1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

The science of teaching

Discussion in 'Science' started by oakbell, Feb 26, 2011.

  1. As a science teacher, I think it is about time teaching joined science, medicine, agriculture, engineering etc and moved away from tradition, fads and government edicts to a more scientific approach based on evidence.
    I have made this short film which makes the case for evidence based teaching. Please take a look, pass the link to anyone you think will be interested or show it at a staff meeting to get the debate going.
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4eiIPA8ZcM<font size="3"> </font>On our website: www.evidencebasedteaching.co.uk/free.html

    It does not contain advertising.
     
  2. As a science teacher, I think it is about time teaching joined science, medicine, agriculture, engineering etc and moved away from tradition, fads and government edicts to a more scientific approach based on evidence.
    I have made this short film which makes the case for evidence based teaching. Please take a look, pass the link to anyone you think will be interested or show it at a staff meeting to get the debate going.
    YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4eiIPA8ZcM<font size="3"> </font>On our website: www.evidencebasedteaching.co.uk/free.html

    It does not contain advertising.
     
  3. Links to this video have been posted elsewhere - & I have watched it. I started out interested in, enthused by & supportive of the idea & still am but the video, I think, does you a disservice.
    It gives 10 bullet point recommendations - but no detail on what they entail or evidence of why they will improve pupils learning.
    There appears to be advertising associated with it - if you search further, books and training are on offer by the organisation (to go in your shopping trolley!).
    The advertising sub-message was re-inforced by the statement that '.... this method improves results by one or two grades '..(I have undoubtedly mis-quoted the exact text, but this was the gist). No evidence was given to support this statement.
    There are analogies made with other evidenced based activites (engineering & medicine) but no examples of evidence based teaching methods or ideas.
    Admitttedly, the video is 14 -15 mins long, so there may not be much time to put all this in but, watching it did not give me any ideas on how to improve my teaching.
    It is not clear what the authors want to achieve from the video: awareness of evidence based teaching practices? maybe, but none were given.
    Sales of their training courses & books? yes.




     
  4. More useful & thought provoking was this blog on pseudoteaching: http://quantumprogress.wordpress.com/

     
  5. I too, was very intrigued and wanted to find out more details, especially of the 10 points. But then you hit us with the whammy of having to buy the stuff. If you are going to encourage the 'average' teacher to just say no to the latest wheeze that is not based on any evidence, and go with the evidenced based teaching, you have to make it accessible to the 'average' teacher. That means not charging too much money for it, e.g. &pound;200. The only people who are likely to spend that kind of money are schools themselves. So presumably you are then preaching to the converted there.
    NICE idea but....
     
  6. Ahh another advert on TES.
    You claim to talk about evidence based treatment, but won't provide any evidence untill someone's coughed up the cash.
    Science has to be transparaent, and all data avalible for the process to work. You're asking us to have 'faith' in your ideas, which makes you as reliable as any other nonsence peddler claiming to have a magic fix.
    Unfortunatly evidence based teaching seems to be the latest buzzword/trend catching on, and doens't mean what it should.
    Show me the evidence, allow me to critique the studies and show me it works.
     
  7. The aim of this video is to promote debate and interest. We could not supply all the information in 15 mins and so have pointed to the sources in the books referenced.
    Sure, we are involved in creating and marketing some products which, we hope, will make this evidence more accessible to teachers, but you can find it all out by borrowing the books from a library, buying second hand or persuading your school to get them.
     
  8. " I have made this short film which makes the case for evidence based teaching."

    Sorry Oakbell - at no point in the video did you make the case for evidence based teaching. No evidence was given to support your case and no evidence was given to dispprove the efficacy of other styles of teaching.
    This is not to say that no evidence exists. I think your idea of promoting debate & interest is a good one - but without any substantive evidence, you will get uninformed & vacuous debate. Are there research papers available in the public domain that you can point us to in order to further your cause & stimulate debate?
    In the absence of this.......I repeat my encouragement for those interested in improving their science teaching to look at the Pseudoteaching related blogs that DO provide both qualitative and quantitative evidence of good & bad science teaching practice. Most of it seems to be from the US, so I am not always sure which age group they are referring to, but there is a refreshing honesty & clarity of expression (& no sales) in there.


     
  9. And there I was thinking that you were just trying to sell your books and courses.
    How about linking us to some published, peer reviewed studies or metaanalysis. You know, the primary evidence?
    I find it a little disturbing that as a scientist, you fail to understand the need for transparency and access to data.

    BTW I was with you up untill around the 7 min mark, then things became a sales exercise.
     
  10. chemroger

    chemroger New commenter

    This was what I thought really but did not want to be the first to say it.
    Interesting enough but basically states that we should only us good evidence to dictate how we teach. Well of course this is the case and true of how we should conduct scientific research or any research.
    A NICE organisation for education would be nice (sorry!) as it would stop education methodolgy being succesptible to being a political football, but is not happening any time soon with money so short.
    They are using this forum to pedal their material and I don't buy their defence one bit.
    If they are not then upload all your material for free or for an affordable price which covers the cost of production only.
     
  11. it doesn't cost anything to reference a peer revied meta-analysi. But the whole idea seems to be to pimp their mate's books.
     

Share This Page