In recent years, there has been a growing call to educators to embrace an “evidence-based” approach, branding it as the science of learning. Teachers have been under significant pressure to incorporate ideas generated from experimental methodologies and randomized control trials from the laboratory settings to determine the effectiveness of educational practices. However, it is important to delve into the philosophy and meaning of being “evidence-based” and also consider the potential hazards that may arise from transforming classrooms into scientific laboratories. In this video by Human Restoration Project captioned ; Schools Are Not Labs: Why “What Works” May Hurt, these ideas are very well articulated by quoting foundational works by scholars like Gerd Biesta and Yong Zhao.
Category: Education Policy
-
Guy Claxton: Video Playlist
1. Guy Claxton (@GuyClaxton) talks about Cognitive Load Theory, Direct instruction @AdrianBethune
2. “The Future of Teaching And the Myths That Hold It Back” by Guy Claxton | MLE / CCE Talk
3.Complimentary webinar The future of teaching by Guy Claxton 3rd May 2021
Claxton quoting Hattie in this interview “Unless we pay specific explicit attention to the cultivation of learning dispositions they don’t happen by themselves”
4. Rethinking Education Podcast
Two and a half hours of conversation with @GuyClaxton
Great interviewing by @RethinkingJames. -
Evidence-informed Vs Evidence of what(Biesta)
Recently I have got the opportunity to watch an interview of Guy Claxton in which he was asserting the need to ask deep questions about evidence. The first question according to him should be “evidence of what?”. This made me curious to read an article that I have scanned through few years ago by Gert Biesta, i.e. “Good Education in an Age of Measurement”
In which he writes;
“More than just the question of the technical validity of our measurements – i.e., whether we are measuring what we intend to measure – the problem here lies with what I suggest to call the normative validity of our measurements. This it the question whether we are indeed measuring what we value, or whether we are just measuring what we can easily measure and thus end up valuing what we (can) measure.”
He further clarifies the difference between instrumental value, a value which says something about the quality of processes and, more specifically, about their ability to bring about certain outcomes in a secure way.
According to Biesta, whether the outcomes themselves are desirable is an entirely different matter, ie “a matter for which we need value-based judgements that are not informed by instrumental values but by what we might best call ultimate values“
He further expands the ideas discussing “The ‘Learnification’ of Education”. The article is freely available here(link)
I think education needs more scholars trained in philosophy to question many of its popular assumptions more often and more vigorously
-
Schools are not labs: Questioning the blind use of Evidence based approach in Education(Video)
In recent years, there has been a growing call to educators to embrace an “evidence-based” approach, branding it as the science of learning. Teachers have been under significant pressure to incorporate ideas generated from experimental methodologies and randomized control trials from the laboratory settings to determine the effectiveness of educational practices. However, it is important to delve into the philosophy and meaning of being “evidence-based” and also consider the potential hazards that may arise from transforming classrooms into scientific laboratories. In this video by Human Restoration Project captioned ; Schools Are Not Labs: Why “What Works” May Hurt, these ideas are very well articulated by quoting foundational works by scholars like Gerd Biesta and Yong Zhao.
-
Prof Michael Young, Knowledge Rich Curriculum and Ghana’s Minister
Professor Michael Young’s work has been widely cited as a key reference for Knowledge Rich Curriculum and Memory brigade. He is not happy about it according to a new TES article(link).
Interestingly, his “powerful knowledge” perspective was emerged from his South African experience. In this article he shares his experience which might be interesting as a co-read-along with the following video by Ghana’s Education minister in which he says;
“You cannot memorize your way out of poverty”
-
Professor Yong Zhao: Comparing the US and Chinese education system(video playlist)
Professor Yong Zhao who authored the book “What Works May Hurt: Side Effects in Education”, makes compelling arguments against comparing the US and Chinese education. He suggests that, while the Chinese system stressed more on homogeneity and standardization, the US system was always providing heterogeneous outcomes, which is really an asset.
-
Julie Posselt: How Graduate Admissions really works
Julie’s work explores how Graduate Admissions really works in the United States
I have been following Julie Posselt for some time, particularly because of her observational studies and insights into US higher education.
Along with recent books like “The Tyranny of Merit” by Michael Sandel and “The Meritocracy Trap” by Daniel Markovits, her book “Inside Graduate Admissions: Merit, Diversity, and Faculty Gatekeeping”, throws a lot of light into socio-economic implications of existing perceptions about merit and equity in the US Higher ed.
Her work specifically digs into the nature of grad school admissions in elite US institutions?. Tries to find for whom(which social group) does the system work + Varying perception of merit, Legacy admissions, Homophily, Faculty gatekeeping, etc?
Based on firsthand observations of admission committees and interviews with faculty in top 10 doctoral programs in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, she shows admissions from decision makers’ point of view, including interesting episodes of committees debating the process, interviewing applicants, and grappling with borderline cases.
To her, more equitable outcomes occur when admission committees are themselves diverse and when members take a fresh look at inherited meritocratic assumptions that affect their judgment.
A few of her interesting papers are the following.
- Trust networks: A new perspective on pedigree and the ambiguities of admissions
- Equity Efforts as Boundary Work: How Symbolic and Social Boundaries Shape Access and Inclusion in Graduate Education
- Disciplinary Logics in Doctoral Admissions: Understanding Patterns of Faculty Evaluation
- Why are Women Underrepresented in Elite Colleges and Universities?
- Typical physics Ph.D. admissions criteria limit access to underrepresented groups but fail to predict doctoral completion
- Toward inclusive excellence in graduate education: Constructing merit and diversity in PhD admissions
Following are a few interesting videos of her discussing the topic
1)What Phd aspirants need to know
2) Same Idea, different presentation.
3) In the following video Julie Posselt discusses her new(another) book “Equity in Science”
The video
-
Questioning the Un-questionable: “Evidence-Based”
The arguments followed by “evidence-based” + x, y, z, learning, education, policy, etc. carries a lot of credibility and authority. Ideas promoted using “evidence” tag often evades scrutiny and criticism. After I got exposed to ideas like Goodhart’s law, Campbell’s law, Metric fixation, e.g. I started to see the irony of “evidence based arguments”. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in science or evidence anymore, but I am more skeptical.
Following are a list of links which may open the you mind a little bit on the hidden-dark side of “evidence based” arguments.
0) What they call evidence is often standardized test scores
2. The problems with evidence in educational practice
4. Selective evidence/ Cherry picking evidence etc. are another major issue…particularly in Education.
Measure whatever can be easily measured , Disregard that which cannot be measured easily, Presume that which cannot be measured easily isn’t important, Say that which can’t be easily measured doesn’t exist