Credibility vs. Crapolo
Public educators get their info on what (supposedly) works and what doesn’t work from books and articles, conference presentations, workshops, and internet websites.
Examine a fair sized sample of eduinfo and you’ll find that EVERYTHING works.
That’s why classrooms, schools, and districts are stuffed to the rafters with every ridiculous and unvalidated “program” and “pedagogy” to come off the fad wagon.
Well, wait a sec. Let’s be more accurate.
Everything yacked up by eduprogressives is said to work and is touted to the skies. Here’s an example that is not as far-fetched as you might think.
Reach Every Student with
Kinesthetic Phonics
“Kinesthetic phonics is an innovative method for teaching phonics. It appeals to the natural flexibility of children. It is especially useful for students who have a kinesthetic learning style---who learn best when they hold their bodies in the position that best represents what they are seeing or hearing.
In kinesthetic phonics, the teacher assists children to twist their bodies into the shapes of letters. For example, when studying the sound made by the letter O, one child is asked to curl herself into a circle. The teacher then has the class observe the child while the teacher provides instruction.
Teacher: “Look, boys and girls, Olanda is in the shape of the letter O. Olanda, please make the sound of the letter O.”
Olanda: “Ohhhh.”
Teacher: “Good, Olanda. The letter O says ohhh.”
Olanda: “It hurts! It hurts! Ooooohhhhh.”
Of course, the letters z and w are difficult and may require conjoined twins to complete the shape.
Kinesthetic Phonics was thoroughly field tested by asking four teachers who were standing in a field what they thought.
Fully 75% of the teachers thought that Kinesthetic Phonics was “swell,” “great,” “with Kinesthetic Phonics, I have the whole world on a plate,” and “with Kinesthetic Phonics, everything’s coming up roses.”
However, nothing offered by proponents of traditional (systematic, direct, mastery-oriented) instruction is ever advocated by the progressive establishment---no matter how much scientific research shows that systematic instruction is far superior to progressive noninsruction. Project Follow Through is perhaps the most disgraceful example of eduprogressive duplicity that has ensured that three more generations of our most vulnerable children
remain in the ghetto---all the while progressives yammer about being champions of social justice.
Effective School Practices, on Project Follow Through.
This incredible page provides resources for evaluating claims made by eduwriters. These resources will enable you to separate the credible and the incredible, the valid and the invalid, the useful and the useless, the beneficial and the harmful, the truth and the pure hooey.
Resources For Evaluating Claims
Internal and External Validity
Telling the Difference Between Baloney and Serious Claims About What Works
Comprehensive Guidelines for Evaluating Research and Publications
Checklist of Guidelines for Evaluating Research and Research Claims
Applications of the Resources (above) to Eduwriting
Following are several papers in education. I, Prof Plum, have made extensive (and brilliant) comments in them that will help you to detect the bunk vs. the good stuff.
“How multiple intelligence informs teaching at New City School.”
“The effects of synthetic phonics teaching on reading and spelling attainment”
[Good stuff. What you want to see.]