Comments for IOE London blog

Comment on What’s in an A-level score? The new floor targets for post 16 by Jennie Golding

Jennie Golding — Fri, 24 May 2013 19:29:32 +0000

I think it’s worse than Chris suggests, because it takes into account neither prior attainment nor relative difficulty (or value) of the A Level: grade Ds in Mathematics and Physics A Levels are valuable currency for a not-particularly academic student wishing to go into Engineering, and a real achievement from mediocre attainment at GCSE, as well as much-needed in terms of national supply. Under either of the measures discussed, there would be every incentive for centres to encourage such a student to look at ‘softer’ options – or non-A Level courses.

Comment on Is the promotion of mutual respect and tolerance incompatible with the faith ethos of some schools? by jonnyscaramanga

jonnyscaramanga — Fri, 24 May 2013 12:49:03 +0000

Reblogged this on Leaving Fundamentalism and commented: A post I wrote for my university's blog a while back. More joys from ACE; almost every link leads to a PACE scan.

Comment on The predictive value of GCSEs and AS-levels: what works for university entrance? by Chris Husbands

Chris Husbands — Fri, 24 May 2013 06:25:17 +0000

It’s fair to say that this blog focuses only on the predictive issues. It doesn’t address the question of what AS does for students (broader curriculum, allowing students to try subjects they may lack confidence in whilst offering an interim award) or schools (Mark’s point). The questions are complex and need a few more words than were on offer here!

Comment on Evidence-based practice: why number-crunching tells only part of the story by JFB

JFB — Thu, 23 May 2013 21:47:21 +0000

I think your points confirm mine quite well because the sum total of IOEs’ long standing engagement and furthering, the directors influence and support for voices in favour has produced no controlled experiments, indicating that its commitment is evidently fairly slight.
Also as IOE represents a large chunk the education research community its collective views have a great influence on funding decisions, therefore to say its hamstrung by funding decisions is contradictory as collectively it has a large say over those funding decisions. The brick wall Ann Oakley encountered, the historical and on-going absence of funding for RCT therefore is a good indicator of the lack of support from the field which senior IOE members are a major part of and all of a sudden seem to now to be trying to claim they have been fighting for all along.
It does not seem clear why Ann Oakley required prohibitive amounts of funding to carry out controlled experiments as essentially they only involve identifying a group of interest, selecting a representative number of them at random, giving them the intervention and comparing their outcomes with others who didn’t receive it. This is largely to same procedure as delivering an intervention under any circumstances only its’ necessary to record who has received the programme and who hasn’t. I have not needed extra funding in my experience of doing several RCTs in education. This suggests Ann’s dreams may have been quite elaborate.
Whilst I take your point that IOE education researchers have been contemplating the issue of experimental methods for a long time I am not clear how highlighting the length of their meditations addresses doubts about the depth and robustness of thought that has lead them to be halted in their progress by a consensus that unlike almost all other fields of enquiry educations’ complexity prevents them overcoming the challenge of comparing the outcomes for those receiving their practise to the outcomes of those experiencing otherwise the same circumstances but not receiving it.
I am afraid, I am not clear how redirecting me back to the report I am commenting on deals with concerns about how informed researchers are who feel that education faces complexities that exceed those in fields such as psychology, neuroscience, and physiology that overcome the complexities they face to almost exclusively use experimental methods to make progress. Surely justifying the position that education faces uniquely complex conditions rendering it impermeable to experimental methods involves showing what conditions in education are unique to it, especially problematic to control for and more complex than those overcome for example in psychology and behavioural neuroscience.

Comment on The predictive value of GCSEs and AS-levels: what works for university entrance? by Mark Thornber

Mark Thornber — Thu, 23 May 2013 17:24:59 +0000

Cambridge have also made the case that AS is a better predictor for students who took GCSEs at under-performing 11-16 schools, surely a strong point in their favour given the desire on the part of government to improve access to highly regarded HE institutions. It’s worth noting that the DfE took no account of the relative performance of the schools involved, even though this is surely available from the National Pupil Database. Most of the paper is taken up with tedious detail about the corrections made for differing standards at universities, but the most important input factor was completely ignored.

Comment on The predictive value of GCSEs and AS-levels: what works for university entrance? by behrfacts

behrfacts — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:39:14 +0000

The main purpose of AS was to encourage more breadth in the academic system post16, the argument against is to do with too much assessment, the breadth being compensated for via improved non-academic routes (problem is we don’t really have them yet, as you note in your interim report to the Labour Party). The university outcomes prediction is, as you indicate, a bit of a red herring. I suspect 16-19 schools and colleges would like to have an additional measure to hand to improve the accuracy of their UCAS application processes, especially if more accountability pressures comes their way via HE destination targets.

