The question is an intriguing one that has a variety of possibilities.   Firstly, it stands to reason that if teachers had time, they would likely be engaging in exploring the research and trends in education more fully, but time is a luxury they do not have.  Unless teachers are actively engaged in higher learning opportunities, spending time following research is at the bottom of the list of critical demands on their time.   The question also assumes that teachers are in full control of what ideas and educational strategies they are embracing and utilizing as a regular part of their daily instruction but this is not the case; and that is what leads to confusion about why professionals might be appearing to follow something that isn't based in sound research.  

Many of the items listed in the question are current Ministry initiatives or directives.   Many of these ideas are proclaimed as "thou shalts" and are filtered through a Board lens (especially when a Board is working with a 3 or 5 year plan), then disseminated through Senior Admin to principals, and finally are delivered to staff in a half hour session at a staff meeting or a portion of a PA day agenda.  These are imposed upon teachers, who are expected to understand and implement these into daily programming with little training or sufficient resources or coaching to consider fully what they are being told to do.   If they are lucky, they might receive a handy binder filled with partial examples of classroom activities and exemplars with some discussion of learning goals/success criteria that are appropriate to whatever particular idea is the currently in vogue. 

As teachers scramble to incorporate these Ministry or Board driven directives into daily practice they strive to find strong pedagogical connections to help them do this.   Many of the above ideas have sound applications in classroom practice and teachers often embrace or abandon ideas based on two main criteria:  do I have a choice?   and do I see improvements to student success in my own classroom?  When handled wisely and with skill, many of the ideas like Multiple Intelligences or SAMR in the classroom do provide significant improvements to student academic success and engagement.   In the end, everything a teacher does must be directly connected to assessment Of, For, and As learning, and as such, must be something that can be backed up and supported by the Growing Success document (for Ontario teachers), and the IEPs for individual students. Assessment is king and the ultimate ruler by which a teacher measures what is happening in their classroom and the application of effective pedagogy in their daily programming.  

The reality of it is, the teacher is on the bleeding edge, and performs a delicate balancing act daily between the demands of the employer, and the demands of the students/parents.    By the time research is conducted to any serious degree in regards to these educational initiatives and ideas, the teachers on the front lines have already been instructed by the Board or the Ministry to embrace or abandon at least four more initiatives that researchers haven't approached yet.   

Evidence Based Practice in a teacher's "real life" is the daily evidence gleaned by observation, execution, and assessment in their classroom; not what is carefully and painstakingly researched in academia.  

The entire system currently functions in a reactionary way to standardized test results and standings in international educational measures. To address the problems inherent in this, it's not the teachers that need to be seeking out and carefully reviewing the research (or lack thereof) about an educational theory or model.   Those at the most senior levels of Ministry and Board, who are driving the implementation of educational models, are the ones who should be actively engaging in making decisions based on carefully considered research.

Robin,

You ask important questions! Shelley is kind to teachers writing about their lack of time to follow current  research.I will be less kind and say that I feel too many teachers are followers rather than informed critical leaders trusting their professional judgment based on evidence from their their teaching. But I do feel  teachers are being silenced. While many welcome being handed new strategies, frameworks, models for teaching there are those who are not heard. The theories and practices you write about,then appear to take on their own lives as they  become truths and are passed on as truths like the game of whispers.  I know as this question is discussed we will all make sweeping generalizations about 'teachers'. and about' theories', about 'truths'. Yet when theories and new frameworks are handed down and adopted by Departments of Education, teachers trust  that they know the research and there is an expectation that  teachers  implement them . Standardizing educational practices contributes to the lack of critical consumption.

@Shelley - This is a long post - So I have a quite a few questions.  Why don't teachers question news ideas?  They don't have to do the research, but they can ask where is the research to support an idea?

Can you provide some evidence that teachers are forced by the board to teach using the strategies that I listed?  A ministry document?  A study?  Something?

My next question is why do these mythical bu seductive ideas get passed along without anyone asking where is the evidence - sounds like there are about 3-4 stages and still unsupported ideas are passed long?  Strange.

Can you provide me with ANY evidence that teacher formally collect information from their students and confirm that the  ideas that are not supported in the research, do indeed work in the classroom.  This would be startling and helpful information?  Do you have an resources to back up your claims?

You say assessment is the guiding criteria and Hattie (2009, 2012) would agree - BUT how many teachers actually get feedback from their students on a regular basis about how well they are teaching?  I am unaware of an reports, studies or documents document this process.  That said, what does assessment have to do with accepting non-research supported practices?

Goodness - I hope you really don't mean evidence based practice is what the teacher gleans from observation, execution and assessment.  That certainly can be part of growth and development, but that isn't what evidence-based practice is.  I assume you are referring to the Ontario, Government - there policy is in the attached document.

Now I have noted, that you haven't posted one reference or citation to support many of the statements you have made.  That would be a good start.  

So I will end where I started : Why don't teachers question news ideas? They don't have to do the research, but they can ask where is the research to support an idea?

Sorry - Here is the Ontario Government's Research & Education Policy

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/strategy.html

@Gloria - Yes, you make a strong point about Faculties of Education passing on myths and unsupported practices.  So of course, new teachers are not to be blamed.

And I think you might be right about some/many teachers  being followers to the extent that  they are not asking critical questions.  This is speculation, but I if wonder if the non- questioning, non-critical culture comes from the type of students who applies to be a teacher - I am guessing that most new teachers, the school system worked quite well and they succeeded by following the rules, listening to and obeying the teacher?  

