Perfect Research is Futile

Men and women have been making observations since time immemorial. They monitor what they see and test them because people are generally inquisitive and want to know how and why things are the way they are.
Scholars and scientists’ quest for the truth can never be satisfied. This is
the reason why observations that have been accepted as fact have been changed
and modified throughout time. For a time people thought the world was flat
until Christopher Columbus sailed to the ‘edge’ of the world and didn’t ‘fall’
off. Ferdinand Magellan defied all scholars and traveled around the globe and
proved to them that the world is not flat after all.

For centuries, people thought the earth was the center of the solar system until Galileo Galilei put forth his observations and revolutionary findings, pun intended, which the sun is actually the center and
all planets revolve around it. For over two centuries, scientists had accepted
Sir Isaac Newton’s view of the universe until an up-and-coming scientist by the
name of Albert Einstein challenged it (Coles 1).

Newton believed that space was fixed and unbendable and that time was absolute. The planets moved in a certain predictable pattern through space while time
functioned the same way for everyone and everything in the cosmos. But Einstein
contended that space could be curved when large massive objects acted on it
which then led to the groundbreaking concept that light doesn’t travel in a
straight line through a warped space. This further strengthened his Theory of
Relativity but the idea started when Einstein challenged Newton’s Law of Motion
and did further research on space and time which led to the Law’s modification.
As Miller and Spoolman explain, a scientific law cannot be broken, unless and
until we get contradictory new data (23).

So based on the above examples from Galileo to Einstein, scientific facts of
the day that are considered the norm can be challenged and even be modified
upon further research and testing. One cannot conclude that there is absolute
truth in any area of research therefore I would have to agree with Griffiths
that there is no hope of doing perfect research (97).

For the purpose of this paper and to further defend my topic stance, we will look in the next two sections at two sides to two different researches that were done in schools. I end with a concluding section and also
include Notes and the Works Cited in the paper.

DIRECT INSTRUCTION

Generally the common mode of instruction in schools, Direct Instruction is a term for the explicit teaching of a skill-set using lectures or demonstrations of the material (“Direct Instruction”). This is
basically how lessons are taught in schools where a teacher follows a lecture
plan that uses designated textbooks for the students. The information and
problem-solving techniques are basically taught directly according to a format.

Direct Instruction Evaluation. As to the effectiveness of this technique, a study called the Baltimore Curriculum Project (BCP) was done from 1996-2000 in six Baltimore City Schools using a
multi-method evaluation, which included Direct Instruction (DI) and Core
Knowledge (CK) (Mac Iver, Kemper, and Springfield v).¹ Two groups of
students were used in the study where one used DI and the other didn’t which is
called the control group.

After four years, the results were generally favorable with the implementation of DI wherein mathematics showed the greatest improvement among the students.
Reading wasn’t as distinct as mathematics but there was evidence of
improvement. Direct Instruction clearly had better results than the control
group and the teaching staff as well as the principals generally favored
this teaching method.

In conclusion, the study strongly recommended Direct Instruction as a viable
method of teaching, which will raise student achievement in reading and
mathematics (28).

Direct Instruction vs. Self-Explaining. It may seem that DI is the preferred teaching technique but every now and then research is done to challenge the standard norm. As is the case, Vanderbilt University
conducted a study to assess both self-explaining and Direct Instruction
and see how they fare against each other.

Direct Instruction as the name implies imparts the information directly to the students for them to absorb whereas Self-explaining allows the students to personally assess the problem and formulate or invent a
solution.

The study involved 36 students ranging from third to fifth grade, and they were divided into two test categories: 1) students applying instruction on a correct procedure or prompts to invent a procedure and 2)
prompts to self-explain correct and incorrect solutions or no prompts
(Rittle-Johnson 2). The students were presented with mathematical problems to
see how they would solve them. The first category received instruction on how
to solve the problem while the other group was encouraged to explore and invent
its own solution.

After the study completed, one notable finding is that those students who received instruction abandoned incorrect procedures once they couldn’t solve it. On the other hand, those who were encouraged to be inventive
continued to use incorrect procedures but gradually arrived at an acceptable
solution. Conclusively, 57% of students in an inventive condition used at least
two correct procedures when they were asked to explain, compared to only 24% of
students who received instruction but were not prompted to explain (5).

Therefore self-explanation or being in a condition to explore different solutions is an essential aspect to learning as opposed to just receiving instruction directly. Being prompted spontaneously to explain
why and how results arrived correctly or incorrectly makes the mind more
flexible to veer in other directions rather than routinely stay in the accepted
norm.

If Direct Instruction had been declared ‘perfect research’, then why does Self-explanation come into the picture? Research is always ongoing and never perfect and is proven in the previous discussion. We now look
at another research done in schools.

SCHOOL-BASED SUICIDE PREVENTION

The suicide problem in the United States has worsened over the years especially among the youth. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the suicide rate for youths and young adults aged 15 to 24
years has tripled since 1950, and suicide is now the third leading cause of
death in this age group (Aseltine 446). This is why school-based suicide
prevention programs and the research it entails have become more prominent in
schools in order to alleviate the problem.

