1 / 25

Learning and Teaching

Learning and Teaching. School learning and teaching effectiveness Many factors influence learning. It's hard to know what is good practice'.Individual differences in learning What is ability' and can it be altered? What kinds of motivation are best?Classroom strategies: Cooperative learning Evid

janine
Download Presentation

Learning and Teaching

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Learning and Teaching Improving Learning: Theory and Evidence

    2. Learning and Teaching School learning and teaching effectiveness Many factors influence learning. It’s hard to know what is ‘good practice’. Individual differences in learning What is ‘ability’ and can it be altered? What kinds of motivation are best? Classroom strategies: Cooperative learning Evidence about the effects of cooperative learning (group work, peer tutoring) Classroom strategies: Formative assessment What is ‘formative assessment’ and what can it do? Trying to improve school learning: theory and practice ‘Evidence-based’ practice: definitions and issues.

    3. Growth of ‘evidence-based’ education Origins in medicine Developments in education: New Labour, New Evidence Centre for Evidence-Informed Policy and Practice in Education (Inst of Edn, London) Campbell Collaboration Evidence-Based Education Network (Durham) EPPI Centre web site is at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/education.htm Campbell Collaboration web site is at: http://campbell.gse.upenn.edu Durham University’s EBEN can be found at: http://cem.dur.ac.uk/ebeuk EPPI Centre web site is at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/education.htm Campbell Collaboration web site is at: http://campbell.gse.upenn.edu Durham University’s EBEN can be found at: http://cem.dur.ac.uk/ebeuk

    4. What is ‘evidence-based’? Intervention, not description Evaluation, not common sense

    5. Intervention, not description: The need for high expectations Everybody knows (Ofsted, school effectiveness research) teachers should have high expectations ‘Pygmalion’ effect (Rosenthal and Jacobsen, 1968) Hugely influential, but flawed Is it an effective intervention for teaching? No. For experienced teachers who know their students, ‘expectation effect’ is zero (Raudenbush, 1984). ‘High expectations’ may not be easily alterable, or may be the effect rather than the cause A brief summary of this issue can be found in p432 of Coe, R.J. and Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. (1998) ‘School effectiveness research: criticisms and recommendations’. Oxford Review of Education, 24, 4, 421-438. Rosenthal, R. and Jacobsen, L. (1968) Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectations and Pupils' Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Raudenbush, S. (1984) ‘Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects of pupil IQ as a function of credibility of expectation induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 experiments’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (1) 85-97. Criticisms of the original Pygmalion research can be found in: Elashoff, J. D. and R. E. Snow (1971). Pygmalion reconsidered. New York: Wadsworth Wineberg, S.S. (1991) ‘The self-fulfilment of the self-fulfilling prophesy’ in Anderson, D.S. and Biddle, B.J. (eds.) Knowledge for Policy: Improving Education through Research. London: Falmer.A brief summary of this issue can be found in p432 of Coe, R.J. and Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. (1998) ‘School effectiveness research: criticisms and recommendations’. Oxford Review of Education, 24, 4, 421-438. Rosenthal, R. and Jacobsen, L. (1968) Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectations and Pupils' Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Raudenbush, S. (1984) ‘Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects of pupil IQ as a function of credibility of expectation induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 experiments’. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (1) 85-97. Criticisms of the original Pygmalion research can be found in: Elashoff, J. D. and R. E. Snow (1971). Pygmalion reconsidered. New York: Wadsworth Wineberg, S.S. (1991) ‘The self-fulfilment of the self-fulfilling prophesy’ in Anderson, D.S. and Biddle, B.J. (eds.) Knowledge for Policy: Improving Education through Research. London: Falmer.

    6. Evaluation, not common sense Common sense can be wrong Fashion, authority, tradition can be wrong Good intentions do not guarantee good outcomes

    7. Support for ‘at-risk’ youngsters Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study (US, WWII) Aim: to reduce delinquency 650 ‘difficult’ & ‘average’ boys aged 5-11, half randomly allocated to receive support (home visits from social workers, psycholog(&iatr)ists, doctors, tutors, up to twice monthly for five years, summer camps, etc) At the end of the project, most said it was helpful, but no clear differences between the two groups

    8. 30 years later … Two thirds said it was helpful; e.g. kept them off the streets/out of jail, made them more understanding, showed someone cared. 57 ‘objective’ comparisons of criminal behaviour, health, family, work and leisure time, beliefs and attitudes. Those who had received the support were no better on any of these outcomes 7 comparisons showed significant advantage to the control group McCord, J. (1978) ‘A thirty year follow-up of treatment effects’. American Psychologist, 33, 284-9. McCord, J. (1978) ‘A thirty year follow-up of treatment effects’. American Psychologist, 33, 284-9.

    9. McCord, J. (1981) ‘Consideration of some effects of a counselling program’ in S.E. Martin, L.B. Sechrest and R. Redner (eds) New directions in the rehabilitation of criminal offenders. Washington: National Academy Press. McCord, J. (1982) ‘The Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study: a sobering lesson on treatment prevention and evaluation’ in A.J. McSweeney, W.J. Freeman and R. Hawkins (eds) Practical program evaluation in youth. Springfield, Ill:Charles C Thomas. McCord, J. (1981) ‘Consideration of some effects of a counselling program’ in S.E. Martin, L.B. Sechrest and R. Redner (eds) New directions in the rehabilitation of criminal offenders. Washington: National Academy Press. McCord, J. (1982) ‘The Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study: a sobering lesson on treatment prevention and evaluation’ in A.J. McSweeney, W.J. Freeman and R. Hawkins (eds) Practical program evaluation in youth. Springfield, Ill:Charles C Thomas.