And quite frankly, there may be "follow the rules" culture in education?  Not sure.

I have probably written this before but I often told the Graduate Diploma students I taught that they worried me the most as future teachers. They were dumbfounded and annoyed by my remark as only the ones with the highest grade point averages ( as undergraduates) were admitted. I explained that they concerned me because they had learned most successfully how to 'Do School,' and they were fated to repeat their successes and teach others how to 'do school,' unless they  disrupted and examined the norms of teaching and learning. They had to UNLEARN (as Will Richardson advocates) and be prepared and willing to be uncomfortable and take risks in order relearn. So yes, I agree with you Robin. We are often not attracting the right students to become teachers.

My guess is several factors contribute to this problem. One factor is the Schools of Education. Teachers do and think they way they have been taught. Many have been taught that teaching is an art and each teacher must discover the best way for them to teach. As an art, data are not relevant to learning how to teach. When data are considered they have not been taught that different way of collecting data (experimental design)  must be considered in evaluating the study in question. For too many teachers, a case study is as meaningful as a well conducted controlled experimental design. If the conclusions from these two types of studies differ,  they conclude we do not know which study to trust, rather than concluding the experimental study probably is providing the more reliable result.

@Gloria - I told my IS Math pre-service students the same thing.  They understood after a while though.  So yes, it's an interesting problem of having students with the content knowledge but clear problem with the pedagogical knowledge, especially for those who struggle with school.

@Anthony - I certainly invite disagreement - I never said that educational models do not have supports - main do.   What I am curious about are the ones that take hold and are not supported.  Surely you don't mean the ones I cited are supported?  Is so, could you please direct me to the research that supports any of the models that I posted.  I have no problems with qualitative research but I am aware of a number of large scale meta-analyses that strongly suggest there is no evidence to support claims made.  The SAMR model, for example, is a non starter.  There is no research to support that model that I am aware of.  Learning styles and homework are also well researched and there is limited research to support their use.  Multiple intelligences, by Gardner's own accounts, was NEVER meant to be use with a whole classroom and there is very little evidence to support its use in that forum. 

@Jim - I think you are quite right - In fact, through Hattie's work, schools of education have a limited impact on the quality of teaching. That's a startling conclusion.  Students who did not experience a faculty of education but were allowed to teach are no better of worse than students who when through regular training.  Ouch.  We need to so some work there for sure.  I wonder too if some teacher distrust educational research in general because of the perception that "researchers" don't really understand teaching, education and the real world. 

@Robin. Good points. although depressing. I think one of the reason Hattie found no effect of attending a school of education on teacher performance is the schools, for the most part, do not teach how to teach. They teach theories of learning/education, curriculum design and such, but not what to do in a classroom. That is what teachers need. 

@Jim - That certainly is possible, however, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.  I am pretty sure that in Ontario, the "what to so in the classroom" is far more emphasized.  The problem is that what is "emphasized" is often based on "teacher experience" in the classroom, from the mouths of veterans.  And that is partially a good thing because experience is REALLY valuable BUT it does need to be moderated with perspective and yes, a little evidence.   Without the theory and evidence, teaching new teachers "How to Teach" is pretty much hit and miss and that could also be a good reason why Colleges of Education do not have a significant influence.  I would have to look back at the individual studies, but it would be VERY hard to determined "why" there is no effect on a large scale.

@Anthony - The concern that I (and others - see attached) have with Bloom's taxonomy is not the categories per se (they seem quite useful), but the model itself which appears to treat the individual categories serially/hierarchical and as being independent when most credible learning models would see them as non-serial and highly interdependent.  So for example, an individual does not need understanding (Level 2)  to create (Level 6-7) and actually gain such knowledge through being creative, playing.  Or many of us can learning more knowledge through the process of evaluating.  Or by applying and evaluating, many of us move inert knowledge into memory. 

So using Bloom's taxonomy as a teaching guide is a problem.  That's what I meant. As an assessment tool, it certainly may have some value (would love to see your paper). On the other hand, the model appears to have been used for teaching & learning and setting learning goals and that  can be dangerous if used incorrectly.  For example, the common  practice in our province of dividing sections of tests into specific type of knowledge is counterproductive because it is arbitrarily and incorrectly compartmentalizing the assessment of learning.

http://goo.gl/qIxsaS

http://goo.gl/SoLhqD

Robin has a point. Nevertheless, we should remember that most of what teachers do in the classroom are NOT supported by research. They include 'facts' stated in the curriculum or course outline such as history, policy etc.

Robin's example such as Multiple intelligences in the classroom, learning styles, Bloom's taxonomy are descriptive tools (rationalized or philsophized mental categories and classifications) and not really MODELS (this term is ambiguous  too, sigh). For example, Maslow's famous hierarchy of needs. Is it really a model? Do those who use it 'need' proofs from research?

SHOULD teachers stop using Multiple intelligences in the classroom, learning styles, Bloom's taxonom for better understanding because they have scarce research support (that they work as a model for practice)?  Well, we should probably let teachers find the answer by themselves. 

BTW, we do not need to exaggerate, there is great deal of learning style research by education psychologists such as L-F Zhang or Robert Sternberg.

@Jae - I'm sorry but I could not respectfully disagree with you more.  Let teacher decide?  So how is teaching a profession then?  We essentially are just "winging" it without evidence.  Just let every teacher doe what he/she feels like doing?  Imagine if we did this in medicine.  Well the fact is, we did do this in medicine at the turn of the century and medicine took a drastically different direction.  Education is REALLY important and I don't believe the best approach is to simply let teachers do what they want to do.

