THE FUTURE OF
EDUCATION RESEARCH AT IES
ADVANCING AN EQUITY-ORIENTED SCIENCE
Adam Gamoran and Kenne A. Dibner, Editors
Committee on the Future of Education Research at the Institute of
Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education
Board on Science Education
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Education (Award No. 9199-00-21-C-0002). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-27539-2
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-27539-3
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26428
Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Cover Credit: Elizabeth Hora
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Future of Education Research at IES: Advancing an Equity-Oriented Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26428.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION RESEARCH AT THE INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Adam Gamoran (Chair), William T. Grant Foundation, New York, NY
Martha W. Alibali, University of Wisconsin–Madison
Alfredo Artiles, Stanford University
Cynthia Coburn, Northwestern University
Lora A. Cohen-Vogel, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Nathan D. Jones, Boston University
Bridget T. Long, Harvard Graduate School of Education
Norma C. Ming, San Francisco Unified School District
Mary C. Murphy, Indiana University
Nicole S. Patton-Terry, Florida State University
Jan L. Plass, New York University
Nathaniel Schwartz, Brown University
Janelle Scott, University of California at Berkeley
L. Elizabeth Tipton, Northwestern University
Sharon Vaughn, University of Texas at Austin
Kenne A. Dibner, Study Director
Dara Fisher, Program Officer (May through August 2021)
Leticia Garcilazo Green, Research Associate
Margaret Kelly, Program Coordinator
Heidi Schweingruber, Director
BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION
Susan R. Singer (Chair), Rollins College
Sue Allen, Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance, Augusta, ME
Megan E. Bang, Northwestern University
Vicki L. Chandler, Minerva Schools at Keck Graduate Institute
Sunita V. Cooke, MiraCosta College
Maya M. Garcia, Colorado Department of Education
Rush D. Holt, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Tonya Matthews, Wayne State University
William R. Penuel, University of Colorado, Boulder
Stephen L. Pruitt, Southern Regional Education Board
K. Renae Pullen, Caddo Parish Schools, LA
K. Ann Renninger, Swarthmore College
Marcy H. Towns, Purdue University
Darryl N. Williams, The Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, PA
Heidi Schweingruber, Director
About the Cover
“A Light to the Nation”
Image Created by Elizabeth Hora, Northwestern University
In keeping with the messages in this report, the image on the cover represents the tremendous opportunity and potential presented by the diversity of U.S. public school students. In a manner evocative of satellite images of the United States at night, this map depicts every public school district in the United States by district size and percentage of students of color. Just as this image glows, so too does the diversity of the U.S. population. Ultimately, U.S. students deserve an education research agenda as diverse and promising as the students themselves.
This page intentionally left blank.
Preface
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) in the U.S. Department of Education asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to convene an expert panel to provide advice on the future of education research. I chaired the panel, and this volume is our response.
Serving on this panel was a serious task. I am proud of the diligence and responsiveness with which my colleagues and I undertook this responsibility, and I am grateful to have had the chance to work with such thoughtful, creative, and dedicated colleagues. Likewise I appreciate the expert guidance and hard work of several members of the NAS staff, particularly our study director, Kenne Dibner, and the director of the Board on Science Education, Heidi Schweingruber, without whom this work could not have been carried out.
The hallmark of an NAS report is its reliance on scientific evidence as the basis for its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. To meet this standard, the committee considered the existing research literature, examined data on IES funding patterns, sought data on grantees and reviewers, conferred with a broad range of relevant experts, and relied on members’ own professional judgments to identify gaps and needs for the future of education research.
Our task was especially challenging because our charge focused on the future, whereas the evidence and judgments we considered reflected the past and present. Releasing this report in a still-ongoing global pandemic especially drove home the uncertainty of the future. Recent events have also
spurred a racial reckoning that has brought renewed attention to structural inequalities in our society. In contemplating these issues, we considered changes over time in the progress of education research; in the practices of teaching, learning, and leadership at all levels of the education system; and in the social context of education. We then anticipated how those changes position us for a future that is different from the past and present and, consequently, what education research is needed to prepare us for that future.
Another distinctive challenge of our task is that education research is an intensely diverse field, encompassing different disciplines, areas of focus, methodological approaches, and epistemological assumptions, not to mention varied values and commitments on the part of researchers as well as those in practice and policy. Fortunately, our mandate was not to consider how to meet the needs of education research; instead, our charge was to consider what research and, correspondingly, research capacity is needed to meet the future educational needs of the nation, as laid out in IES’s founding document, the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (as amended in 2004). This necessarily means that the report cannot satisfy all constituencies of the field of education research. Instead, its contribution is to advise IES on what research must be prioritized and pursued, and what capacity must be built, to respond to the future education needs of the nation. If IES follows the committee’s recommendations, we are confident that its leadership of the field over the next two decades will be as profoundly influential as it was during its first two decades.
IES is to be commended for its willingness to engage with its various constituencies, including researchers, parents, students, teachers, educational leaders and other practitioners, designers of education programs, and policy makers, through the vehicle of this committee’s task. Few organizations willingly seek independent advice on how to carry out the core functions of their work. IES’s leadership has taken a chance in seeking this advice because, as they may have anticipated, the report calls for fundamental changes in the structure of IES’s research funding competition, and these changes will involve substantial work for IES staff. Some of the committee’s recommendations can be implemented quickly and easily, but others will take hard intellectual and logistical effort. We recognize and appreciate the commitment to this work, which illustrates that IES staff are motivated by a desire to maximize the impact of their scarce resources and contribute optimally to the improvement of education.
