{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013480392156862746, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.2846153846153845, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Uses of Practitioner Research and Status Issues in Educational Research: Reply to Gary Anderson

In calling for practitioner research, Anderson highlights a number of important issues but, as Metz and Page demonstrate in their response, the questions he raises have few straightforward or unequivocal answers. Metz and Page agree that because efforts to study and improve educational practice too often impose abstract findings on schools and teachers, much may be gained from the development of a literature based in practice. They argue, however, that everything included under the umbrella of practitioner research should not be called research. They predict that calling for teachers to engage in activities labeled as research on a broad scale may produce as many unanticipated problems as it does benefits.