Yes there is a lot of research on learning styles BUT this research is, in general, weak, unreliable and limited in educational settings.  I encourage you to pick up a copy of Urban Myths about Learning and Education.  The 3 major criticism are (a) most people do not fit into one particular style, the information for assessing learning styles is questionable at best, and there are so many different learning styles that it becomes cumbersome if not impossible to link leaners to specific styles.  Coffiled et al. (2004) in their review identified 71 different learning styles - which if dichotomous would produce 271 combinations - more combinations than there are people on the earth.  The you have to ask, how do you tailor instruction to so called learning styles?

BTW - I am assuming you mean Robert Sternberg. Both are respective in their fields but I believe the evidence is relatively weak that these "thinking" styles translate well to educational settings. 

Teachers have brains too, Robin. They are trained to teach; that is their practice. I do not see why they cannot decide to use M.I. as a descriptive tool to better understand their practice of developing different aspects of human intelligence. So it is here, I suggest to leave the decision to their informed decision.

@Jae - With respect, I am looking for an academic discussion about why teachers do not use evidence to guide their practice and easily fall for theories like Multiple Intelligences.  I am not sure if you have read or listened to Gardner, but he never meant the theory to be used with entire classrooms.  And there is limited evidence to support the value of his theories.  So I understand teachers have brains - but having a brain is not enough.   You need to have a critical brain that at least questions an approach. 

Do you support evidence-based or research-based practice at the Hong Kong Institute of Education?  And how are your teachers "trained" to teach, if the practices they are introduced to are not well supported by research/evidence?

@Arnes - Interesting - So the promise of power leads us to new practices, even if they are unsupported by research. Power is that addictive?

Robin,

As you are aware, I am not a teacher within the educational system – but rather a business professional in the corporate sector. As I thought about your questions and comments here – I had to wonder about a few things.

Where is the leadership for these teachers you mention that should guide and counsel them as they progress through their professional careers? Is the school administration and school boards supportive to ensuring that there is a template to assist with all facets of a teachers’ professional growth? Are teachers ultimately responsible for their own professional development without mentorship? Perhaps their ‘susceptibility & vulnerability to accepts ideas and learning styles and educational strategies’ is a reflection of the direction of their leadership?

I am even more curious about how the discussion of the importance of Multiple intelligences in the classroom, learning styles, Bloom's taxonomy, the SAMR model of technology integration, the need for homework - all of these ideas as you mentioned that are not supported by research, have made their way into my graduate program course sessions and teaching.

Just curious and always learning with a few questions. L-A

@Leslie-Ann - Love the outside perspective of leadership - so simple and very poignant.  That is a key area where there seem to be considerable issues and problems.  This situation is further complicated by political influences.  I have no doubt that leadership is a key piece here.

As for theories making their way into a graduate program - that is troublesome but not unexpected.  Lots of work to do at all levels.  The ideas presented are so ingrained and seductive (even within this small discussion) - that is why I ask the question.  Or maybe a better questions is how to rumors spread and stick?  Obviously, some of the idea make sense at an intuitive level, and perhaps that is why they entice us.  They may also be comforting to us.  Knowing something feels better than not knowing much, regardless of evidence.  And Multiple Intelligences is very comforting because it can translate to everyone is smart in some way.  And that is a very appealing and equitable thought. 

So I just came across this interesting piece in Quartz entitled "The concept of different “learning styles” is one of the greatest neuroscience myths"

http://qz.com/585143/the-concept-of-different-learning-styles-is-one-of-the-greatest-neuroscience-myths/?utm_content=buffer5e356&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Many interesting points have been raised. I would however disagree with the comments of 'teacher's' not having the brains to question the methods or research. They do have the 'brains', since they were able to get into the teaching profession and prepare the next generation of bright individuals.

There are two factors that may affect the reason why teacher's do not question the research and take it for 'face value'. Firstly, I do not believe that they find a need to question it. If it works for you, then go for it. If there is a need to do something, such as criticize or contemplate over it, then they will. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is a requirement for them. Hence they may not do so.

Secondly, the reason we researcher's critically analyze research is because we have trained (or are continuously are training) our brains to do so. When presented with a model, we look for loop holes or are aiming to see how valid and reliable the data is. As for teachers, they are not trained to do that. This may be a reason why they take the research for its 'face-value'.

Dear Robin,

Thanks for sharing this Quartz article. I find it mostly plausible. After all, learning style was not born in neuroscience domain but in the 'folk-psychology' (in the words of P & P Churchland).

I buy neither learning style theory nor M.I. theory wholesale. In fact, I think we are on the same page.

However, I am of the view that we also need to be critical  about the idea that only scientific proof justifies all human actions and conjectures, including what is being discussed in this thread--teaching. Quartz article end with  "it’s rare, after all, that a classroom’s teaching methods are rigorously and scientifically tested by an observer.'   I think scientific scrutiny is not only rare but rather impossible.

The best answer I could give for institutional difficulties in coping is an old text by Thomas Kuhn (1970) which still merits reading, especially for such a touchy area:  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Basically the old guard has to die off/relinquish control over theory, or change can occur after dramatic (generally incontrovertible) evidence. Pedagogy is not too scientific, but the book is a classic for identifying parameters for the acceptance of change.

Your post Stephen reminded me of Max Planck: “Science advances one funeral at a time."

