Guesses and Hype Give Way to Data in Study of Education

[groovedaddy]

What works in science and math education? Until recently, there had been few solid answers — just guesses and hunches, marketing hype and extrapolations from small pilot studies.

But now, a little-known office in the Education Department is starting to get some real data, using a method that has transformed medicine: the randomized clinical trial, in which groups of subjects are randomly assigned to get either an experimental therapy, the standard therapy, a placebo or nothing.

The findings could be transformative, researchers say. For example, one conclusion from the new research is that the choice of instructional materials — textbooks, curriculum guides, homework, quizzes — can affect achievement as profoundly as teachers themselves; a poor choice of materials is at least as bad as a terrible teacher, and a good choice can help offset a bad teacher’s deficiencies.

So far, the office — the Institute of Education Sciences — has supported 175 randomized studies. Some have already concluded; among the findings are that one popular math textbook was demonstrably superior to three competitors, and that a highly touted computer-aided math-instruction program had no effect on how much students learned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/science/applying-new-rigor-in-studying-education.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130903

[Ka hrnt]

1. Very interesting!

Nice...I never knew about this. A brief search through shows why no one wants to cite them; seems there's stuff here to upset virtually everyone in education. From the shysters (there's little evidence using data "improves student achievement&quot to the teachers (there no statistical difference between National Board Certified teachers in math & reading versus non-certified). Interesting, interesting stuff. Now if they'd just take a look at Marzano and other VAM-related garbage. Oh, and here's hoping Arne "Duh" Duncan gets a clue.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. You should like this also:

Newsweek 2010

>>>>Since holding teachers responsible for student performance is now all the rage, from the White House to the political right, let us do a simple thought experiment. Imagine an amateur baseball league in which team owners dictate which bats players use. The owners try to choose the best, but the research on bats is so poor, they have to rely on anecdotes—“Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs with maple!”—and on manufacturers’ claims. As a result, some teams wind up using bats that are too heavy, too fragile, or no better than a broomstick. Does it make sense to cut players who were forced to use ineffective equipment?

It goes without saying that effective teaching has many components, from dedication to handling a classroom and understanding how individual students learn. But a major ingredient is the curriculum the school requires them to use. Yet in one of those you’ve-got-to-be-kidding situations, the scientific basis for specific curricular materials, and even for general approaches such as how science should be taught, is so flimsy as to be a national scandal. As pay-for-performance spreads, we will therefore be punishing teachers for, in some cases, using the pedagogic equivalent of foam bats. “There is a dearth of carefully crafted, quantitative studies on what works,” says William Cobern of Western Michigan University. “It’s a crazy situation.”>>>>

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/30/second-class-science.html