table - the EdD students tended to be much older than the others. More than 60 per cent of the EdD students were older than 44 years, whereas less than one half of the PhD and research masters students were of that age (48% and 44% respectively).

This information clearly indicates that the postgraduate students in Education were older than those across the disciplines. From Table 2, approximately 15% of the doctoral students in the Education sample were less than 35 years, but more than 30% of all doctoral students nationally were less than 30 years of age (DETYA 2000, 54). The lack of directly comparable information by age band makes the contrast even more stark. A similar pattern exists for both research and coursework masters students, although the differences are not quite as marked.

Of the many other possible comparisons of student characteristics related to type of degree, only one is briefly discussed here. When full/part time enrolment was considered by type of degree, only 20 per cent of the total were full time, and the range was from 9 per cent for coursework masters students to 39 per cent for PhD students. Between the extremes, only 12 per cent of the EdD students were full time, compared with 22 per cent of research masters students. On this criterion, the EdD students were more like the coursework masters students, and the research masters students were again more like the PhD students.

POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS INVOLVED IN EDUCATION

The postgraduate students were asked to state the industry sector in which they were currently or most recently employed, as their main employment. Of the 1267 students, 1130 indicated they were from the education sector, the remaining 137 (almost 11%) being from other industry sectors. The areas of education these 1130 students worked in have been shown in Table 3. Three groups dominated: primary/preschool (of which primary was much more strongly represented than preschool) comprising 20 per cent, secondary (28%) and higher education (22%). It is the 1130 students in the education sector who are of greatest interest in this paper because it is this group who are most likely to play a role in dissemination and use of educational research.

Even more specifically, respondents who worked in school-level education might be expected to have a particular interest in educational research which would have application to schools and school systems. The particular school and system roles of these school-level postgraduate students are shown in Table 4.

A total of 671 students worked mainly at the school level. Of these, 617 (92%) provided a major role and most of the remainder gave multiple roles. More than three-fifths of the total were classroom teachers and the other major groups were school and regional administrators, together constituting almost one-fifth of the total. Most of the remainder who gave one role were in positions such as consultants, counsellors, and research and development where it was likely that they influenced what happened in schools. The final sections of this paper are concerned with the views of these school-level respondents about sources of new ideas in schools and school systems, the roles of research in general and university research in particular, and the nature of their own research projects and interests.

The major division of the 671 postgraduate students was between those mainly engaged in primary (including pre-school) education (39%) and those involved with secondary schooling (61%). Generally there were no significant differences between these groups in their responses to the areas of interest in the following sections of this paper. Where there were differences, these will be noted.

SOURCES AND NATURE OF NEW IDEAS IN SCHOOLS

The postgraduate students were asked about new ideas and developments in their workplace. We were seeking information their personal experiences of what was happening with respect to sources of ideas and types of new developments across schools and systems.

Respondents were first asked to indicate the importance of eight potential sources of new ideas in their school, centre or institute. Table 5 shows, in descending order for those involved at the school level, the proportions of these postgraduate students who stated that each of the sources was at least Important. These are compared with the proportions for the other postgraduates engaged in education workplaces. In the main, the other respondents were involved at the tertiary and TAFE levels.

Colleagues within their school were seen as important more frequently than any of the other sources by the school-level respondents, and colleagues in other schools, closely followed by professional associations were next in frequency of importance. Two-thirds saw universities as important, but only about half saw the remaining sources as important. The other education group, perhaps not surprisingly as it consisted of a high proportion of tertiary educators, more often saw universities as important, and professional consultants as less often important. This group also rated the importance of colleagues outside their own institution almost as highly as internal colleagues.

The nature of new developments they had experienced in the past year was requested next by seeking a personal example. A total of 407 new developments or innovations were listed by the 671 school-level respondents in the six most frequent areas. Developments in other areas, mentioned less frequently, are not given here. The six areas are shown in Table 6 in order of descending proportions, and are compared with the proportions for the 224 developments listed in the same areas by the tertiary and TAFE respondents in education.

