"Well-supported" is not a claim. What are your outcome measures, and why do they represent a good target?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
There's a dearth of RCTs, though a large RCT on Montessori schools kicked off last year. It's difficult to get funding for research on schools the public system is unwilling to fund in the first place, no? A great review on the literature for preschools: https://www.amazon.com/Mandate-Playful-Learning-Preschool-Presenting/dp/0195382714/ …
In general, I'll admit that much of my research has moved away from the "most rigorous" academic literature because (as it would) it tends to focus on very small variations within standard lecture-based classrooms and use measures that we know tend to revert to the mean over time
-
-
I would love for there to be a diverse, methodologically-sound body of literature on education, but that's not what I've found. The outcome measures are a big problem, for many of the reasons Harvard Education prof Daniel Koretz highlights in his book: https://www.amazon.com/Measuring-Up-Educational-Testing-Really/dp/0674035216/ …
-
In general, I'd like to see more studies: — examine more ambitious interventions — assess retention/skills over periods longer than a few hours, days, or weeks — assess adult outcomes — not resort to the obvious methodological/statistical "cheats" to get something usable
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.