This session presents a comprehensive framework for the construct of research-based curricula, illustrated by studies from each of the 10 phases.
Government agencies and members of the educational research community have petitioned for research-based curricula. The ambiguity of the phrase “research-based,” however, undermines attempts to create a shared research foundation for the development of, and informed choices about, classroom curricula. This article presents a framework for the construct of research-based curricula. One implication is that traditional strategies such as market research and research-to-practice models are insufficient; more adequate is the use of multiple phases of the proffered Curriculum Research Framework.
What does it mean to develop a truly scientifically based curriculum?
This session presents a comprehensive framework for the construct of research-based curricula, illustrated by studies from each of the 10 phases.
Government agencies have recently emphasized the importance of evidence-based instructional materials. It would be reasonable to assume such evidence is easily available, because developers and publishers frequently characterize their curricula as based on research. However, the ubiquity and multifariousness of such characterizations, in conjunction with the ambiguous nature of the phrase “research-based,” discourages scientific approaches to curriculum development (and allows the continued dominance of non-scientific “market research”) and undermines attempts to create a shared research foundation for the creation, and informed choices, of classroom curricula. Describing and categorizing possible research bases for curriculum development and evaluation is a necessary first step in ameliorating these problems.
The purposes of this presentation are to propose a framework for the construct of “research-based curricula” in mathematics, to illustrate its application via an NSF-funded curriculum that used the complete framework, and to discuss the ramifications for multiple relevant parties, including practitioners, curriculum developers, researchers, administrators, funding agencies, and policymakers. Curriculum research should not be limited to research-to-practice strategies. Such strategies are included in the proposed framework; however, because they constitute one-way translations of research results, a model limited to research-to-practice strategies is flawed in its presumptions, insensitive to changing goals in the content area, and unable to contribute to a revision of the theory and knowledge on which it is built—the second critical goal of a scientific curriculum research program. Instead, a valid scientific curriculum development program should address two basic issues—effect and conditions—in three domains: practice, policy, and theory.
Finally, there are several ramifications of the proposed framework and this line of argument: (1) Using the multiple phases in the proposed Curriculum Research Framework (CRF) will help developers improve curricula and contribute to the field of curriculum research. (2) Achieving the goals of CRF requires both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. (3) Increasing academe’s support for curriculum research will improve curricula, research, and the public’s opinion of educational research. (4) Curriculum research could be more successful if funding agencies reconsidered time frames and funding requirements for this enterprise. (5) To benefit from curriculum research, the entire education community needs to support and expect research-based curriculum development—and expect that the specific methods used and results obtained are fully explicated.