It will be noted that there were more new developments in curriculum, learning and teaching, student welfare, and assessment, but fewer in computers and administration by school-level respondents compared with the others. The differences were statistically significant (chi-sq =25.8, df=5, p<.001). As they were singled out more often as important, the former areas would seem to be of relatively greater concern for those respondents working at the school level.

THE ROLES OF RESEARCH IN INNOVATION

When asked the probable basis for new ideas and development in schools, the most common source cited was research. A total of small-scale or local research, larger-scale Australian research and international research constituted a little more than one-third of the responses (34%). A relatively large group (30%) indicated they did not know the basis for the new development they had cited. The next most common source, listed as accumulated wisdom or practical experience, accounted for approximately one-fifth of responses (21%). An other source was given by 8 per cent, and 7 per cent gave an individual's idea as the basis for the development.

The specific impact of the work of university researchers in education was examined by two other questionnaire items. These concerned the impact of research on what the postgraduate student personally did in their work, and the impact on education generally in their region. These responses could be compared for those involved in primary and secondary education, and for those in school education generally and tertiary/TAFE levels. Again there was no significant difference between primary and secondary school levels, but there were large differences between school and tertiary/TAFE levels. These are shown for both items in Table 7.

In both cases the differences in perceived impact between respondents in the two levels of education were statistically significant. The differences for respondents personally was mainly shown by more tertiary respondents indicating a large impact, compared with some impact preferred by school respondents (Chi-sq=11.8, n=1089, df=3, p<.01). For education generally the differences were that more tertiary respondents indicated large impact and more school respondents indicated little impact (chi-sq=14.3, n=1076, df=3, p<.01). Although the impact of university research was perceived to be less by school level respondents, it is notable that clear majorities thought university research had at least some impact on their work and on education generally.

THE TOPICS OF STUDENT RESEARCH AND INTEREST

In attempting to vindicate concerns expressed by some commentators about the lack of relevance of research interests and of educational research undertaken to schools and school systems, respondents were asked to indicate areas of study in their present degree. Up to three responses were coded for each student. In the cases of research students and coursework postgraduate students undertaking minor research studies or projects, the areas cited would normally be part of their thesis or project topic. The areas given were then coded into the same groupings as had been used in other parts of this study for the Australian Education Index and for Faculty of Education publications (Holbrook et al 1999).

The proportions of responses by those involved in school education in each of the nine descriptor groups are shown in Table 8 where they are compared with the proportions of entries in the Australian Education Index for 1997 (Holbrook et al 1999, p.44). Although the overall patterns are the same, with educational processes and structures and curriculum areas dominating both distributions, there are also some significant differences. In terms of sheer size, the major difference is that the postgraduates involved in school-level education indicated an interest in curriculum areas almost twice as often as such publications had been indexed by the AEI. Although from a smaller base, the school-level students indicated physical and mental conditions almost three times as often as the AEI. The major topic within the latter area was special education. There were also significant but smaller proportional differences for learning and development and for educational processes and structures between the postgraduate areas and the AEI.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has presented results based on some of the questionnaire responses of 1267 postgraduate students in education. Within the total group, the major focus has been on the responses of 1130 students involved in the education industry to questions about their perceptions of sources and types of new developments in schools, and on the impact on school and school system of educational research done in universities. The students were also asked about their own current areas of study, which would in most cases have been closely related to their research thesis. In the main the students in the sample were female (63%), were more than 34 years of age (80%), were doing a research degree (57%), and were enrolled part time (80%). In particular the sub-group of these students whose current or recent experience was at the school level was also identified. The sub-group, comprising 59 per cent of the students from the education industry, were mainly in teaching positions (61%) and were more often involved with secondary schools and schooling (61%).

It is significant that two-thirds of those involved in education at the school level saw universities as important sources of new information. But it is perhaps more significant that considerably more respondents (as many as 84%) saw colleagues in their own school and in other schools as important sources of new ideas. It was not specified that the idea was initiated by the colleague, but that it was through the colleague the idea became known and acted upon. Three pieces of information in this paper can be brought together to suggest that postgraduate students in education are soundly placed for them to be the sources of new ideas and thus perhaps to be the key change or at least linkage agents in their schools and systems. First, these students have exposure to new ideas and their evaluation through considerable contact with research as part of their studies. Secondly, more than three-quarters of the students stated university research had at least some impact on what they did personally. Finally, the students' most common research interests and the studies they undertake are based very much in areas of direct relevance to schools, such as educational processes, curriculum and special education.

