Tag Archive for 'reason'

Page 2 of 4

Willingham’s guidelines for teacher accountability

In his recurring posts for the Washington Post, Dan Willingham has three suggestions about how to approach the problem of creating a system for evaluating teachers’ contributions to students’ outcomes. The guidelines are sensible and worth reviewing. Read them here.

Sphere: Related Content

“Our teachers think they’re all effective.”

According to Stannis Steinbeck, principal of Broadus Elementary School in Pacoima (CA, US), this is the view of the members of her faculty. According to data about the teachers’ effects on student achievement, not all teachers are effective. It should come as no surprise that some are more effective than others and some are woefully ineffective.

Jason Felch, Jason Song, and Doug Smith of the Los Angeles Times aggregated achievement test data over seven years and across many students assigned to 6000 teachers to assess which teachers consistently improved and which consistently diminished their students’ outcomes.
Continue reading ‘“Our teachers think they’re all effective.”’

Sphere: Related Content

Merrow on reading

Over on Learning Matters in his blog, Taking Note, John Merrow published an entry entitled “On Learning to Read” that raises some good points, but nearly omits a terrifically important one. I suspect regular readers (whom I’ve neglected terribly in the recent months—sorry) can guess which one was omitted.

Here’s Mr. Merrow’s lead:

Why children want to be able to read is not open for debate. It’s for the same reasons that they want to walk: to control their own destiny. It’s purely pragmatic; children understand that, when they know how to read, they are better able to navigate their environment successfully, just as they intuitively understand that walking is better than crawling or toddling.

Continue reading ‘Merrow on reading’

Sphere: Related Content

Does education research = dreck?

If ya haven’t already done so, I recommend that you read Dan Willingham’s discussion about the assertion, most recently proposed by Newsweek editor Sharon Begley (“Second-Class Science: Education research gets an F.“), that educational research has little or no value. Dan, who’s no friend of schlock science, mounts a reasoned defense and then springs ahead to suggestions about how to make things better. You can read his analysis under Is education research all dreck? — Willingham in the Washington Post’s “The Answer Sheet.”

Sphere: Related Content

Response to the de-debunkers

Over on Cedar’s Digest, the blogger by the moniker ‘Cedar’ posted a copy of a response to “The Bunk of Debunking Learning Styles” by Heather Wolpert-Gawron that appeared in Teacher. Cedar’s circumspect response is entitled “Learning Styles: What’s Being Debunked” and is worth reading.

Sphere: Related Content

Evidence-based education in Head Start?

Isabel Sawhill and Jon Baron published an editorial in Education Week calling for a new approach to the venerable Head Start program, one founded on evidence about effectiveness. They argue that in the wake of the discouraging Head Start Impact Study reported by US Department of Health & Human Services, it’s time to bring research into the nation’s play pre-schools.

A new approach is needed. One that has been suggested—defunding these programs—would amount to giving up the fight against major social problems such as educational failure and poverty that damage millions of American lives. A far better alternative is to use rigorous evidence about “what works” to evolve Head Start and other federal efforts into truly effective programs over time, and to use sophisticated models to trace their longer-term effects on children’s life prospects.

Continue reading ‘Evidence-based education in Head Start?’

Sphere: Related Content

Socrates questions educators

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.

Sphere: Related Content

More DW on LS

Teach Effectively pal Dan Willingham has another treatment of the learning-styles myth at the Washington Post. In a guest entry for Valerie Strauss’ “The Answer Sheet,” Professor Willingham mentions the recent scientific review of research that debunked the myth (yet again) and provides responses to some of the pro-myth arguments that he’s encountered. Here’s a link to “Willingham: No evidence exists for learning style theories.”

Sphere: Related Content




Bad Behavior has blocked 1102 access attempts in the last 7 days.

*/goog +1 script added 20110711 */