@Jae - Yes for sure.  We certainly cannot proceed with research only - Let's face it - much of the  research needed is not quite there yet on many areas.  However, it does not seem to me that we are making a lot of progress with teachers/educators - the pendulum is clearly suspendered in the "let the teacher" decide side.  I have just come across a wonderful book entitled "When Can You Trust the Experts?  How to Tell Good Science from Bad in Education" by Daniel Willingham (2015)"  It is very helpful.

BTW - I have been suckered in to many of these pseudo models myself.  I thought SAMR was great when I saw it, then I started rooting around and couldn't find anything.  I even contacted the author.  And learning style theory is very seductive, so I was surprised and the criticism.  My main questions is (and Willingham seems to be helping) is what are the factors that lead intelligent, motivated keen teaching professional down the proverbial garden path?   

@Farheen - I reviewed the post and I don't believe anyone claimed that teachers don't have the "brains" to question research.  As you have noted they don't seem inclined to and training is required.  Can you clarify to me how the average teacher "knows something works"?  That is Hattie's main premise - Know thy impact and based on the numerous meta-studies he and his team have looked at, teachers need a loot more work in this area. 

@Stephen - Kuhn's book is one of my favorites and I wish education moved in the way he suggested, but Willingham (2015 - see book above) suggests that there are other factors at play involving politics and money.  He notes the reading wars debated in the 1950s and 60s between phonics and whole word approached to reading.  After much intense debated, a study was commissioned1967 strongly in favour f a phonic approach and you would have thought that would be the end of it. No.  In the mid 1980s. companies started to push the more exciting whole word approach again. And the reading wars flourished once more until a new commissioned study in 2000 confirmed the same findings in 1967.  So there may be something else at play and this kind of repeated cycling of previously debunked approaches hurts children - in this case, their reading ability. 

@ Robin, I do agree with the statement made by Hattie's and the team.  More work is required.  

As for your question about 'how the average teacher knows something?', I would believe that is based upon the teachers and their experience level.  Many other factors would also affect this.  For example, how much information or previous knowledge they have about subject.  I would not believe that there is any one definite answer to this question.  

@Farheen - Okay well if that is it in terms of the teacher assessing success, I think much more is needed.  Experience level seem really vague to me.  How would there subject-knowledge help them to determine whether their teaching strategies were successful?  I strongly believe that simply "trusting" the teach to determine success in some  "ill-defined" magical way is not good enough. 

@Robin, I think the question you raise is quite an interesting one, but I don’t know that it is necessarily exclusive to the field of education. Many individuals find themselves in a hierarchical work environment similar to that of teachers, and would experience the acceptance of similar myths and ideas. With this in mind, I believe some of the blame in this matter would have to be attributed to higher pegs in the ladder, including those at the ministry, board, and administrative levels. 

On one hand, myths exist because we believe them. People trust in the fact that some authority has provided them with this methodology and will accept it because they trust the source. Be it a teacher taking lead from a principal or a resident taking advice from the doctor they are working beside. According to Combs (1979), myths are dangerous for 5 main reasons:

1.     They are generally held

2.     They are often expressed as dichotomies

3.     They sometimes contain a germ of truth

4.     They justify behaviour; and

5.     They often become institutionalized

With this is mind, the more truth that a myth seems to contain, the more seductive it would likely become. Myths do not tell us what is factually accurate; they simply provide a lens through which we see the world. Basically, these myths tell us what to believe is true and what must be considered false. Myths tend to feed on emotional responses and downplay evocative truths. We believe them because they seem to be true and they seem to work, and ultimately it is easier to believe and follow through with them rather than challenge or alter them.

With regards to myths in education, they tend to come from oversimplified categorizations and stereotypes (Adey & Dillon, 2012). When teachers were introduced to the models currently used in education, they were likely told to use them from their department heads, administrative teams, or boards. When the information comes down the ladder from trusted sources, they are likely to be accepted and embedded into classrooms, as you may not want to stir the pot. Oftentimes, myths end up corroborating themselves because no one really stops to carefully scrutinize them, there are just too many other things going on that take precedence (Combs, 1978). After some time of using say M.I. models or Bloom’s Taxonomy, you become proficient in the pedagogy and succeeding in the goals of that model. People (teachers) become more confident in their abilities to succeed in the tasks presented to them, and thus continue to use the models, even if they are based on myth (Hattie, 2009).

These models in turn become common practice amongst teachers in a school or board and the success of the students lead to its continued use. Whether students are doing that much better or not, if the teachers and schools believe in the system and methodologies, they will not delve deeper into them to find the empirical validity. They will continue to use them and pass them on to incoming teachers, or pre-service teachers as they interact with them. In this sense, myths are like a virus that we do not have a cure for. We keep passing it along until someone stops and develops the cure to the problem.

As a recent graduate of the Bachelor of Education program, I would draw my teaching models from my own personal education journey, my mentors, and what was being taught to me by my faculty. I would stick to what my faculty and mentors say, because why would they steer me in the wrong direction? I am in an academic institution with experts in my field; they should know what they are talking about. So, whether it was using Bloom’s Taxonomy or considering multiple intelligences, I would do it, because my grades and graduation counted on it. The issue here really is not the fault of the pre-service teacher, it is the need to give attention to the teacher educators, both at the university and as the associate teacher (Russell & Martin, 2013). Additionally, while the B. Ed program may be providing teacher candidates (TC) with empirically valid and factual methodologies, that does not mean that an associate teacher (AT) will be willing to accept them. There are some ATs that will be very welcoming to new ideas and will love learning from their teacher candidate many are not that open-minded. This results in the myths living on purely because ATs are too stuck in their ways, forcing the TCs to adopt these unsubstantiated methods. If these individuals believe the myths that they are teaching, then there is really no issue in their mind of how they are teaching future teachers. Since we as students trust our mentors, and need to pass, we are unlikely to challenge the advice or models that are presented to us or look deeper into the myths for the empirical validity.

