Guesses and Hype Give Way to Data in Study of Education
What works in science and math education? Until recently, there had been few solid answers — just guesses and hunches, marketing hype and extrapolations from small pilot studies.
But now, a little-known office in the Education Department is starting to get some real data, using a method that has transformed medicine: the randomized clinical trial, in which groups of subjects are randomly assigned to get either an experimental therapy, the standard therapy, a placebo or nothing.
The findings could be transformative, researchers say. For example, one conclusion from the new research is that the choice of instructional materials — textbooks, curriculum guides, homework, quizzes — can affect achievement as profoundly as teachers themselves; a poor choice of materials is at least as bad as a terrible teacher, and a good choice can help offset a bad teacher’s deficiencies.
So far, the office — the Institute of Education Sciences — has supported 175 randomized studies. Some have already concluded; among the findings are that one popular math textbook was demonstrably superior to three competitors, and that a highly touted computer-aided math-instruction program had no effect on how much students learned.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/science/applying-new-rigor-in-studying-education.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130903
= new reply since forum marked as read
Nice...I never knew about this. A brief search through shows why no one wants to cite them; seems there's stuff here to upset virtually everyone in education. From the shysters (there's little evidence using data "improves student achievement"
to the teachers (there no statistical difference between National Board Certified teachers in math & reading versus non-certified). Interesting, interesting stuff. Now if they'd just take a look at Marzano and other VAM-related garbage. Oh, and here's hoping Arne "Duh" Duncan gets a clue.