Evaluation of the SOS Suicide Prevention Program. From 2001 to 2002, the SOS program was evaluated in five high schools to assess its effectiveness on suicidal behavior as well as the young students’ thoughts
and attitudes on depression (447). According to the study, half of 1435
students entered the program and listened to the lectures while the other half
didn’t attend and served as the control group to have a basis for comparison.
The students in the SOS program were evaluated initially through interviews if
they could participate.

After the program completion, all the students were given a questionnaire to fill out which would serve as collected data. The questionnaire contained items that apply to three important categories, which
are (1) self-reported suicide attempts and suicidal ideation, (2) knowledge and
attitudes about depression and suicide, and (3) help-seeking behavior (447).
One of the main questions of the survey was basically if the student had ever
thought about committing suicide during the last three months.

The researchers analyzed the answers using tables and the Chi-square test method. Analyses of the test results indicated that exposure to the SOS program
was associated with significantly fewer self-reported suicide attempts (448).
The instances of self-reported suicide in the treatment group were
significantly lower than those in the control group. Results also indicate that
those in the treatment group became more knowledgeable about depression and
suicide as opposed to those from the control group. With regards to seeking
help, both treatment and control groups didn’t reveal much difference in the
data thereby meaning that the urgency for both to get assistance is the same.

Overall, the study claimed that the SOS program had a significantly positive short-term impact on the behavior and knowledge of the students. As discussed, the number
of self-reported suicide attempts showed a marked decrease, which is noteworthy
and encouraging. Also, students’ knowledge and attitudes improved due to a more
structured program and methodology.

The suicide prevention program therefore seems like the ideal solution and can be
applied in schools but now we look at another research that challenges its
effectiveness.

Suicide Prevention Programs Lacking. Because of increased suicidal behavior among young people, suicide prevention programs have been increasing but its efficacy has been criticized and questioned.

A study was done involving more than 100 programs to assess their goals which included (a) increasing the awareness of adolescent suicidal behavior, (b) helping at-risk case identification, and (c) providing students
and staff with information about mental health resources and how to access them
(Mazza 3). The primary goal of the different programs generally aimed at
increasing awareness and knowledge about suicidal behavior among young
students. The secondary goals were to recognize students with at-risk suicidal
behavior and how to help them by introducing alternative coping
strategies. The study argues that since the primary goal is suicide awareness
and identification, then these programs should be called suicidal behavior
educational and early identification programs, rather than suicide prevention
programs (3). Because of this flaw, the programs’ priorities and effectiveness
are therefore questioned.

A majority of the programs at 96% subscribed to a “stress model” theoretical orientation (4). The study contends that the use of this kind of model could have a negative impact on the program. As the program uses
the model and conditions the participants to be surrounded by huge amounts of
stress, the participants might falsely believe that suicide might be an
acceptable way of coping with stress and thus increasing its likelihood.

The study largely concludes that the programs have a limited effectiveness based on faulty priorities and stress models that can have a negative impact on students. It states that priority should be focused on
assisting already at-risk students rather than awareness and identification.
These students are seeking help so attention must be given in this area. It
will be interesting to note that the SOS prevention program discussed earlier
didn’t have any improved results regarding at-risk students who are seeking
help.

In a related study done by the University of Auckland regarding the efficacy of student focused school-based suicide prevention programs, the researchers concluded with the following:

Currently little-to-no evidence exists which supports providing students with universal classroom-based suicide prevention programmes . . . the provision of universal classroom-based suicide prevention programmes directed
at students is contentious. Evidence suggests there may be mixed effects of
suicide prevention programmes on some students, and that the potential negative
effects, especially among males, could have
serious consequences.² (Bennett, Coggan, and Brewin 18)

After presenting the researches on suicide prevention programs and their inconsistencies, it can be clearly noted that there is no solid research in this area. There are always going to be changing as well as
emerging factors that may affect the methodology and outcome of a research.

CONCLUSION

We looked at two different researches done in schools. Direct Instruction is largely the accepted way of teaching today but research has shown that
Self-explaining or invention is just as essential because it allows the mind to
be flexible and create more solutions to a problem. Needless to say, research
in the area of DI cannot be concluded as being concrete.

Taking a look at suicide prevention programs, one might immediately generalize that these are effective and that no further research is necessary because of the
urgency of the matter. But because the thirst for research is never quenched,
scientists have put forth that suicide prevention programs are still flawed and
aspects of its methodology still need to be improved and enhanced.

Research is indeed unquenchable from the times of the early scientists like Galileo and Einstein to the researchers and scholars of today who still tirelessly criticize and question earlier findings and results. I
therefore reiterate and conclude that Griffiths was correct in saying that
there is no hope of doing pure research. Rightly so, research is
constant in any area of study and at the rate it’s going, it will eventually
one day allow us
to reach the stars.