Teach Effectively!

Over on Science-Based Medicine, Dr. Amy Tuteur has an entry that’s worth reading. In the piece, she exoriates the publication of medical news that amount to little more than reprints of press releases. Dr. Tuteur’s analysis serves as a worthwhile reminder for people to exercise caution when reading, watching, or hearing reports in the popular press about the benefits of medical therapies.

Even more, the analysis offers a reminder for people who consume educational research via popular media. I have repeatedly read reports of new educational and psychological research published in apparently trustworthy sources which, upon investigation, actually are just a reprint of a press release from a university or other entity with an interest in promoting the finding.

This is really problemsome when even further investigation shows that the press release may not completely accurately reflect the findings of the original research. Shoot, I suspect that some of what passes as content on some Web sites is actually generated by a robot that scans relevant sources (e.g., press releases) and scapes content that meets certain criteria (e.g., includes key words) into a database that can then be served according to a new style sheet.

That’s why one’s supposed to depend on a careful reading of the original report! Here on Teach Effectively, I sometimes include snippets from press releases, but I depend on my own reading of the original research when I write about a new study.

Last week I wrote about a study that purported to show that antidepressants have no effect in mild to moderate depression. A careful reading of the paper shows that the authors dramatically overstated their findings, particularly in their public statements to the media. The study has another implication beyond the misleading claims about antidepressants. It is an object lesson in an ongoing and disturbing phenomenon in mainstream journalism, the wholesale reprinting of press releases of scientific papers instead of reading and analyzing the papers themselves.

Jump to Science by press release.

Over on Zig Site, Siegfried Engelmann has a new series of articles in which Socrates questions fictitious educators about educational concepts. In the first, Socrates engages one Dr. Gibbs, a “prominent professor of education.” Here’s an excerpt:

Dr. Gibbs: Learning is extremely complicated and influenced by a host of factors, including motivation and parental attitudes. The point I try to make to my students is that every child is an individual who learns according to his or her time table, and in his or her unique way.

Socrates: You give us a lot to think about. But is there some fact or rule that describes all learning?

Dr. Gibbs. Of course not. The learner is what the learner does and what the learner has inherited. Learning is not some kind of cut-and-dried process. The most specific thing one could confidently say about all learning is that it occurs in a series of predictable stages, which have been described by Piaget and others.

Just imagine the hash that Socrates makes of such bologna!

In another, Socrates and Dr. Baram Rosenthal, an “educational guru,” discuss reading instruction. Catch ‘em at Zig Site. Look in the left rail.

Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education under the headline “Matching Teaching Style to Learning Style May Not Help Students,” David Glenn describes the hook of a forth-coming paper the examines the popular, but unsupported, notion that instruction must be differentiated according to personal characteristics of the learners.

If you’ve ever sat through a teaching seminar, you’ve probably heard a lecture about “learning styles.” Perhaps you were told that some students are visual learners, some are auditory learners, and others are kinesthetic learners. Or maybe you were given one of the dozens of other learning-style taxonomies that scholars and consultants have developed.

Almost certainly, you were told that your instruction should match your students’ styles. For example, kinesthetic learners—students who learn best through hands-on activities—are said to do better in classes that feature plenty of experiments, while verbal learners are said to do worse.
Continue reading ‘Learning styles gets academic attention’

Over on Kitchen Table Math the contributor who identifies himself as SteveH has a delightful post about some new test results. Here’s the lead:

Recent testing has shown improvement in shoe tying by fourth and eighth graders over the past two years, although the growth has been stagnant in some districts. Urban school activists, however, can be encouraged by the statistical improvement in areas with populations of 250,000 or more. This continues an upward trend that started 6 years ago when this testing began.

Jump over to Testing Shows Improvement in Shoe Tying.

Although it’s a tad off point for Teach Effectively, I call readers’ attention (both of you!) to one of a set of articles that appeared in the Los Angeles Times as part of an examination of bogus therapies for Autism. In this article, “Autism therapies can get undeserved credit,” investigative journalists Trine Tsouderos and Patricia Callahan examine the tension between heart-felt testimonials and cold, hard scientific evidence. It’s worth a read, as are several other articles about Autism therapies that they’ve written since May of 2009.

Usually, the people who are mislead by the therapies discussed by Ms. Tsouderos and Ms. Callahan are parents. However, educators can be mislead similarly and the therapies about which they are misled do not have to be medical or specific to Autism. All one needs is a glittery idea that connects just a tad with science and personal experience and is supported by testimonials from people who seem to have authentic credentials….

Link to read “Autism therapies can get undeserved credit.” For more about the stories by Ms. Tsouderos and Ms. Callahan, see entries on EBD Blog for 23 May 2009, 21 November 2009, and 7 December 2009

I only occasionally read the Ed Week team blog by Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch, Bridging Differences, but I was avidly gobbling up the content and comments of one recent post. Why? Well, the much admired Mary Damer had waded into the fray and was tossing around a lot of sensible comments. It’s worth reading, so here’s a link to the entry entitled “What Works for Rich Kids Works for All Kids.”

Over on Children of the Code David Boulton published a transcript of an interview with Siegfried Engelmann, the primary force behind the development of the Direct Instruction methods. In “Instructional Design 101: Learn from the Learners!,” which provides only part of the material that CoC will publish, Mr. Boulton asked Mr. Engelmann a wide range of questions and recorded his answers.

Engelmann recounts how he entered education, how he came to develop scripts, and lots more. Also, there are insightful anecdotes. For example, in one segment Mr. Engelmann recounts a story about the development of the Corrective Reading Program.
Continue reading ‘Engelmann interview on instructional design’

Zig Engelmann, progenitor of Direct Instruction (DI), has posted a video of a talk he gave earlier this month. The presentation is an explication of the underlying principles of DI, “Theory of Direct Instruction.”

In the presentation (video below the jump), Mr. Engelmann shows some of his chops from his undergraduate degree in philosophy. He starts with philosophers’ fundamental arguments and shows how those correspond (or don’t) with learning and teaching concepts. For example, as he works through John Stuart Mills’ five methods of induction from A System of Logic, he makes clear how each would apply to teaching. I suspect that this particular sequence will show many people why DI instruction (the examples used in the scripts, not the teaching behavior) is structured the way it is.
Continue reading ‘Engelmann explains’