EĞİTİM ARAŞTIRMACILARI UYGULAMALI İLİNTİYİ NASIL YAPILANDIRIR

Öz

Bu çalışma, araştırma-uygulama boşluğunu kuramsal bakış açısından olduğu kadar deneysel açıdan da incelemektedir. Öncelikle deneysel olarak, akran inceleme makalelerinin katılımlarında uygulamalı ilintiyi nasıl yapılandırdığı incelenmektedir. Sonuçlar, araştırmacıların, uygulamalı dinleyiciler için ilintili olması açısından çok sayıda stratejiler kullandıklarını göstermiştir. İkinci olarak, bulgular, Luhmann'ın öz-veri sistemleri teorisi kullanılarak tartışılmıştır. Buna ek olarak, iki sistem arasında aracı olarak,  arabulucu mercilerin potansiyeli ortaya çıkarılmıştır.

Anahtar  Sözcükler: Araştırma-uygulama boşluğu, uygulamalı ilinti, öz-veri sistemleri, kanıt-temelli uygulama

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Araştırma-uygulama boşluğu, uygulamalı ilinti, öz-veri sistemleri, kanıt-temelli uygulama

Kaynakça

1. Astley, G. W., & Zammuto, R. F. (1992). Organization science, managers, and language games. Organization Science, 3 (4): 443-460.
2. Bassey, M. (1995). Creating education through research: a global perspective of educational research for the 21st century. Newark: Kirklington Moore Press.
3. Bauer, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). The educational research-practice interface revisited: a scripting perspective. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13 (3): 221-236.
4. Beck, U., & Bonß, W. (1989). Verwissenschaftlichung ohne Aufklärung?. In U. Beck, & W. Bonß (Eds.), Weder Sozialtechnologie noch Aufklärung? – Analysen zur Verwendung sozialwissenschaftlichen Wissens (7-45). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
5. Bennett, C. I., McWhorter, L. M., Kuykendall, J. A. (2006). Will i ever teach? Latino and african american students' perspectives on praxis I. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3): 531-575.
6. Biesta, G. (2007). Bridging the gap between educational research and educational practice: The need for critical distance. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3): 295-301.
7. Blatchfors, P., & Moriarty, V. (2002). Relationships between class size and teaching: a multimethod analysis of english infant schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1): 101-133.
8. Brophy, J., & Alleman, J. (2002). Primary-grade students' knowledge and thinking about the economics of meeting families' shelter needs. American Educational Research Journal, 39(2): 423-469.

9. Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63(4): 513-521.
10. Chubbuck, S. M. (2004). Whiteness enacted, whiteness disrupted: the complexity of personal congruence. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2): 301-334.
11. Davies, P. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3/4): 365-78.
12. Edwards, T. (2000). All the evidence shows… reasonable expectations of educational research. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3/4): 299-311.
13. Elliot, J. (2001). Making evidence-based practice educational. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5): 555-574.
14. Fullan, M. (1981). School district and school personnel in knowledge utilization. In: Lehning, R., & Kane, M. (Eds.), Improving schools using what we know (212-252), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15. Hammersley, M. (2003). Can and should educational research be educative? Oxford Review of Education, 29 (1): 3-25.
16. Hargreaves, A. (1996a). Teaching as a research based profession: possibilities and prospects. British Educational Research Journal, 23: 141-161.
17. Hargreaves, A. (1996b). Transforming knowledge: blurring the boundaries between research, policy, and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(2): 105-122.
18. Hemsley-Brown, J., & Sharp, C. (2003). The use of research to improve professional practice: a systematic review of the literature. Oxford Review of Education, 29(4): 449-470.
19. Kieser, A. & Leinen, L. (2009). Why the rigour-relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46, (3): 516- 533
20. Korthagen, F. A. (2007). The gap between research and practice revisited. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(3): 303-310.
21. Locke, K. & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: structuring intertextual coherence and ‚problematizing„ in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal 40: 1023- 1062.
22. Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
23. Marsh, H. W., Kit-Tai H., & Kong, C. (2002). Multilevel causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: influence of language of instruction (english compared with chinese) for Hong Kong students. American Educational Research Journal, 39(3): 727-754.
24. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25. Mortimore, P., & Sammons, P. (1997). Endpiece: a welcome and a riposte to critics. In M. Barber/J. White, J. (Eds.). Perspectives on school effectiveness and school improvement (175-187). London: BedfordWay Papers.
26. Nicolai, A., & Seidl, D. (2010). That‟s relevant Different forms of practical relevance in management science. Organization Studies, 31 (09/10): 1257-1285.
27. Oancea, A. (2005). Criticisms of educational research: key topics and levels of analysis. British Educational Research Journal, 31(2): 157-183.
28. OECD (2007). Evidence in education – linking research and policy. Paris: OECD.
29. Pearce, R R. (2006). Effects of cultural and social structural factors on the achievement of white and chinese american students at school transition points. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1): 75- 102.
30. Rogers, B. (2003). Educational research for professional practice: more than providing evidence for doing x rather than y or finding the size of an effect of a on b. The Australian Educational Researcher, 30(2): 65-85.
31. Sadoski, M., & Willson, V. L. (2006). Effects of a theoretically based large- scale reading intervention in a multicultural urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1): 137-155.
32. Scott, P. (1999). The research-policy gap. Journal of Educational Policy, 14(3): 317-337.
33. Seidl, D. (2007). General strategy concepts and the ecology of strategy discourses: a systemic-discursive perspective. Organization Studies, 28(2): 197-218.
34. Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of professionals. The Elementary School Journal, 98(5): 511-526.
35. Specht, W. (2007). Nationaler Bildungsbericht – ein Schritt in Richtung Evidenz http://bildungsserver.berlin- brandenburg.de/fileadmin/bbs/bildung_und_gesellschaft/bildungsdisku ssion/OECD-CERI/NBB_Konzept_Oesterreich_01.pdf. at:
36. Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. C. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York: Wiley.
37. Teubner, G. (2000). Contracting worlds: invoking discourse rights in private governance regimes. Social and Legal Studies, 9: 399-417.
38. Vanderstraeten, R. (2004). The social differentiation of the education system. The Journal of the British Sociological Association, 38(2): 255-274.
39. VanSledright , B. (2002). Confronting history's interpretive paradox while teaching fifth graders to investigate the past. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4): 1089-1115.
40. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students' science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4): 943-989.
41. Weis, L., & Centrie, C. (2002). On the power of separate spaces: teachers and students writing (righting) selves and future. American Educational Research Journal. 39(1): 7-37.
42. Wiebe Berry, R. A. (2006). Inclusion, power, and community: teachers and students interpret the language of community in an inclusion classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3): 489-530.