Learning Disabilities Practice Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(1), 45–50 Copyright C  2001, The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children Sorting Out the Roles of Research in the Improvement of Practice Russell Gersten Eugene Research Institute/University of Oregon This paper discusses the effectiveness of research-based educational ap- proaches on classroom practice. In order to help educators maximize benefits from research in improving practice, it is important to inform them of the nature and roles of research. Abstract. This essay begins by discussing current cyn- icism regarding the usefulness of research-based strate- gies in the field of education. Because of the large body of conflicting “research-based” information, many edu- cators are finding themselves confused and alienated by the phrase “research shows.” Using examples of high- quality research that utilizes diverse methodologies, a framework is presented for thinking about various types of research and their implications. Noted educational historian Larry Cuban (1990) has written eloquently about the havoc that widely pro- moted, often contradictory, “research-based reforms” bring to the field. He documents the cynicism that abounds in educational professions, invariably stirred by any statement beginning with the phrase, “Research shows.” The degree of cynicism about the usefulness of research-based strategies in addressing serious educa- tional problems is familiar to anyone working anywhere in the educational enterprise. Although many professions contend with cynicism about the validity and utility of research, cynicism to- ward educational research is extraordinary by compar- ison. To illustrate, virtually every college of education in this country contains faculty members who advocate diametrically opposed approaches to teaching reading and mathematics, all of which are presumably based on research. As a result, many students of education leave universities feeling bewildered, betrayed, or both. Requests for reprints should be sent to Russell Gersten, Eugene Research Institute, 132 East Broadway, Suite 747, Eugene, OR 97401. ... many students of education leave uni- versities feeling bewildered, betrayed, or both. This confusion continues when they enter their class- rooms and begin teaching. Seasoned and novice teach- ers are deluged with misinformation. Many are told, for example, that teaching phonemic or alphabetic princi- ples to young students “out of context” is harmful, yet an abundant body of high-quality research suggests that this is not true. Optimal instruction may consist of teach- ing phonemic/phonic skills in a systematic, decontextu- alized fashion and then practicing these emerging skills and abilities in context (Berninger, 2000; Blachman, 1991; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998). Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to find an ade- quate description regarding “best practice” for conduct- ing research, since solid field research in educational settings requires a subtle blend of technical knowledge, artistry, and knowledge of the realties of the schools (Gersten, Baker, & Lloyd, 2000). The research commu- nity often has conflicting opinions on the topic (Kelly & Lesh, 1999), which can confuse and mislead practi- tioners. Freda Schwartz, a 25-year English teacher in New York City, recently wrote about the frustration teachers feel when presented with yet another “remedy”: It seems as if just about everybody knows there’s some- thing wrong with the way American school children