It is not an exaggeration to assert that the fate of our nation rests on the success of our education system. More than any other institution, education is central both to our social cohesion and our economic productivity. The
federal government is wise to invest not only in the education system itself, but also in research that can point the way toward addressing the serious challenges at hand. The Institute of Education Sciences must carry the torch that illuminates the way forward.
Adam Gamoran, Chair
Committee on the Future of Education Research at the Institute of Education Sciences
This page intentionally left blank.
Acknowledgments
The Committee on the Future of Education Research at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) was charged with offering advice to IES that could be used to inform the 2023 grantmaking cycle. In order to achieve this task, the committee agreed to do the work of a full National Academies consensus study on a shortened timeline. A number of people devoted time and energy to supporting our work, and we owe a sincere debt of gratitude to all involved.
First, we wish to extend a thank you to IES staff and leadership for their willingness to engage in this project. Throughout this process, Mark Schneider, director of IES; Elizabeth Albro, commissioner of the National Center for Education Research; Joan McLaughlin, commissioner of the National Center for Special Education Research; and Anne Ricciuti, deputy director of the Office of Science at IES were on hand to provide resources, answer committee questions, and offer insight. We are profoundly grateful for their support.
We also wish to extend our thanks for the contributions of the many scholars who presented to the committee so that we might bring in outside expertise: your insights were invaluable, and each presentation informed our thinking in some way. Thank you also to Elizabeth Hora of Northwestern University for designing the image used on the cover of this report.
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality,
objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Prudence L. Carter, Department of Sociology, Brown University; David J. Francis, Department of Psychology, University of Houston; Lynn S. Fuchs, Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University; Learning Supports, American Institutes for Research; Ray C. Hart, Office of the Executive Director, Council of the Great City Schools; Fiona Hollands, Department of Education Policy and Social Analysis, Teachers College, Columbia University; Venessa Keesler, AEM Corporation, Herndon, VA; Julie A. Marsh, Rossier School of Education and Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California; Roy D. Pea, David Jacks Professor of Education and Learning Sciences and H-STAR Institute, Stanford University; William R. Penuel, Institute of Cognitive Science and School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder; Beth D. Tuckwiller, Special Education and Disability Studies, The George Washington University; and George L. Wimberly, Professional Development and Diversity Officer, American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Michael J. Feuer, Dean and Professor, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, and James S. House, Angus Campbell Distinguished University Professor of Survey Research, Public Policy and Sociology, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
The committee wishes to extend its gratitude to the staff of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE), in particular to Heidi Schweingruber, director of the Board on Science Education, whose strategic thinking and dedication helped ensure an incisive report, and to Leticia Garcilazo Green, who in her capacity as a research associate supported all elements of report production, from editing chapters to formatting report drafts. She has served as a full partner throughout the entirety of this process, and has made this work both enjoyable and efficient. Margaret Kelly’s expert administrative leadership enabled smooth meetings and report production. Kirsten Sampson Snyder of the DBASSE staff deftly guided
us through the National Academies review process, and Paula Whitacre provided invaluable editorial assistance.
Finally, the committee wishes to thank Adam Gamoran, study chair, for his seasoned leadership of a complex project. Adam’s ability to listen to multiple perspectives and forge connections across ideas has enabled a forward-looking report that speaks to multiple audiences. His willingness to lead us toward robust consensus has infinitely strengthened this report, and the committee is deeply grateful for his wisdom.
Kenne A. Dibner, Study Director
Committee on the Future of Education Research at the Institute of Education Sciences
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
Interpreting the Statement of Task
Approach to Gathering and Assessing Evidence
The Current Context of Education and Crosscutting Themes
Funding a Vision of Scientific Research in Education
Use of Research Evidence in Education
Attending to Culture and Deficit Ideologies in Understandings of Learning
Research-Practice Partnerships
Chapter 4 Project Types for NCER/NCSER Grants
Progression Across Project Types
Examining Progression of Projects
Understanding Project Progression
Connecting Research and Practice
A Revised Scientific Structure Is Needed
1. Discovery and Needs Assessment
Chapter 5 Research Topics for NCER and NCSER Grants
A System for Updating Topics and Research Priorities
Civil Rights Policy and Practices
Special Considerations for NCSER
Expanding a Focus Beyond Identifying Effective Programs
Chapter 6 Methods and Measures
The Future of Methods Research
Summary of Methods Research to Date
Methods Research Moving Forward
The Future of Measurement Research
Summary of Measurement Research to Date
Emerging Needs in Measurement Research
Chapter 7 Ensuring Broad and Equitable Participation in NCER and NCSER Research Training Programs
Description of Existing NCER and NCSER Training Programs
Understanding the Impact of Research Training Programs at IES
Need for Continued Training in Education Sciences
Broadening Participation in Education Research through Research Training Programs
Additional Strategies for Broadening Participation
Chapter 8 Application and Review Process
Overview of the Application and Review Process
Elements and Functions of the Application and Review Process
Issues with the Current Application and Review Process
Data on Applicants, Reviewers, and Grantees
Timely and Responsive Application Cycles
Coherence with the Needs of the Field
Chapter 9 Concluding Observations
Twenty Years of IES: A Changed Landscape
A Gathering and Assessing the Evidence
B Email Correspondence Sent to the Committee
C Committee-Commissioned Papers
D Analysis of IES Funded Topics Commissioned Paper
E Funding Information in NCER and NCSER Provided by the Institute of Education Sciences