- L

I’m a little late coming to the conversation. I think the conversation can be broaden as a post from Lauren suggests that in general, society is susceptible to accepting or misinterpreting information and ideas as truth or fact. 

I work in a post secondary education institution. There are also many longstanding myths and beliefs that permeate educational practices in PSE. These myth and concepts are difficult to shift. I have had many conversations with award winning educators and researchers that refuse to change their practice (or worse consider changing their practice) even though the literature suggests that their approach and methods are not the most effective (perhaps this speaks more to my lack of persuasiveness!)

One answer that I often hear: “in my x amount of years of teaching, my approach works”, and when presented with research that would suggests that an alternative approach/technique would be better, the research is questioned or dismissed. Sometimes these individuals state that the research is of poor quality, or doesn’t apply to their context, be it discipline, environment or group of students.

 I also think, like all disciplines there is a continuum of quality in research. In a previous education research methods class, that class noted that there are huge numbers of scholarly journals and avenues to share their research. We noted that the quality of research can vary significantly across publications and within publications. This can cloud and diminish the reputation of the discipline. For some practitioners, it can be difficult identifying quality over popularity.

Additionally, research (and I would suggest educational research, might be more susceptible than some other disciplines) is subject to being translated or simplified into popularized models and ideas, which can be consumed and disseminated quickly and more easily than ever before. There is also a highly receptive audience/market for this information: very few parents don’t care about education. Consider a teacher who tries to implement the latest research on homework. I suspect that this teacher would be questioned and challenged by the parents who have children is this approach.

Disclaimer: The opinions shared in my response are my own. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer. 

I am not an educator in a k-12 sense but value the learning principles that facilitate leadership skills. That being said, research in the humanities can be subjective, none replicable, and in some cases is seemingly philosophically based. The question Dr . Kay posed referred to why teachers are so susceptible to ideas without evidence. That is a vital talking point in educational form and how we answer it could prove pivotal for efficient learning in the near future.

As a criminology graduate working various roles in the private sector including programming and implementation roles amongst a business environment, I may come from a different perspective on the matter. That being said, I feel there are two explanations that immediately come to mind referring to why teachers are so susceptible. First, teachers are frustrated at the gradual progression of technological implementation into classrooms and may resort to theories and practices that are attractive but not empirically supported (Ertmer, 1999). What makes them attractive could be from a number of factors including; social media trends, ease of implementation, social policy, socio-economic and cultural trends.

Secondly, when discussing a model or idea from a business perspective it is almost wholly contingent on how the product is being communicated to the client. Although the quality of the product is vital in of itself, the method of communication is key. With the number of digital tools available to us today, teachers could be susceptible to seductive and convincing presentations of models or ideas. For example, a techie implements the latest hardware to showcase software that requires a powerful machine. Unbeknownst to the educator they accept a program in which the presented experience and actual experience are vastly different. This could be an impeding issue if teachers are not in the know with communication media, digital tools, and general tech savviness.  

@Lauren - Goodness, you have written an essay.  I never meant to imply that "being duped" was indigenous to education - that's simple the are I am interested in.  But we could learning from other professions too,  I understand, to a certain extent, why pre-service teacher are vulnerable and that the problem is systemic and partially the responsibility of the faculties of education.  And you words about myths are quite helpful.  So how do we sort this mess out?  And I wonder, what responsibility does the educator have - Is it too much to ask someone to say "What a minute, I want to understand where this comes from - what evidence supports this claim?"  Maybe it is? 

@Patrick - Nicely written.  I hear you loud and clear about resistance to change,  confirmatory bias, and the varying quality of research.  All fair points.  I wonder if it is too much to ask for "some" research to support one's major approach to teaching.  I understand their will be debate BUT let it be based on some reason, some smidgen of proof.  I have asked this before, but would we accept this in medicine (alternative approaches aside).  I think not.   It would be absurd for physician to go their own way and ignore research.  Yet is seems to be perfectly fine in education.  Maybe because we can flat our do what we want - In Ontario, Canada, most teachers have tenure.  There are limited expectations for quality - at least externally.  This is getting complicated.

@Robin - In answer to your questions, most initiatives brought forward to the schools via the Board are driven by the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat (LNS). Teachers, during board or school based training, are often provided with written and/or video materials that inform and direct the implementation of the theory or strategy. As part of their structure, the LNS would be the party responsible for the research aspect by either engaging in active research themselves or by finding and reviewing existing research when developing the initiatives the teachers will be employing. Because of this, teachers tend not to ask questions about where the research is when items are coming directly from LNS.

LNS has a number of studies listed on their website including this link that will take you to a number of case studies investigating the results of these initiatives on student achievement scores. My own school board is included as one of these case studies. From the link you can also access their other research studies.

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/unlocking_Feb01.html

The Capacity Building Series is another area of the LNS that is connected to research and strategies. Access to these can be found at:

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/capacityBuilding.html

In most cases colleges and universities do put such mandates on instructors because of a uniform academic accreditation certification in which such kinds of things are inserted without any proof of validity by the power of money of a lobbying group of that particular product that financially cushions the administrators. That is not surprising,  people even give money and get halls in their names. Money today is the king maker of things and not purpose or academic achievement. The other day, I saw probably "mockers" posting street name under Donald Trump. 

