Evidence based-practice and the reflective teacher

Transcription

1 1 Evidence based-practice and the reflective teacher By Professor Thomas Nordahl Visible Learning has received, and continue to receive, a considerable amount of attention in Norway. The work has had a positive influence on boards of education, school leaders and teachers with regard to their perspectives on learning and on what has an effect on learning. This has contributed toward a greater focus on the connection between teaching and learning. At the same time, however, the book has sparked debate. Several critical reviews of Visible Learning, along with various scholarly and practical consequences of this model, have been published. I will now discuss what I believe to be the three most essential and most frequently broached arguments against this model. 1. Reluctance towards evidence-based research in the educational system. 2. Visible Learning contributes toward instrumentalism and indiscriminative teachers. 3. The key principles of Visible Learning cannot be transferred to the Norwegian context. Reluctance towards evidence-based research in the educational system In the field of social sciences, evidence refers to the best available knowledge within a profession or in general society. It deals with research that can provide answers as to the type of practice which is likely to yield the best possible outcome for certain target groups under set conditions (Tengvall 2003). In the field of social sciences and education, evidence may increase the probability of desired outcome, though there is no guarantee that a favourable outcome will ensue. In short, evidence is a question of what works, based on the results from a variety of contributions and measures (Ogden 2012). This is an important question in the field of educational practice where one seeks to have an impact on the knowledge, skills and attitudes of children and adolescents. Education is an intentional enterprise, where the teacher has been given the task of influencing both scholarly learning and the social and personal development of children and adolescents. Within this enterprise we are expected to ask what works, and we should not give the impression that anything will work or that everything works equally well.

2 2 Evidence-based research may provide answers to the question of what seems to have the best effect on students learning, and is therefore necessary for the growth and development of our schools. Reluctance toward evidence-based research is often founded on concerns that results may be misused by bureaucrats and politicians in the educational sector, and that this knowledge will conflict with ethical principles in professional practice. It is feared that they will set a standard for a certain type of knowledge that teachers and schools will be forced to utilise. Evidence would therefore become a political project, used to control professional practitioners (Grimen 2008). It seems odd that this fear of, and reluctance toward evidence-based research also exists in Norway. Virtually no evidence-based research has been done in the field of educational sciences in Scandinavia during the past 30 years (Nordenbo m. fl. 2008). Therefore, unfavourable experience with evidence-based research is unlikely to be the reason for the strong reluctance toward this type of research. Much of the criticism comes from those who have neither practice or research experience with quantitative and evidence-based methods. To assert that educational research cannot provide results that will lead to more effective teaching is not only unfortunate; it is also wrong. By increasing the scope of evidence-based research, we would be able to provide better information to practitioners regarding the type of educational practice that is most likely to provide students with optimal learning opportunities and achievement. The conclusion from Visible Learning is that a student s learning process has little to do with organisational aspects, financial resources, school infrastructure or number of teachers. Learning is about what happens when teachers and students are together, not about what goes on outside the classroom. Such conclusions may of course be perceived as problematic for teachers and school leaders, giving rise to reluctance toward this type of research. Visible Learning leads to instrumentalism and unreflecting teachers Instrumentalism refers to a practice based on what others have told you to do. In the educational sector this would imply that teachers must use teaching manuals that describe what should be done, and how to do it. The teacher is reduced to an employee who simply carries out orders. The counter-argument against instrumentalism cites the autonomous