Comment on Evidence-based practice: why number-crunching tells only part of the story by Blog Editor

Blog Editor — Thu, 23 May 2013 11:08:29 +0000

JFB – a quick search of the IOE’s website will show that IOE colleagues have long been closely engaged in furthering quantitative research in education and specifically in understanding the role of (and conducting) RCTs in the fields of education and related areas of social policy. As Geoff notes in his blog, Ann Oakley made a similar case for RCTs over a decade ago, but at that time “faced a lack of funding on anything like the scale needed to realise her dream”. Funding will necessarily shape the kinds of research that is conducted. I’d also point you in the direction of Geoff Whitty’s 2005 BERA Presidential Address, which set out his position on the need for both quantitative and qualitative research in education, and the other factors that influence policy decisions, as reflected in his recent blog piece. Ben Goldacre’s report clarifies the issues regarding the need to know what works, for whom, under different conditions.

Comment on Evidence-based practice: why number-crunching tells only part of the story by Ben Waugh (@benwaughuk)

Ben Waugh (@benwaughuk) — Tue, 21 May 2013 13:44:09 +0000

So we need a better placebo for the control group: a shiny new method that is not expected to lead to any improvement in learning. That sounds even harder to sell than being part of a control group using the old method. Perhaps we need to compare two (or more) new methods in each trial, so we get a better idea of which if either leads to a greater improvement. We still don’t get a valid comparison with the old method this way though. On the other hand, if existing practice varies between schools it might be possible to find classes where some “old way” is a change from their own current system.

Comment on Evidence-based practice: why number-crunching tells only part of the story by JFB

JFB — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:52:09 +0000

Both Rebecca’s Allens and Geoff Whitty’s comments to Ben Goldacres’ DfE Analytical Review seem to be saying ‘well of course we need randomised controlled studies in education, I have been saying this all along, however, I have always advocating going much further and using much more sophisticated and nuanced interpretation that applies only to education to say what works for whom and under what conditions’. This humbug is beyond tolerance on several levels, as firstly during Geoff’s 10 years premiership of the leading education research institution his organisation did not carry out any randomised control trials. Similarly, throughout Rebeccas’ career, apparently dedicated to this paradigm shift she has not previously carried one out. So this adherence to RCT seems a rather rapid conversion suspiciously coincidental with recent rise in criticism of the methods that come from outside education research establishment they are central members of. Secondly, their understanding of RCT methodology suggests the topic is ‘Google new’ to them as they say its’ different in education than it is in medicine because unlike medicine in education we must know what works for whom and under what conditions. When in medicine it is also necessary to know what works whom and under what conditions for example a drug supposed to treat Parkinson’s disease (what) should help those with Parkinson’s disease (whom) at this dose at this stage of the disease (what conditions). It is hard to imagine what experiments they are thinking of that don’t specify what, whom in what conditions. Moreover these comments seem to attempt to claim credit for inventing afresh the idea of what’s called the ‘methods’ section in the write up of any experiment in any research in any field and taught in the first week of any research methods course (apparently apart from education). Their hubris is further compounded by their attempt to imply that they have added substantially to the debate by suggesting that readers of education research need to be careful to bear in mind that studies on for example, 15 year olds Maths in average UK schools, would only apply only to 15 year olds Maths in average UK schools and not 4 year olds music lessons in a Viennese conservatoires. These comments seem to suggest that the Rebecca and Geoff think that teachers will not be able to make this inference.
Further clarifying the recency of their thoughts on the subject they seem to think it is informative to point out that experiments without theory aren’t very helpful, when any view of the history of experimental science suggests fairly clearly that doing experiments on things you think might work is more helpful that doing experiments on things you don’t think might work. They go on to suggest a solution to this problem is to ask for expensive qual studies with RCT, a call likely to put off funders rather than encourage them at a time when as Rebecca rightly points out schools and funders are million miles away from buying into the need for RCT. A step likely to preserve the perennial problem stymieing education research where whenever asked to research anything education researchers respond ‘oh its very complicated’, interpreted by funders to mean expensive and producing inconclusive results. All this seems to suggest Rebecca and Geoff may have gathered their thoughts on the issue of promoting RCT rather more hurriedly than they may have us believe.

Comment on Evidence-based practice: why number-crunching tells only part of the story by Sue Cowley

Sue Cowley — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:04:25 +0000

I missed this at the time you wrote it, but wrote something similar here:

http://suecowley.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/everything-in-moderation/

In teaching, context means so much. Plus the effect that an individual teacher can have, for good or for bad, is huge.

I really enjoyed reading all the comments as well, particularly what Eddie said here about reading/phonics.

Thanks.