Colleagues,
Recently, we had a wonderful discussion about the 30 million word gap.There has been significant conversations lately on if this gap truely exists or if the original research has been debunked. So, both sides of the research spectrum have very valid points to consider. This brought me to the question I would like to pose to this group. How do you research and provide evidence-based promising practices in professional development with a world of constant and rapid information, some of it contradictory?
This question is broader than the example of the 30 million word gap, but that example is intended top prompt a discussion about the very rapid pace of educational literature and how it evolves very quickly.
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Kathy
Comments
Kathy and others,
Kathy, you asked, "How do you research and provide evidence-based promising practices in professional development with a world of constant and rapid information, some of it contradictory?" Great question. One possible way to sort out evidence of effective practice is to keep in mind these three considerations:
What works? e.g. the curriculum content, the instructional approach or practices, the education software, or a combination of these
For whom? e.g. what kinds of students, what level(s) with what learning goal(s) or purpose(s)
Under what conditions or circumstances? e.g. instructional intensity ranges from 2 hours a week to 20 hours a week in our field. Is the instruction with a face-to-face only instructional model, a hybrid (face-to-face and online) model, a blended learning (integrated face-to-face and online) model, a pure distance learning model? Does the instruction take place in a large, medium or small class, a tutorial, a learning circle, etc.
Sometimes the evidence is not so much contradictory as evidence that may be for different approaches, kinds of learners, or done under different conditions or circumstances.
Another important consideration is whether the evidence measures outcomes (short-term) or impact (long-term). When we only have short-term (e.g. pre-test - instruction - post-test) education outcome measures we may get different results compared with the long-term impact. The Perry pre-school study program outcomes from the 1960's showed little effect on children from the high quality intervention in the short term. However, after several decades the researchers found a huge positive impact on income and health of the grown-up children; their childrens' success in school, their lower participation in the criminal justice system, and other positive effects of a high quality program. The only longitudinal study we have of adult learners over time, the LSAL in Portland Oregon, shows positive impacts, for example on annual earnings, that only showed up after at least five years and for those with at least 100 hours of instruction.
David J. Rosen