In some sense we may be asking the wrong question. Teaching is a difficult, time consuming job. Presenting lessons, reviewing seat work and homework, providing extra help to children needing it, meeting with parents, and on and on. When in school they focused on learning how to teach, not how to evaluate research. Thus, we should not expect them to effectively evaluate research.

Look at medicine. Physicians do not evaluate the latest research. When meaningful research is published, usually a random controlled experiment, or a long term non- experimental design, professional societies read and comment on this research. When sufficient research is published to change clinical practice societies change recommendations for standard practices.

Following that model for teachers, national organizations in the different subject fields and grade levels need to have committees to evaluate research, recommend changes in teaching practice. Teachers then need to follow these recommendations. Someone needs to monitor teachers to be sure they are following recommendations.

We are not there. At least in the USA,  teaching is also influenced by philosophical differences - some do not think research can inform teaching - so first the entire teaching profession needs to embrace science and the usefulness of research informing teaching practices, even in teaching the non-scientific disciplines. 

Robin, You have touched a very raw nerve with your example of reading research and a phonic approach as I am a literacy educator.  I will not argue the research on reading  as it takes us away from your topic question yet I dispute many of the findings. I also reject standardisation the idea that one approach suits all no matter how much research supports this stance.  

What is relevant here is that research be viewed from a highly critical lens. Research is a political act. If teachers are unable to be critical consumers, what hope is there for students? Having worked on numerous funded research projects and been a higher degrees supervisor I have had to examine who, for instance has funded (or supported) the research as well as the efficacy of the methods undertaken. There are many large research projects where the funding body already has the answer they want and it's your team's job to find the evidence to support their answer (which you always can accomplish). So many important areas discovered and of interest for new directions in education never see the light of day as they go against the funding body's prevailing direction.

Dear Robin,

This is such an important topic. Can you please post an examples of studies indicating the level of teachers acceptance and embrace of the ideas and educational strategies you mentioned in the original  question?

Thank you.

@Jim - I agree with you that teachers are not there to evaluate research.  Goodness know they have enough to do.  That said, they can at least ask "Where is the research to support this?" and when there is little or none, be a bit cautious about jumping on board. And yes, I am beginning to realize that this "lack of research-based practice" problem is systemic and seems to reside squarely on the culture and practice of the discipline from teacher training to structure being in place for evaluating and disseminating research.  However, I do think teachers can't simply throw up their hands and say "I'm just doing what I am told to do" 

@Alik - This is a very good questions and the irony does not escape me (smile).  I have made an assumption based on personal experience over the past 25 years observing teachers and teach candidates , ministry documents supporting these practices, and the seemingly 100s of workshops that promote these practices.  A quick check of government based documents in Ontario with almost 14 million people (my area - see below) shows that SAMR, Multiple Intelligences, Learning Styles, and Bloom's Taxonomy   is alive and well and promoted freely. Also Willingham's new book on "When can you Trust Experts" provides a number of examples.  That said, I am not aware of formal studies asking teachers what they believe to be true in the classroom.  This sounds like a very useful study actually.  Interested?

https://osapac.ca/samr/

http://www.otffeo.on.ca/en/learning/tlc/report/one-screen/

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/LearningforAll2013.pdf

http://ontariohomeschool.org/learningstyles/

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/reading/effective.html

http://www.amazon.com/When-Can-You-Trust-Experts/dp/1118130278

Thank you for the answer Robin,

In my professional life  (>15 years of math teaching, coaching, coordinating) I met very strange mix of almost blind acceptance for some ideas and strong rejection of other. 

In my PhD I indicated one particular direction :

The ideas of inquiry and project-based learning are known since times of Dewey (1912) and Kilpatrick (1918). Still, PBL is a relatively new idea for most teachers (Boss & Krauss, 2007). This significant point was stressed by the international team of researchers of the PRIMAS project: “However, if educational policies are in support of IBL, it does not mean that this actually reflects teachers’ practices. This is actually the black spot in all countries.” (Report PRIMAS, 2010, p.8). 

Such a study is very demanding and I'm currently just overloaded with projects. Well, just as an exercise: 

Possible RQ are:

1) Which theoretical ideas and educational strategies are accepted by the mathematics/ science teachers? (believed to be true in the classroom?)

2) What are the sources of the ideas ? (i.e. teachers seminars, schools of education, professional journals, blogs) 2.1. Which sources are more reliable? 

3) How these ideas are implemented by the teachers in their everyday practice? (what is perceived as implementation of multiple intelligences theory can be very different from what was meant by the author and may vary from teacher to teacher)

4) What influences teacher's choice among the introduced theoretical ideas...? (vague...) 

If we will have such a map of theories (with roots), maybe it will be possible to trace some patterns of acceptance/ rejection of ideas.

Thank you again, for such an input...

Dear Robin

Schools use new things as valid and consider that this is innovation. Although they have not been researched and tested.

It is the commercialization of education. Schools compete to offer different things and draw the attention of customers (parents and students)

Very good question!

Last week I heard a lecture in cognitive behavior therapy methods. There was the same problem: students in university prefer methods which were not empirically validated. I want to share with you one hypothesis we discussed after the lecture: Perhaps empirical validated and effective methods in schools are not "fire works", they often seem simple ("That's all?"). Student teachers mention them as boring.

