A recent article at Edutopia is bound to end up informing teacher professional development sessions. I’ve already seen some of the guidance end up in the classrooms that I support.
It offers six practices to implement in classrooms to boost learning.
ASSESS MORE, GRADE LESS
GIVE STUDENTS TEXTS THEY AREN’T PREPARED TO READ
DESIGN FAILURE RIGHT INTO YOUR LESSONS
QUIZ STUDENTS BEFORE THEY LEARN THE MATERIAL
DON’T ANSWER STUDENT QUESTIONS
ENCOURAGE A LITTLE NOISE
The author cites several studies, so I dived into them with gusto.
Examines 6th graders randomly assigned to groups to test their hypothesis. No information on students with IEPs is provided. Doesn’t answer the question as to if the results can apply to a wider population of students, older students, or students with IEPs.
Offers one educator’s opinion, citing a bunch of old studies, that aren’t about special education.
The linked study featured no autistic students or students with IEPs. Attempts to individualise results met with the following disclaimer: “Note that the MANCOVA was carried out treating each individual student as an independent observation. Because students worked in groups, this assumption of independence is not valid, and a MANCOVA may result in a more liberal significance level. Ideally, we would have carried out a multilevel analysis, but the sample size was too small vis-à-vis the number of variables being analyzed. Although this remains a limitation, it is somewhat mitigated by the large F values of the multivariate and univariate effects (Hox,1995).”
The pay-walled article’s abstract speaks generically about the study. There’s no mention of the demographics of the studied population.
Offers one educator’s opinion, citing the 2000 Reading Panel. See my previous post about the lack of science in the Science of Reading for more information.
Offers two educators’ opinions.
Why do I break it down this way?
Often, the guidance in these puff piece articles directly contradict the language of an IEP. As an example, productive struggle / productive failure go against “direct / explicit instruction of new materials,” a common accommodation. What happens if your child is not getting their accommodations? The school has breached it’s contract with you, the parent. What happens if you’re a special educator and you witness your employer / co-worker violating the terms of an IEP? That’s where it gets sticky.
The next shiny object in education
The next shiny object in education
The next shiny object in education
A recent article at Edutopia is bound to end up informing teacher professional development sessions. I’ve already seen some of the guidance end up in the classrooms that I support.
It offers six practices to implement in classrooms to boost learning.
ASSESS MORE, GRADE LESS
GIVE STUDENTS TEXTS THEY AREN’T PREPARED TO READ
DESIGN FAILURE RIGHT INTO YOUR LESSONS
QUIZ STUDENTS BEFORE THEY LEARN THE MATERIAL
DON’T ANSWER STUDENT QUESTIONS
ENCOURAGE A LITTLE NOISE
The author cites several studies, so I dived into them with gusto.
Examines 6th graders randomly assigned to groups to test their hypothesis. No information on students with IEPs is provided. Doesn’t answer the question as to if the results can apply to a wider population of students, older students, or students with IEPs.
Offers one educator’s opinion, citing a bunch of old studies, that aren’t about special education.
The linked study featured no autistic students or students with IEPs. Attempts to individualise results met with the following disclaimer: “Note that the MANCOVA was carried out treating each individual student as an independent observation. Because students worked in groups, this assumption of independence is not valid, and a MANCOVA may result in a more liberal significance level. Ideally, we would have carried out a multilevel analysis, but the sample size was too small vis-à-vis the number of variables being analyzed. Although this remains a limitation, it is somewhat mitigated by the large F values of the multivariate and univariate effects (Hox,1995).”
The pay-walled article’s abstract speaks generically about the study. There’s no mention of the demographics of the studied population.
Offers one educator’s opinion, citing the 2000 Reading Panel. See my previous post about the lack of science in the Science of Reading for more information.
Offers two educators’ opinions.
Why do I break it down this way?
Often, the guidance in these puff piece articles directly contradict the language of an IEP. As an example, productive struggle / productive failure go against “direct / explicit instruction of new materials,” a common accommodation. What happens if your child is not getting their accommodations? The school has breached it’s contract with you, the parent. What happens if you’re a special educator and you witness your employer / co-worker violating the terms of an IEP? That’s where it gets sticky.
What do you think? What would you do?