The question about how we will know that we are making progress in adoption of evidence-based practices (procedures, programs, curricula, methods, materials...) will not be answered by measuring clicks on links to Web sites or even attendance at conferences promulgating e-bp. I agree to some extent with your proposal that "we'll know we are getting there" when conferences for subject areas "are dominated by evidence informed practice."
I can relate an anecdote that aligns (I think) with your metric for success. In July 2008 I attended a conference on reading instruction for US educators. The conference was sponsored by the Reading First program of the US Department of Education. I was essentially an observer and probably only a dozen or so of the 1000s of people knew I had anything to do with Reading First.
I was sitting in a large room where people were taking a break. At a neighboring table a small group of people who were attending the conference were discussing their experiences with a couple of young students who were *not* zooming ahead. When I hear educators talk about situations in which students are not doing well, I was accustomed to hearing those educators bemoan the child's home life, his (usually his) lack of motivation, his bad attitude, his spotty attendance record, etc. Instead, these teachers were talking about how the student had done on specific measures of aspects of decoding.
==> "I wonder...does he have the letter-sounds down cold? How's he doing on the Dibbles sounds?"
==> "Does it seem like he's struggling to sound out words?"
==> "How Is he doing with spelling simple words, you know, C-V-Cs?"
In other words, these teachers were doing exactly what the advocates of Reading First were hoping they would be doing. They were trouble-shooting the student's difficulties using performance data.
Now, that's just an anecdote, and it's incidental and subjective. But, in that instant I had the impression that all the effort that went into the effort to get schools to adopt e-bp had worked for those teachers.
Of course, it didn't work. Reading First was bludgeoned. Naysayers pointed at RF as a failure and filled the gap with whole language, three cuing, readers' workshops, superficially appealing intuitions, and so forth.
And so, we ae still here, encouraging folks to base their teaching on trustworthy research, avoid getting sucked into the warm-and-fuzzy goop, reflect critically about edu-charlatans' bologna...Sigh.
Hi Greg--thanks for this. We've had researchEd US at my school pre-COVID and I agree with your views. For me the rubber meets the road when the time comes for strategic planning by the admin/trustees/school board. Who will leadership listen to--the IT person and some faculty/staff who are all-in on the latest thing or the teachers who are trying to adopt evidence-based practices? Sometimes I think we end up being the cranks muttering in the corner because what we believe isn't "sexy" or new. We've dealt with ridiculous conversations about growth mindset, grit, the joys of VR headsets, and now AI. For me, progress comes when the admin actually listens--I managed to get them to back off of using "brain-based learning" whatever the heck that means. Unfortunately, they also listen to the enthusiasts...
Thanks for this post!
The question about how we will know that we are making progress in adoption of evidence-based practices (procedures, programs, curricula, methods, materials...) will not be answered by measuring clicks on links to Web sites or even attendance at conferences promulgating e-bp. I agree to some extent with your proposal that "we'll know we are getting there" when conferences for subject areas "are dominated by evidence informed practice."
I can relate an anecdote that aligns (I think) with your metric for success. In July 2008 I attended a conference on reading instruction for US educators. The conference was sponsored by the Reading First program of the US Department of Education. I was essentially an observer and probably only a dozen or so of the 1000s of people knew I had anything to do with Reading First.
I was sitting in a large room where people were taking a break. At a neighboring table a small group of people who were attending the conference were discussing their experiences with a couple of young students who were *not* zooming ahead. When I hear educators talk about situations in which students are not doing well, I was accustomed to hearing those educators bemoan the child's home life, his (usually his) lack of motivation, his bad attitude, his spotty attendance record, etc. Instead, these teachers were talking about how the student had done on specific measures of aspects of decoding.
==> "I wonder...does he have the letter-sounds down cold? How's he doing on the Dibbles sounds?"
==> "Does it seem like he's struggling to sound out words?"
==> "How Is he doing with spelling simple words, you know, C-V-Cs?"
In other words, these teachers were doing exactly what the advocates of Reading First were hoping they would be doing. They were trouble-shooting the student's difficulties using performance data.
Now, that's just an anecdote, and it's incidental and subjective. But, in that instant I had the impression that all the effort that went into the effort to get schools to adopt e-bp had worked for those teachers.
Of course, it didn't work. Reading First was bludgeoned. Naysayers pointed at RF as a failure and filled the gap with whole language, three cuing, readers' workshops, superficially appealing intuitions, and so forth.
And so, we ae still here, encouraging folks to base their teaching on trustworthy research, avoid getting sucked into the warm-and-fuzzy goop, reflect critically about edu-charlatans' bologna...Sigh.
Hi Greg--thanks for this. We've had researchEd US at my school pre-COVID and I agree with your views. For me the rubber meets the road when the time comes for strategic planning by the admin/trustees/school board. Who will leadership listen to--the IT person and some faculty/staff who are all-in on the latest thing or the teachers who are trying to adopt evidence-based practices? Sometimes I think we end up being the cranks muttering in the corner because what we believe isn't "sexy" or new. We've dealt with ridiculous conversations about growth mindset, grit, the joys of VR headsets, and now AI. For me, progress comes when the admin actually listens--I managed to get them to back off of using "brain-based learning" whatever the heck that means. Unfortunately, they also listen to the enthusiasts...