Additionally we have to show the profit for student teachers to go in touch with empirical work. I think that's, we have to do. And, especially for Germany, we have to do more research in evaluation of instructional methods.

Best regard

Conny

@David - I suspect that commercialization of education is VERY salient  - However, why to administrators accept this hook line  and sinker -  Is it administrators we should be targeting OR is it politics getting in the way.  AND how can this  pattern behavior be altered?

@Connie - Yes I wonder about the pull of  trendy, visually attractive unsupported methods - I am sure there is an approach that is used by companies to sell their products and it works.  I can assure you there are lots of good approaches noted by Hattie that are not "boring" so maybe we need to do some work in that area with respect to communicating those ideas.  Still, your point is a good one and you identify yet another possible influence..

That said, in a supposedly professional discipline, I truly hope we can train teachers to understand that "boring" is not the ONLY metric - Many research-supported methods are not boring and, strangely enough, we use them because they help students learn.  We are not only in the business of engagement.  In fact, I would argue that learning out ranks engagement.  In my research, engagement, too often, seems to be enough for teachers (but not students oddly enough).  Imagine if doctors used trendy ahead of research-supported practices?  "I know I could give you a pill, but that's kind of boring.  SO how about you trying bungee-jumping for that bacterial infection.  That would be far more exciting for you."  Mind you, some alternative medicine kind of thrives of this kind of thing (smile).

@Robin - OK, that was an interesting post - surprising and you've made me think. To start I do worry about the extent of our comparing learning and teaching to wellness and healing (some overlap, yes - they are both basic means of human functioning - but I am not sure how far we can take the comparisons before they no longer add any accurate insights to our understanding of reality in all its nuances). That said, what is our current knowledge of how levels of fun and/or engagement (people no doubt define/imagine/experience fun differently) relate to learning? I've not yet seen a study describing that relationship clearly enough to then turn around and make a judgment about the necessity of ensuring a learning activity is fun/engaging for learning to occur. For instance, in thinking of my own recent learning, I can't remember learning anything unless I was full engaged in that moment of observing, comparing, contrasting, supposing - even mimicking. Hmm... I appreciate you moving the conversation in this direction - and I wonder about the differences between engagement and entertainment? I have a wonderful handout that I use with my preservice teachers comparing the two - typically initiates lots of rich discussion - it's a tip sheet by Robyn Jackson from mindsteps - perhaps you can find it online.

@Linda - I used the medial example because medicine as precisely where we are not with education in the early 1900s when there were official cries for research-based practice.  So I am hopeful that these kind of changes can take place in education (Hattie, 2009, 2012).

As for engagement, I would think it is necessary but not sufficient for learning.  Attention is critical and well documented and I am pretty sure there is a strong correlation between engagement and paying attention.  I am quite certain there is a large body of research in Adult education which suggests that engagement/personal interest (as you have found in your own experiences) is critical.  Why shouldn't that extent  to K-12?  It probably should. 

So the major influence listed in Hattie's  (Visible Learning for Teachers, 2012) summary indicates that captivating students is one of the key 7 factors of creating an effective learning environment (care, control, clarity, challenge, confer, and consolidate are the others).  In addition, he notes that factors like passion and engagement (with many others of course, p. 29) account for a meaningful effect sizes in K-12 learning achievement.

As for engagement vs. entertainment - I don't believe there is much research supporting entertainment being a critical factor.  Maybe if I add the word cognitive it helps.  We are looking for cognitive engagement typically, not entertainment.  I'm not against entertainment but it's not really much of a teaching strategy and can making the teaching all about the teacher and/or having fun. 

@Heather - Very good point.  I have seen this too on many sites that really should do their research.  So the question might be changed to "Why do professional organizations post support for approaches/theories that are not supported by research?" This is such an obvious point and I missed it altogether.  Why wouldn't teachers trust UNESCO or the UN or their school boards? 

I believe there are many factors that are causing teachers to embrace the ideas and strategies without looking for any evidence. One factor I’d like to explore is time. Teachers may be looking for a fast solution to their problem. It is common for me to see teachers post questions online asking other teachers for suggestions, such as classroom management strategies. Those who are suggesting different strategies are explaining their personal experience and the outcomes. I believe that this type of personal interaction makes it more relatable and easier to accept.

After reading Lauren Fridman’s post, where she mentions how school boards delve into these myths, I completely agree with her arguement. If the school boards are requesting certain ideas and strategies for teachers to practice, then it will be done so to meet the board’s and education system’s standards. As Stosky explains, “teachers who want high ratings for “effectiveness” quickly learn the practices they should display for visits by pedagogical evaluators” (Stosky, p 531).

Reference:

Stosky, S. (2014). Review of Seven Myths about Education. Journal of School Choice, 8(3), 530-532. doi: 10.1080/15582159/2014.942186

@Tiffany Two really good points.  And social collaboration seems to be a good idea actually.  I suppose we have to balanced short-term problems with long-term planning.  A classroom management problem is probably different from a teaching strategy - although maybe not to teachers.  And this is a good research questions - If teachers do not turn to reach, how do they solve their problems.  Of course, the problem is that advice offered, may be counter-productive.

The pressure by boards on teachers to teach a certain way is important -  Teachers have little choice.  So clearly getting boards to follow research-based practices is critical as well.   Oh what a tangled web this is when we throw in politics.