Consequently it would seem to be important for soundly-based innovation in schools and school systems for primary and secondary teachers and administrators to continue to be attracted into postgraduate studies, especially types of studies involving close contact with research. In bringing the concerns of the schools to their university work, these students will have a strong incentive to use their research to improve understandings and seek solutions to relevant issues. Having school personnel enrolled at a postgraduate level is important also for the Education faculties in which they enrol. A major benefit of school-level practitioners as students is that they help to keep university staff current with school and school system concerns.

There is a number of issues related to the continued enrolment of school-level personnel as postgraduate students in education which would seem to warrant further investigation. One issue is the very high proportion of part time postgraduate students in education, compared with most other disciplines. With four-fifths in education enrolled part time, one might be might want to look at the balance of full time and part time students with a view to maximising the potential to implement new ideas in a timely way. A second question concerns the extent to which postgraduate students continue to be involved or at least interested in applying research or systematic enquiry methods to their work after they have completed their postgraduate studies. If ex-students do not remain research-active in the workplace, one might question whether any benefits are restricted to the period of candidature and are thus no more than short term.

Overall the clear messages received from the postgraduate students is that research is valued but that there are many competing sources of information recognised as effecting and justifying changes in schools. It is reasonable to suggest that students would be more likely than most to understand and believe in the importance of research than many others involved with schools, and consequently are likely to act as linkage agents between researchers and practitioners. Those who wish to elevate the position of research as a rationale for change must accept that, if not all postgraduate students are convinced of the importance of research, there is much more to do in raising the profile of research with educational practitioners more generally. How this might be done is not a new question, but still one worth asking.

_____________

REFERENCES

Backer, T.E. (1993). Information Alchemy: Transforming Information through Knowledge Utilization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44 (4), 217-221.

Blackmore, J. & Lingard, B. (1998). Education, in Australian Research Council/Higher Education Council. Challenges for the Social Sciences and Australia. Canberra: AGPS, 101-12.

Davenport, T.H. (1997). Information Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.

DETYA (2000). Students 1999: Selected higher Education Statistics. Canberra.

Green, K.E. & Kvidahl, R.F. (1990). Research Methods Courses and Post-bachelor's Education: Effects on Teachers' Research Use and Opinions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting on the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

Hargreaves, D. H. (1998). Revitalising Educational Research: Lessons from the past and proposals for the Future. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(2), 239-249.

Hegarty, S. (1997). Educational research in context. In Seamus Hegarty (Ed.). The Role of Research in Mature Systems. Berkshire: NFER

Hillage, J., Pearson,R., Anderson, A. & Tamkin, P. (1998). Excellence in Research on Schools. The Institute for Employment Studies.

Holbrook, A., Ainley, J., Bourke, S., Owen, J., McKenzie, P., Misson, S. & Johnson, T. (1999). Mapping Educational Research and its Impact on Australian Schools. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER.

Kennedy, M. M. (1997). The Connection between Research and Practice. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 4-12.

McGaw, B., Boud, D., Poole, M., Warry, R. & McKenzie, P. (1992). Educational Research in Australia. Report of the Panel Review, Strategic Review of Education. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board U.S. Department of Education (1998). National Directions in Education Research Planning. Washington: NERPPB.

Rudduck, J. (1998). Educational research: the prospect of change... . In J. Rudduck and D. McIntyre (Eds). Challenges for Educational Research, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd, 3-13.

Saha, L.J. & Biddle, B.J (1995). Attitudes towards Educational Research Knowledge and Policy Making among American and Australian School Principals. International Journal of Educational Research, 23 (2), 113-126.

Selby Smith, C., Hawke, G., McDonald, R. & Selby-Smith, J. (1998). The Impact of Research on VET Decision making. Leabrooke, SA: Australian National Training Authority.

Tooley, J. & Darby, D. (1998). Educational Research: A Critique. A Survey of Published Educational Research: Office for Standards in Education.