Where's yer evidence Part 2

Here's a nice counterpoint to my previous post, written by Claire Amos.

Where's the research? Why we need to stop looking in the rear vision mirror at longitudinal research and data.

Thanks Claire.

Educational mythology... where's ya data?

The world of education is awash with myths and has been for decades. In my early years practice was so disconnected from data and evidence that to claim teaching as a profession might have seemed to be stretching the truth to those ‘in the know’ (although oddly I suspect that it was viewed as more of a profession by the general public at that time than it is now).  I recall pondering (only very briefly) how I would have felt being attended by a doctor or dentist who paid similar regard to research evidence (thankfully I never have been). Things have changed, and teachers generally not only incorporate the use of achievement data into their practice, but also the growing body of good robust research evidence that has accumulated worldwide on what helps cause learning.

One of the seminal moments in this regard must be the publication of John Hattie’s book ‘Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement’ (2008). In the book Hattie and his international research team brought together a vast amount of research data, all carefully sifted to ensure that only quality data was incorporated. The book makes heavy going as a piece of reading as the density of quality material is so high. However it has made for a much better informed profession. Sadly despite work of this sort, some serious myths persist.

One of the classic myths is the ‘learning styles’ debate. In his later book ‘Visible learning for teachers (2012) Hattie says “.. it is not intended to delve into learning styles (visual, kinaesthetic etc), for the effectiveness of which there is zero supporting evidence, “. Professor Steve Wheeler of Plymouth University takes up the cudgel in this debate as well in a blog post titled ‘A Convenient Untruth’ (http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.nz/2011/11/convenient-untruth.html) in which he says:

“In an excellent expose on learning styles, Riener and Willingham (2010) argue this:

"...learning-styles theory has succeeded in becoming “common knowledge.” Its widespread acceptance serves as an unfortunately compelling reason to believe it. This is accompanied by a well-known cognitive phenomenon called the confirmation bias. When evaluating our own beliefs, we tend to seek out information that confirms our beliefs and ignore contrary information, even when we encounter it repeatedly. When we see someone who professes to be a visual learner excel at geography and an auditory learner excel at music, we do not seek out the information which would disprove our interpretation of these events (can the auditory learner learn geography through hearing it? Can the visual learner become better at music by seeing it?)" “

Another more recent controversy arises over the current concept of Modern Learning Environments or MLEs. This is the notion that we physically and intellectually deconstruct the classroom. We place two or three classes of learners into one space with several teachers, and allow student choice of what they learn and when. Apparently there is a massive intuitive appeal to the concept, one pushed by the Ministry of Education across the state school sector, I understand. While I have serious concerns over the concept, even more concerning is the fact that this major change to education is being pushed in what appears to me to be an absence of data. If there is robust replicable data out there, I can’t find it. I have looked. A lot. The debate resorts to a lot of rhetoric, with the suggestion that the value of MLEs is so common sense that you’d be a fool to challenge it. Apparently this is where the modern business world is going, and we’d ignore that trend at our peril.

I was intrigued to see a piece in the business publication ‘The Main Report’ titled ‘HR - Does a cool office really matter?’ (The Main Report, 11 May 2015) in which the opening statement is:

Recruiting experts Hays says the technology sector’s famously alternative work spaces are being replicated by many businesses, but it asks - do they have the desired impact on employee productivity, performance and retention? The answer is - it depends on the organisation's culture.”

As I see it, someone has decided that alternative open plan workspaces and collaboration are the way of the future. However in the school context it seems to me that this fails to recognise two factors:

1. Employees in the workplace are not adolescents who are right in the middle of that process of testing boundaries and learning about themselves and the world around them.
2. Even in these alternative work environments people need space to sit down at a desk in a quiet environment and think, create or problem solve. They need to be able to close the door to the rest of the world and get on with things.

Am I a fan of Modern Learning Environments? Possibly not as they are currently portrayed. However I AM a fan of what you might call Modern Learning Pedagogy. There are new ways to learn, and there is a growing body of research evidence that these new approaches work. We observe in our classes many of those things that the research evidence seems to support. However we monitor what the research says, and modify our practice in the light of research and experience. For example in the midst of the laptop programme we are considering the issue of reading. It is perhaps no surprise to many that reading electronically is different to reading on paper. It seems that there is often less comprehension, less depth to reading done online, or on electronic devices. The nice thing is that this thing called neuroplasticity of the brain seems to mean that we can retrain the brain to read carefully, closely, with an eye to detail. For four years now we have had a focus on critical literacy at College. This embraces a spectrum of issues from the basic skills of reading and writing to the more complex skills of critical thinking and analysis. As she scanned research literature and articles on the subject (part of a regular routine for most of us) a colleague found a fascinating article  in ‘The New Yorker’ titled ’Being a better online reader’.   It can be accessed here: http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/being-a-better-online-reader

A: Yeah, me too.

At College we maintain what we call a blended learning environment. That is, one in which we use the right tool for the job, and there will be times when laptops are not the right tool for the job. So while a lot of reading takes place online, we also have boys reading from and working on paper. We have boys interacting  in person as well as online. We have boys putting their laptops away and taking up a hammer or a paintbrush, throwing a ball or sprinting down the length of Upper.

As a consequence of this sort of data, and our own daily data gathering  in classes, teachers modify their practice. Reading is important, and reading a traditional paper book is  valuable exercise. Staff acknowledge this and encourage reading at every opportunity. I have mentioned in previous columns that we need to continue to encourage reading. This will at times mean reading online, but it should also mean reading on paper. Perhaps it’s only true for those of us of a certain age but there is something about the feel, the smell, the look of  a paper book that makes it appealing. It would seem that that is what the research confirms. I find it a little ironic that in an educational era in which we emphasise critical thinking so much, so many people continue to buy into educational myths revealing perhaps a lack of critical thinking.

Incidentally, if valid robust data comes to light to show the MLEs do indeed cause more significant learning than the existing alternatives, I will of course recant. Put another way I will of course ’think critically’ about the evidence and my position.

And as a footnote, last year I was transporting some junior boys to sport and their conversation went something like this:

A: You got a kindle?

B: Yeah

A: Got many books on it?

B: No, I prefer paper books.