Especially in these days of instant and constant information, it’s easy for incorrect information to be perpetuated by people because of the way information is often presented to us.  Sharing information online has become simple and a quick way for people to share information globally with large networks of people, both within their social circles and outside.  People enjoy sharing information online to contribute to social capital, which “weaves the fabric of relationships between individuals’ connections with their communities” (Putnam, 1995).  So, when someone reads something they think sounds interesting or smart, we are more likely to share it- which ends up perpetuating falsehoods.

As information is continued to be shared and we see it again and again, we begin to believe it because, “after enough time and enough repetition, any old dogma can be accepted as true” (Didau, 2015).  So, when we see this information being pushed through our networks of people we consider to be knowledgeable and educated, we begin to accept it as the truth.  Once we accept it as truth, we continue to share it and keep the cycle going.

I strongly feel this vulnerability stems from a possible cultural deemphasis on evidence. Perhaps this stems from a deficit within training curricula addressing evidence-based practice?

I don't think it's necessary to expect every teacher to be a researcher. But every teacher, regardless of field, should be an educated consumer of the academic literature. I'm thinking of undergraduate level training. One should have a fundamental degree of understanding on methodological theory, enough to be critical of the evidence. Otherwise, how is evidence-based education (EBE) possible?

I form this opinion looking through my own lens as a physician. Nevertheless, I don't think this lens creates an unfair bias. Every medical student in the country is taught about the use of and critiquing evidence, usually through conducting research (Liaison Committee on Medical Education, 2013). Furthermore, all must pass competency milestones in analyzing and critiquing the literature (Medical Council of Canada, 2016). The need for this is obvious within the medical context. Without understanding the evidence how else do you know a treatment works? But I would argue the same rings true within education, how do you know you are teaching optimally without evidence?

Medical education exists with one foot in each cultural realm, booth education and medicine. Because of this, a reasonable amount of discussion exists around evidence-based educational practices. Few medical schools would implement an instructional component or technique without evaluating the evidence (Sandars, & Patel, 2015). A defect in the evidence would make adoption highly unlikely. 

Liaison Committee on Medical Education,. (2013). Standards for Accreditation of Medical Education Programs Leading to the M.D. Degree (1st ed., p. 8). LCME. Retrieved from https://www.lcme.org/publications/functions2013june.pdf

Medical Council of Canada,. (2016). General Objectives. Retrieved 27 January 2016, from http://apps.mcc.ca/Objectives_Online/objectives.pl?lang=english&role=expert&id=000

Sandars, J., & Patel, R. (2015). It’s OK for you but maybe not for me: the challenge of putting medical education research findings and evidence into practice. Education For Primary Care, 26(5), 289-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14739879.2015.1079008

Interesting posts and there is much I would like to respond to, but I will limit my comments to the direction that this conversation has taken.  

Other contributors have already mentioned that teachers are following mandates from their employers.  They are in fact employees, and while the integrity of the the task or job requirement (such as using specific models such as SAMR) should be questioned, I cannot envision any other job where an employee would ask their employer for research to support being given a new task or a new method to complete a task (ironic considering the supposed strength of teachers' unions in Canada).  Refusal would be insubordination, especially if there is a clause in the collective agreement about new teaching initiatives and models being mandated by school administrators. 

If teachers could refuse to use a model that was not grounded or supported by research, what would be the alternative if there is a lack of evidence or research to support teaching methods and models?  Using their instincts, a gut feeling, mimicking the experiences they had as a student?  I think promoting these models is the school boards'/ministries'/management's way of attempting to reduce the occurrence of teachers 'winging it'.  But why were these models even created in the first place?  If we have a lack of models to use in our practice, yet we are witnessing poor performance in our classes and our students struggle, will we not attempt to change something or do something different?  If using a model helps to solve some of the issues around learning (beyond engagement), why wouldn't a teacher continue to use it.  What is lacking, however, is the requirement that teachers monitor, record, and present the results of what they are using in classrooms, whether mandated or not.  Even if there was a lack of research prior, as teachers use and record the effects of a model, research can be built and evidence can be presented to either support or challenge theses mythical models that could potentially be harming our students. 

Shannon,

I agree with you yet this critical lens has always been required. A friend who grew up in Tasmania told me that the history textbook he used in school stated that the White man was the first human in Australia. We have always needed to be critical consumers.

Research is a wonderful term; To Re: Search -  to look again.

Mainly because teacher training programs don't emphasize the need for:

1. Conducting empirical-based research

2. Critical thinking

And also there are political reasons.  Governments and corporations advance their own agendas in the educational system.  The use of TESTING, textbooks, educational technology, and many of the theories that you mention, are tied to businesses and, ultimately, economic interests.

If you put these two factors together, you have a possible answer to your question.

@Edgar - Yes, yes, and yes.  I will add that, as many folks have noted, the responsibility lies with boards of education, government documents, and well- respected educational sites that are not being careful enough

Shannon makes an excellent point about the quick and easy spread of information that gets passed on and becomes familiar (regardless of quality).  Social media while helpful in some instances is ripe for passing on uncontested information about education

@Imran  Interesting point about insubordination and HAVING to follow what an employer wishes.  I have no doubt, at times, there there is pressure from a principal and board documents. BUT you will find in Ontario, that all teachers have tenure.  There is almost nothing within the aw that they can do do get fired.  So teachers do have more options than in many other occupations.  But I digress.

You need to realize that there is no lack of evidence, in general, for effective pratice in education.  On the contrary there is considerable research that can help guide practice (e.g., Hattie, 2012 - Visible Learning for Teachers;  Pettty, 2009 - Evidence-Based Teaching)