Action 2.6: The methodology underpinning evidence-based practice
Sunday, 11 Jan 2015, 01:04
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Nathan Lomax, Monday, 12 Jan 2015, 23:36
What are the main points of Hargreaves' argument?
Ed. research has a lot to learn from medicine.
There is a need for more evidence to be gathered by teachers to help establish 'what works'..
In what respects is Hargreaves' argument convincing?
Like Ball, Hargreaves argues for the inclusion of different stakeholders in the research process e.g. teachers as researcher practitioners'. This seems logical given the need mentioned elsewhere to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
Increasing knowledge for all parties on what areas are attracting funding and why, through a national research council may help to increase transparency and avoid funding due to vested interests (as outlined by Ball).
Hargreaves argues for the benefits of following the steps of diagnosis, prognosis and therapy in teaching. This fits with the established method of helping learners develop. Students undergo a needs analysis (usually a placement test), their level is established and work prescribed to help them. This seems a straightforward link between medicine and teaching.
What questions would you want to ask about his position?
Hargreaves compares the number of variables involved in medical research with the complexity of student attitudes and behaviour. This is where, for me, the link between educational and medical research becomes more tenuous. Clinical research into medical problems seems more quantifiable than attempting to classify human behaviour.
Hargreaves argues for appointing 'experts' in subject and school leadership, in order for education to be more closely aligned with the 'structures and cultures' of medicine. This seems to be what Ball (2011) warns against when he describes the dangers of 'entrepreneurial headships' as a perceived solution to failing schools. Hargreaves' desire for the implementation of more 'standardised and measurable procedures' also suggests the kind of positivist or 'policy science' approach that Ball (2011) rails against.
Hargreaves also suggests increased powers of data collection and analysis by OFSTED, which should be used to 'garner harder evidence about effective practice'. The danger of this quantitative approach may be that it ignores elements such as the social milieu in which the school is situated and how this may affect student performance regardless of the teaching methods in place.The suggestion that only schools defined as good should be given extra funding (p.13) to investigate reasons for their success ignores the same social issues.
Action 2.6: The methodology underpinning evidence-based practice
What are the main points of Hargreaves' argument?
Ed. research has a lot to learn from medicine.
There is a need for more evidence to be gathered by teachers to help establish 'what works'..
In what respects is Hargreaves' argument convincing?
Like Ball, Hargreaves argues for the inclusion of different stakeholders in the research process e.g. teachers as researcher practitioners'. This seems logical given the need mentioned elsewhere to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
Increasing knowledge for all parties on what areas are attracting funding and why, through a national research council may help to increase transparency and avoid funding due to vested interests (as outlined by Ball).
Hargreaves argues for the benefits of following the steps of diagnosis, prognosis and therapy in teaching. This fits with the established method of helping learners develop. Students undergo a needs analysis (usually a placement test), their level is established and work prescribed to help them. This seems a straightforward link between medicine and teaching.
What questions would you want to ask about his position?
Hargreaves compares the number of variables involved in medical research with the complexity of student attitudes and behaviour. This is where, for me, the link between educational and medical research becomes more tenuous. Clinical research into medical problems seems more quantifiable than attempting to classify human behaviour.
Hargreaves argues for appointing 'experts' in subject and school leadership, in order for education to be more closely aligned with the 'structures and cultures' of medicine. This seems to be what Ball (2011) warns against when he describes the dangers of 'entrepreneurial headships' as a perceived solution to failing schools. Hargreaves' desire for the implementation of more 'standardised and measurable procedures' also suggests the kind of positivist or 'policy science' approach that Ball (2011) rails against.
Hargreaves also suggests increased powers of data collection and analysis by OFSTED, which should be used to 'garner harder evidence about effective practice'. The danger of this quantitative approach may be that it ignores elements such as the social milieu in which the school is situated and how this may affect student performance regardless of the teaching methods in place.The suggestion that only schools defined as good should be given extra funding (p.13) to investigate reasons for their success ignores the same social issues.