3 3 teacher whose practice is founded on good educational judgment the independent teacher who provides lessons for her students based on her own experiences and values. Studying what works is not the same as pursuing the best method (Ogden 2012). Evidence deals with the development of knowledge, and within the field of education this would have little to do with descriptions of techniques or production of manuals. Evidencebased practice deals with knowledge-based principles, strategies and methods that teachers can use while planning their curriculum and teaching students. This means that good teaching is not dependent on any particular method, but the teacher must learn and become proficient in many facets of teaching and interaction with the students. The Visible Learning programme asserts that we need teachers who are able to use research-based knowledge to reflect on and discuss their own practice. Teachers must meet to deliberate, evaluate and plan their curriculum utilising critical reflection in light of evidencebased knowledge. If we want students to realise their learning potential, we must challenge the teaching methods, because students learning processes depend on the kind of teaching they receive. For the benefit of the students we ought to begin to discuss and evaluate the variables that research has found to have the greatest effect on learning. It cannot be all about autonomy and educational judgment. That would be a form of relativism where everything is equally good. In his book, Thinking Slow and Fast, Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman presents two modes of thought: The fast mode (System 1) and the slow mode (System 2). System 1 operates automatically and promptly without any particular effort or inner control. This is the intuitive and instinctive mode of thought that cannot be turned off. System 2 involves purposeful and strictly conscious mental activities, such as rationality, deliberate decisions, actions and intentions. These two modes of thought also intrude on one another. Emphasis on reflection and conscious deliberation will influence intuitive thought. Reflection, concentration and attention in System 2 mode will lead to improved intuition and therefore more favourable decisions and actions when we use System 1 mode. Optimal intuition and automatic action both require the ability to concentrate. Examples include learning a foreign language or the multiplication table. Once we ve learned them, they take very little effort. The acquisition of knowledge, on the other hand, demands both attention and concentration.

4 4 This would imply that the work of the intuitive and autonomous teacher should be founded on research-based knowledge to ensure that students achieve optimal results. Teachers would be required to spend time and effort in acquiring, reflecting on and of course utilising this research-based knowledge. When this fundamental knowledge exists, then the teachers prompt and autonomous decisions will tend to be research-based. If Visible Learning is used as intended, it will help to promote reflective and knowledgeable teachers who know what they are doing and why they are doing it. The key principles of Visible Learning cannot be transferred to the Norwegian context Several Norwegian critics of Visible Learning are concerned that the contextual conditions are not being taken into account. This argument involves distinctive aspects of Norwegian schools and the challenges of specific contextual conditions of certain studies. The particular contextual conditions of certain studies that Visible Learning is founded on will, to a great extent, be ensured by the large number of meta-analyses, and also single analyses that effect size and conclusions are based on. Therefore, that which is distinctive in one study can be balanced against distinctive conditions in other studies. In determining what is distinctive to the Norwegian context, our evaluation should be based not only on how we clearly differ from other countries with regard to culture and educational system, but also what we have in common with other countries. It is my experience that we often discuss the differences and not the similarities. This is analogous to high school teachers who say they they re not able learn anything from primary school teachers because the systems are so different. Or that schools with mediocre results cannot learn anything from a school in the same district with good results, because of the differences between the parents educational levels. Or that math teachers can t learn from teachers who teach practical aesthetic subjects because the unique qualities of the subjects make it impossible to exchange ideas. This type of contextual argument, which implies that we cannot learn from one another, may be rooted in avoidance, insecurity and unwillingness to grow and develop as a school, a school system or as a teacher. By emphasizing cultural and contextual differences, we will not have to deal with the actual results from studies such as Visible Learning. We could instead have a somewhat intellectual discussion on why we cannot use this type of study. Basically

5 5 we could abandon all critical perspectives on national, local and individual educational practice, but Norwegian students do not deserve this. I believe that the best way to approach the type of evidence-based research represented by Visible Learning is to discuss and reflect on what this might mean for the individual school and individual teacher. This is not to say that we should automatically accept this knowledge, but that we should develop research-based working hypotheses that can be tested in practice. If we do this systematically, we will gain both experience and knowledge about what gives results, both in the Norwegian context and in the individual school. Reference: Dufour, R. & Marzano, R. J. (2011): Leaders of learning. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge. Hattie (2012): Visible learning for teachers. Maximazing impact on learning. New York: Routeledge. Kahneman, D (2012): Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Nordahl, T. og Hansen, O. (2012 ) (red): Dette vet vi om. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk. Ogden, T: (2012): Evidensbasert praksis i arbeidet med barn og unge. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk