tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8642071030972002803.post5034504591531765048..comments2024-03-23T09:58:33.874+00:00Comments on Evidence Based Educational Leadership: Do all good ideas need to be researched? - A response to David DidauGaryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18413195045403613409noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8642071030972002803.post-10291700593224167072017-01-10T18:13:17.663+00:002017-01-10T18:13:17.663+00:00Now we can even bring around more of the possible ...Now we can even bring around more of the possible concerns which are indeed considered to be of utmost importance and the value. <a href="http://www.gifellowship.com/our-services/pediatric-gastroenterology-fellowship-application-help/" rel="nofollow">here</a>Lauren Parkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07633921562835759120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8642071030972002803.post-40895400055132697902015-06-01T21:06:33.170+01:002015-06-01T21:06:33.170+01:00Just to say I completely share Gary's concerns...Just to say I completely share Gary's concerns with David's informal model of teacher inquiry. It strikes me as odd that David would follow up his recent, excellent piece on Hattie's dismissal of the idea of teachers as researchers, by lending support to a model of 'research' - if you can call it that - that would support the return of VAK - i.e. if teacher believe in it then they will make it work. Brain gym likewise. These things seemed like good ideas at the time - they have "surface plausibility" as you say - that's what makes such practices so insidious. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8642071030972002803.post-62099013743785464932015-05-25T16:49:16.637+01:002015-05-25T16:49:16.637+01:00I think we both agree that we want teachers to eng...I think we both agree that we want teachers to engage in enquiry, though I'm not sure that the model you propose could be described as disciplined inquiry. As Cronbach and Suppes (1969) state - <br />Disciplined inquiry has a quality that distinguishes it from other sources of opinion and belief. The disciplined inquiry is conducted and reported in such a way that the argument can be painstakingly examined. The report does not depend for its appeal on the eloquence of the writer or on any surface plausibility, (p. 15).<br />http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/readings/shulman97.pdf<br />In other words, you are arguing for a model of sharing practice within schools which is based upon: teacher infallibility; teacher eloquence; and, surface plausibility. For me, this is neither a desirable or justifiableGaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18413195045403613409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8642071030972002803.post-89790259136543839332015-05-25T14:23:28.668+01:002015-05-25T14:23:28.668+01:00All I can say in my defence is that everything I d...All I can say in my defence is that everything I do is aligned against exacerbating "unhelpful 'group think' in schools". :)<br /><br />Research is important, as is uncovering bias. Teacher based enquiry is utterly fraught with bias by its very nature. Telling teachers there's a way of avoiding this is dishonest. Instead I propose this:<br /><br />1. Read the research<br />2. Consider your pupils<br />3. Use your judgement to teach your pupils as well as you can<br />4. Resist the efforts of anyone to change what you've decided to do: they are no less biased than you and will have far less knowledge of your pupils.<br />David Didau @LearningSpyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06195532885950834949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8642071030972002803.post-34560851255276356142015-05-25T14:06:52.832+01:002015-05-25T14:06:52.832+01:00Thanks for your comments - I think we are in agree...Thanks for your comments - I think we are in agreement about the challenges and limitations of big R research and serious issues associated with using 'statistics' with individual teacher based enquiry action/research. And I agree you cannot eliminate cognitive bias, though you can certainly adopt processes which will limit their negative. impact., or at least raise them to the surface Where I think we are in disagreement in the rigour required to engage in teacher-based enquiry. The 'research' process you propose does not start with the pupil or pupils, it starts with what a teacher thinks is a 'non-evidenced 'good-idea,' and has the potential to exacerbate unhelpful 'group-think' within schools. :) Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18413195045403613409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8642071030972002803.post-28917820052904873232015-05-25T11:17:10.439+01:002015-05-25T11:17:10.439+01:00I've just written a book about cognitive bias ...I've just written a book about cognitive bias in education - particularly as it applies to research. The point I was making in the post you cite is that in some cases bias doesn't really matter. If I as a teacher have what I consider to be a 'good idea' I will biased in its favour. This being the case I will make it work. Any research short of a double blinded RCT will find in my favour because I, and the teachers who agree to trial my idea will believe in it.<br /><br />The other point I'd make is that Timperley et al's spital whatsit is exceedingly unlikely to rid teachers of their biases. Believing it will is a bias :)David Didau @LearningSpyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06195532885950834949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8642071030972002803.post-12504633901213482112015-05-25T11:14:16.622+01:002015-05-25T11:14:16.622+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.David Didau @LearningSpyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06195532885950834949noreply@blogger.com