In light of Hattie’s paradigm
shift, ‘evidence-based research’ has gained a lot of traction in educational
discourse and research. Visible Learning is an exemplary indication of the
power of evidence-based research. Like any theoretical justification in
educational research, ‘evidence-based research’ has become the modern standard from which to justify decisions
and actions made in all facets of the educative process. It stems from the paradigmatic
shift towards a ‘professionalization of the workforce’ and the attitude that
anecdote is not enough to justify educational decisions from the classroom
right through to educational policy. Like all trends in education, this has kick-started
a global movement with a multiplicity of ‘research’ and interest groups
invested in translating and marketing their products under the
banner of evidence: Evidence-based
practice has become commercialised. Quite disconcerting is the fact that
educators seem to accept that good educational products need only be considered
evidence-based, irrespective of whether the ‘evidence-based practice’ provides
any evidence at all that it is conducive to meeting its claims or providing any
substantial evidence.
We have to proceed with caution
and must remain vigilant with our scepticism for a very good reason: what constitutes
as evidence really boils down to whom and what we consider to be an expert. In
the world of amateur-experts, myself considered, where opinion is marketed freely
on the web with little to no credentials in being able to discern fact from
fiction, how are we to really come to grips with the scientific truths inherent
to the educative process? What is true, above and beyond all contextual
features that influence the educative process, is that all learners are
biologically the same and even the manifestly differing phenomena they present with
can be reduced to the same principles and drives. And this is important – we intuitively
work within a world of difference and are so focussed on producing
individualistic ideologies that we remain blind to the processes that unite
each and every one of us. For what is true
must be true for all time and for all learners. Of course, this runs against
out intuition for we see a world of differences – the narrative of education is
fuelled by this principle.
The role of scientific research for
education is conflictual as it contradicts many long standing ideals and
frameworks of understanding in education and educational research. Not only
does ‘evidence’ often contradict our intuitive understandings, but the systemic
methodology of scientific research does not bide well when it comes to finding
resolutions between the truth and
economic, political, or any other interest groups who are heavily invested in
education. It lucks out, at the outset, by its intrinsic counter-intuitive
nature – and truths need to be marketed to interest groups in ways that make
the counter-intuitive sensible and comprehensible. This process, often referred
to as translation, more often than
not violates the original research. Thus we have a process from which ‘evidence-based
practice’ becomes counter-factual, intuitively appealing, and profit making.
Just look at the predominance of ‘brain training’ that is marketed on an
industry of neuromyths – all justified as ‘evidence-based’.
In addition, proper
evidence-based research (that is scientifically validated research) that is epistemically
interested in truth is often ignored,
defamed or trivialised by those whose ideological agendas are threatened. Even
at the teacher level scientific research is not taken very seriously. Most
teachers remain ignorant to the truths by which educational research is based
on – most are readily to accept the ‘evidence’ from evidence-based practice as
a justification of educational decisions. Very few are given the tools to both
take scientific research seriously and discern fact from fiction. In another
blog I hinted at the exploitation rife in the industry and a framework that all
teachers should use as a means of utilising scepticism in order to better
understand claims of evidence. Perhaps this could be something I could improve
on if the interest if there.
One thing going against the
scientific research is the ensuing and often acrimonious debates about
conflicts in scientific educational research. Scientific research is not exempt
from the ideological forces (as noted above) that impede on claims of truth, and is openly exploited for
production and marketing purposes. Importantly, however, this amounts to little
when all things considered. Despite what I have presented, resolution is not
decided by those who are concerned with the evidence.
Experts are often concerned with meeting the ideological demands of their
industry – we trust these experts to
rely on evidence, yet they often fail to. What it comes down to is not
scientific resolution, but simply people making decisions about what they value. And what we value most is what is most intuitively appealing. The paradigm
shift that is gaining traction in academic circles is taken very seriously, but
it has a long way to go in the educational sector that is interested in what
sounds good and not necessarily what is true.
Jesse Stephens
No comments:
Post a Comment