Chief Medical Officers from around the country have today committed to not allowing the practices of medical staff to be influenced by medical research. Speaking on behalf of his colleagues, Dr Sid Nurk stated "Enough is enough. Doctors have been to university and they know what is right for their patients. Researchers aren't looking after patients, so they have no place in clinical decision making". Dr Nurk said from now on, patients would just have to work around the issue of doctor variability and accept that patients get better under some doctors and not under others.
It sounds a bit silly, doesn't it? And yet, the corollary of Dr Nurk's thinking is exactly what is proposed by Melbourne teacher and newspaper columnist Christopher Bantick, in a recent article in The Age entitled "It's time researchers let teachers do their job"
It's astonishing and deeply concerning to see a teacher argue such an anti-intellectual corner. No profession, whether teaching, medicine, engineering, law, or aviation should be allowed to "do its own thing" unfettered by scrutiny from interested stakeholders, taxpayers, friendly critics and/or researchers. That a teacher would publicly assert such a position affirms some of the worst stereotypes about education operating in an evidence-vacuum. It also leaves no obvious room for finding common ground characterised by genuine curiosity about what works best in the classroom, and under what circumstances. Academics whose research has a focus on education (of whom I am one) are typically motivated not only by intellectual rigour, but also by a sense of social justice that compels to action.
If evidence matters when we are treating cancer, building bridges, or flying aeroplanes, why doesn't it matter when we're educating the next generation of doctors, engineers and pilots?
(C) Pamela Snow 2015
Tweet
Posted here, Pam:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iferi.org/iferi_forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16&p=536#p536
Thanks Debbie!
ReplyDeletecheers
Pam
I shall risk incurring the wrath of many and say that I believe your arguments are simplistic. Although they seem to have face validity I feel that is about as far as their reliability goes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that teaching is th ebest research a teacher can undertake. When I am faced with an issue involving a single student, I will draw upon my experience of students learning in my classroom rather than an RCT conducted in Rangoon which showed that a particular strategy helped 51% of students and therefore was the most effective.
Research findings have their place but teachers should be left to decide whether to inform their own practice with specific research findings.
Most skills are developed via practice and teaching is a skill in my view. Practice makes perfect. Just as blacksmiths don't look to research when hammering a piece of white hot iron, teachers should not look to research for much of what they do.
In medical research, unlike educational research, nothing is said to 'work best' unless it has been demonstrated using placebo-controlled double-blind studies. There can therefore be much more confidence in medical research than in educational research. This is why Chief Medical Officers dismiss junk like homeopathy, while senior managers and inspectors in schools demand to see the use of dross like learning styles.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a blend of knowing what works for our students and keeping our eyes open to research to help us improve our teaching. For instance, I just came across the idea that you teach for a very short time ( 1 min) and then give students 1 to 2 min to repeat what was taught, then move on. I've never used it but it might help my students retain more. I am going to try it.
ReplyDeleteObviously individual teachers need to observe, hypothesise and adjust their teaching in a myriad of ways across the day, and skilled, experienced teachers do that in ways that advantage their learners.
ReplyDeleteBut to sentence teaching to a research-free existence is to condemn the field to an eternity of pseudo-science like learning styles, Brain Gym, coloured lenses, multiple intelligences, left-brain/right-brain learning, Whole Language, .....the list goes on.
Bantick is not suggesting to be "anti-intellectual" he is critical, in particular, of the research done by Hattie. At the 2005 ACER conference Hattie said, "We must contest the evidence – as that is the basis of a common understanding of progression." p14 That is exactly what Bantick is doing. It is ironic that Christopher Pyne used Hattie's research, particularly on class size, to justify not following through on the Gonski reforms. Which advocate more spending on: children from low socio-economic backgrounds, literacy skills and disadvantaged students - things you seem to be passionate about. If research is used for those sort of political ends it should be scrutinized THOROUGHLY. Fortunately, some (but not enough) academics have done this and confirmed, as Bantick states, Hattie's research is "arrant twaddle". For details of these peer reviews and other scrutiny see - http://visablelearning.blogspot.com/
ReplyDelete