Observing from having been a school governor as well as being a social researcher.
Education, like management, is well known as being one of those areas where evidence-free fads seem to sweep through and are promoted by those who ought to be finding out whether they make a difference.
Many teachers of long standing will have seen several waves, and not infrequently fads come round again.
Teachers themselves seem to be curious professionals whose basic training is updated by training on the target or curriculum du jour or some IT training but otherwise seem not to be part of a community learning how to teach better for a changing world. Lawyers have to keep up to date, because caselaw changes the law, while doctors are supposed to as well.
So the aim of getting teachers to research how to improve practice seems laudable.
The psychologists have research methods to test pygmalion effects (which may have large effects here).
The response here, as elsewhere, seems to seek to point out limitations of the RCT method so that people give up in favour of the existing promotion of things like Brain Gym (see Goldacre's Bad Science) or Fish Oils (ditto).
I'm sure there are middle ways that move forward to involving teachers in improving practice - and that would include a wider understanding of the functions and limitations of statistical techniques - which is Radstats territory.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bivand
Associate Director of Analysis and Statistics
Direct Line: 020 7840 8335
Inclusion
3rd floor, 89 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TP
Tel: 020 7582 7221
Fax: 020 7582 6391
Inclusion website www.cesi.org.uk
See Inclusion's www.indusdelta.org.uk for the latest news and opinions in welfare to work
Consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?
The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient please return the e-mail to the sender and delete from your mailbox.
The Centre for Economic & Social Inclusion is a company limited by guarantee. Registered in England & Wales number 2458694. Registered address: 89 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TP
-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Whittington
Sent: 21 March 2013 15:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Evidence Based Education
At 14:49 21/03/2013 +0000, Kornbrot, Diana wrote:
Medicine is NOT the same as education, its not even very similar. There is an elephant in the room. In medicine:
1. generally can specify the treatment accurately: 20mg aspirin = 20 mg aspirin
2. practitioner effects are small, the doctor and pharmacist recommending/supplying the aspirin have only secondary effects on the outcome
3. its often possible to try treatments 1 at a time
There are, of course, big differences. However, and with respect, I think it is naive to believe that any of the above are by any means necessarily true in medicine.
What you go on to say about education is really about the difficulties of applying good research and ethical practices in education - which is very different from the question of what _are_ good (and theoretically desirable) research and ethical practices.
Similarly, in many ways the ethical issues as specified here are simply non-adressable. Teaching is an interactive process you can t get ethics approval every time you decide to say well done as opposed to well done, but could try harder!
I think you are again underestimating factors which can be very important in medicine - which, with our present level of knowledge, is very far from an exact science. Certainly in some fields of medicine, the language/phraseology, demeanor and body language etc. of the doctor (or whoever) _can_ have an appreciable impact on outcome (particularly when the outcome itself is subjective or semi-subjective) and it would be perfectly reasonable to undertake research into such issues. However, if one wanted to conduct an RCT to investigate such matters, one most certainly WOULD be expected to get ethical approval, no matter how tedious (some may even say 'silly') you might regard that.
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|