1. 2
  1.  

  2. 2

    An interesting article - even though the title is rather misleading. Why is there not more double blind educational research, it might help find the answer to poor educational outcomes? This sort of research seems to be more of a gut feel approach - although it does seem eminently more sensible then some of our current educational practice. conflict of interest: I would love to do a Ph.D on educational research :~)

    1. 3

      Why is there not more double blind educational research

      I think it is hard to find people would knowingly have their own kids experimented on. If someone were proposing a new/cool technique for educating children, would you want your kids to be in the “control” group that didn’t get the latest technique?

      1. 1

        would you want your kids to be in the “control” group

        What if the new/cool technique does not work and your kids just lost one/two/three years of instruction?

        Working with children is also difficult because it is challenging to separate the effects of your instruction from factors outside the control of the teacher/researcher (even if you have a control group). On top of that, causation does not mean causation, which opens a completely different problem to address once you have your results.

        1. 1

          Bit late on the reply but in medicine they manage it - and getting it wrong can kill people. I agree that getting this right is not easy, but the current lack of evidence doesn’t help anyone. Like medicine there will be times when the placebo effect is better than the therapy or teaching method.

    2. 1

      The article didn’t really convince me that primary school teachers could be trained to effectively teach math this way. That’s really a problem with new math education initiatives like this. It’s a lot harder to get support and buy-in from adults than from children.