    10. Identifying ‘under-aspirers’ Yellis Project allows schools to monitor progress and attitudes. Year 10 students complete a test of developed abilities and a questionnaire. Able students who say they are not planning to stay in education are identified as ‘underaspirers’. Schools then ‘mentor’, ‘target’ etc. In 1999 some schools were asked if they would mind getting only half the list (selected at random). Details of the Yellis Project at http://cem.dur.ac.uk/Yellis Details of the Yellis Project at http://cem.dur.ac.uk/Yellis

    11. Results 120 year 10 students in 15 ‘typical’ schools Half ‘named’, half ‘not named’ In terms of achievement in GCSEs (value added): Named students did worse in 12 of 15 schools Overall effect size of naming: -0.38

    13. For those who were ‘named’

    14. Drug education Project DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) is the most widely used programme in the US, supported by government legislation and funding, adopted by 50% of local school districts. DARE: delivered by police officers, focuses on skills to recognise and resist social pressures, self esteem, assertiveness, information, alternatives etc But it doesn’t work ... Williams, N. and Keene, J. (1995) ‘Drug prevention and the police in the UK: a review of recent research studies’. Drugs: education, prevention and policy, 2, 3, 225-241.Williams, N. and Keene, J. (1995) ‘Drug prevention and the police in the UK: a review of recent research studies’. Drugs: education, prevention and policy, 2, 3, 225-241.

    15. Ennett, S.T, Tobler, N.S., Ringwalt, C.L. and Flewelling, R.L (1994) ‘How Effective is Drug Abuse Resistance Education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluations.’ American Journal of Public Health, 84, 9, 1394-1401.Ennett, S.T, Tobler, N.S., Ringwalt, C.L. and Flewelling, R.L (1994) ‘How Effective is Drug Abuse Resistance Education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluations.’ American Journal of Public Health, 84, 9, 1394-1401.

    16. Schoolwide Reform Whole-school programmes for improving schools in US American Institutes for Research study of Strength of evidence of positive effects on achievement Cost Popularity American Institutes for Research (1999) An Educator’s Guide to Schoolwide Reform. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.American Institutes for Research (1999) An Educator’s Guide to Schoolwide Reform. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

    17. Costs For programmes with or without research evidence of effectiveness

    18. Cost/benefit

    19. Popularity/benefit

    20. Popularity/cost

    21. National Numeracy Strategy Department for Education and Employment (1998) The implementation of the National Numeracy Strategy: Final report of the Numeracy Task Force. London: DfEE. Brown, M., Askew, M., Baker, D., Denvir, H. and Millett, A. (1998) ‘Is the National Numeracy Strategy Research-Based?’ British Journal of Educational Studies, 46, 4, 362-385. (available from http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/bpl/bjes via Durham University) Department for Education and Employment (1998) The implementation of the National Numeracy Strategy: Final report of the Numeracy Task Force. London: DfEE. Brown, M., Askew, M., Baker, D., Denvir, H. and Millett, A. (1998) ‘Is the National Numeracy Strategy Research-Based?’ British Journal of Educational Studies, 46, 4, 362-385. (available from http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/bpl/bjes via Durham University)

    22. Evidence about what does work (from the USA) 1. Pre-school education Can improve achievement and social outcomes 2. Smaller classes in early years Sustained benefits, esp. for disadvantaged 3. Small schools May be advantageous for disadvantaged 4. More time in school No evidence of gain for extra time or different allocation. Summer schools may work for disadvantaged Molnar, A. (ed.) School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. January 2002. Available at http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/Reports/epru/EPRU%202002-101/epru-2002-101.htmMolnar, A. (ed.) School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. January 2002. Available at http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/Reports/epru/EPRU%202002-101/epru-2002-101.htm

    23. (cont.) 5. Ability grouping Few benefits and many risks (but some prefer) 6. Parental involvement In school: not clear; at home: may help 7. School community involvement May help, esp. disadvantaged 8. Teacher characteristics Teachers’ test scores not related to effectiveness, but experience is 9. Classroom instruction strategies Some strategies (eg small steps, organizers, supported practice, cognitive strategies, modeling) are consistently effective Molnar, A. (ed.) School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. January 2002. Available at http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/Reports/epru/EPRU%202002-101/epru-2002-101.htmMolnar, A. (ed.) School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. January 2002. Available at http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/Reports/epru/EPRU%202002-101/epru-2002-101.htm

    24. (cont.) 10. Teacher unions Raise achievement for most 11. Value added performance management Effects not clear 12. Professional development Can be beneficial (but often isn’t) 13. Privatization of schools No evidence of benefit. Accountability problematic Molnar, A. (ed.) School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. January 2002. Available at http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/Reports/epru/EPRU%202002-101/epru-2002-101.htmMolnar, A. (ed.) School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. January 2002. Available at http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/Reports/epru/EPRU%202002-101/epru-2002-101.htm

    25. Implications Need for more trials Need for systematic reviews Need for debates about important outcomes Need for debates about important questions Need for involvement of those closest to the outcomes and implementation Need to evaluate actual practice, not just ideal policy

    26. Evidence-Based Education Network Gain access to existing evidence Accessible, clear, brief, non-technical, not-oversimplified summaries (!) Keep in contact with others of like mind and with latest developments Create and share evidence Design and take part in experiments, disseminate results Campaign to oppose unjustified policies and to promote a culture of evidence

More Related