INTRODUCTION
It is common to hear about the gap between educational research and practice( Hess, 2007; Lagemann, 2000; Levin & Cooper, 2010). Less commonly known are the causes of the gap, and, even less so, the potential means of reducing it. Rather than a singular gap, Cooper( 2010) identifies 11 types of gaps that contribute to the distance between research and practice in education. She also highlights the importance of identifying the type of gap in order to choose the means by which to narrow it.
LINKAGE GAP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHERS AND TEACHERS
The project described in this paper isolated the linkage gap( defined as lack of communication between researchers and educators) as the gap in need of reduction in order to make applied second language research more accessible to teachers. With the goal to reduce the linkage gap, I had to first consider the causes of such a gap in order to choose strategies by which to reduce it( Sebba, 2007). One of the identified causes of the linkage gap is a difference in workplace cultures between educators and researchers that impacts on their ability to communicate with each other. Specifically, as can be the case with different cultures, educators and researchers use different language registers( i. e. practical and academic registers) to communicate within their fields. Cooper( 2010) identifies the use of different registers as a gap in and of itself, and suggests that necessary skills or a lack of research literacy on the part of teachers leads to their incomprehension of the researchers. She states that teachers often lack the research experience to understand research articles thereby contributing to the gap between educational research and practice. Although I acknowledge and will provide evidence that educators’ focus may not include frequent reading of research articles( Cooper & Levin, 2009), which may facilitate comprehension, I also note the responsibility of applied researchers to use appropriate registers in order to reach the teacher audience. Whereas the skills gap places the burden for comprehension on the teachers, I suggest a difference in register to be a contributing factor to the linkage gap, thus placing responsibility for successful interaction with both groups.
In addition to teachers’ challenges in accessing research being a factor contributing to the linkage gap, whether due to language register or access to resources, researchers may also contribute to the linkage gap by resisting adaptation of their research results to make them more accessible to teachers. Researchers often prefer, as required for job security and promotion, to communicate within their own workplace culture by publishing complex results in peer-reviewed scholarly journals
( Schwartz & Kardos, 2009); journals that do not necessarily value clear language, practical implications, nor frequently offer open, timely access to readers outside the academic sphere. Such divergent workplace cultures encourage teachers to communicate with teachers and researchers to communicate with researchers without shared language or space to facilitate intergroup communication. Lack of common space, therefore, is another factor contributing to the linkage gap.
Strategies to reduce linkage gap
Efforts to reduce the linkage gap between educators and researchers and thus potentially reduce the research to practice gap need to address the differences in workplace cultures. Ideally, teachers would form part of a research team. In addition, as it pertains to improving teachers’ access of research in general, such efforts would need to focus on language register and offer access to research and shared space. There are many conceptual frameworks that provide approaches to bridge the gap between research and practice( e. g. Lavis, Robertson, Woodside, McLeod & Abelson, 2003; Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). Graham, Logan, Harrison, Straus, Tetroe, Caswell and Robinson’ s( 2006) knowledge to action process framework, although created with the health sciences field in mind, is particularly pertinent to the idea being explored in this paper as it offers specific steps that can be followed by researchers and teachers and / or intermediaries with the view to reducing the linkage gap between these two groups. Graham et al’ s( 2006) framework presents two, often overlapping, phases: knowledge creation and action. As it pertains to this project, the knowledge creation phase provides guidance to address the language register and infrastructure challenges to intergroup communication seeking to( a) reduce the number of studies available( knowledge inquiry) to practitioners through synthesis( knowledge synthesis) and then to( b) provide tools to the practitioners( knowledge tools) with the goal of facilitating application. The second phase, the action phase, encourages consideration of how the information from the knowledge creation phase can be brought to a specific audience and subsequently monitored.
KNOWLEDGE CREATION
Knowledge inquiry
The necessity of phase one is based on the knowledge, evidenced above, that educators do not typically read research directly( Hemsley-Brown, 2004), partially due to their inexperience in accessing research articles or journals which are often only readily available through university libraries. In fact, Levin and Cooper( 2010) go as far as to say it is not reasonable to expect teachers to seek out research. Application of the knowledge inquiry step of the knowledge creation phase, then, would require reducing the vast number of potential research articles to a manageable and more useful number chosen for a given audience( Graham, Logan, Harrison, Straus, Tetroe, Caswell & Robinson, 2006). Such a filtering also addresses the inability to access research due to the time restrictions in teachers’ busy schedules( Mitton, Adair, McKenzie, Patten & Perry, 2007). Where applicable, researchers, graduate students, librarians and / or others would prepare a synthesis, an aggregation, of such information.
Knowledge tools
In addition to reducing the amount of research and findings presented to educators, Graham et al.( 2006) highlight the need to make the knowledge accessible to a specific audience through the use of tools and / or products( e. g. synopses, guidelines). Beyond the provision of articles through knowledge inquiry, knowledge tools could be created to specifically address two additional causes of the linkage gap: differences in language register between researchers and teachers and lack of common space for interaction. More precisely, differences in language register could be addressed by presenting research in the language of the user. Specfically, Lavis et al( 2003) underscore the importance of using comprehensible language for the audience and using the language to provide actionable messages. Other research provides similar support highlighting the importance of brief summaries( Cordingly, 2008) as well as simple formatting( Sanders & Lewis, 2005), the potential for videos to appeal to a practitioner audience( Olivero & Sutherland, 2004) and the importance of providing implications for research use( Davies & Nutley, 2008; Dobbins, Rosenbaum, Plews, Law & Fysh, 2007; Maynard, 2007). Further to addressing language register differences, knowledge tools could respond to the infrastructure challenges by providing a space for communication between researchers and teachers in recognition of the importance teachers place on personal interactions and social networks( Sebba, 2007; Williams & Coles, 2003). Such a space has the potential to improve the communication of information and ideas between workplace cultures( Bennet & Bennet, 2007). In fact, Lavis et al( 2003) go as far as to say that spaces that allow for such interaction have the power to change established cultures.
THE ACTION CYCLE
The action cycle includes consideration of how to best get the information from knowledge creation to its target audience and subsequently monitor its use. It offers a 7-step process with the view to having research results applied in practice. The first 5 steps suggest preparatory work before making research accessible to practitioners. Firstly, the action cycle purports to identify a problem such as the linkage gap identified for this paper’ s context. Secondly, and
32 BABEL