5 ms·

> There is no body of research based on randomized, controlled experiments indicating that such teaching leads to better problem solving. I'm sorry but one don

by Icy0 2y ago

> There is no body of research based on randomized, controlled experiments indicating that such teaching leads to better problem solving. I'm sorry but one don't exactly come across randomized controlled experiments in teaching very often... not to even mention ones that are well designed... so this isn't saying much.

ziofill 2y ago
Maybe you haven’t had reasons to come across such research before, but rest assured there’s plenty of it https://acrl.ala.org/IS/instruction-tools-resources-2/pedagogy/a-selected-list-of-journals-on-teaching-learning/ https://acrl.ala.org/IS/instruction-tools-resources-2/pedago...
- Icy0 2y ago
  You seem to have linked a collection of general research on teaching and learning, which I am aware of exists. I'm talking about randomized controlled trials, where you assign a group of students to receive the intervention and another group to not receive it, and if it's single- or double-blinded, without them and/or the researchers being aware of which group they are in. Even writing this brings up logistical questions about how you might get a reliable research result doing this for teaching (instead of, say, medicine, where it's easy to fool a patient into thinking a placebo is the drug).
- csa 2y ago
  > Maybe you haven’t had reasons to come across such research before No op, but I’ve “come across” a lot of education research. By “come across”, I mean I’ve read so much that it makes my eyes bleed. There is some good research that yields interesting and compelling results. Rare, but out there. Usually by an individual researcher and maybe with a team. Almost never by a school of education of significant size or by (almost?) any specific field in education. Results in education are challenging to replicate by a different researcher in a slightly different context, and studies are often trivially easy to replicate and come out with a competing/contrary conclusion by controlling a variable that the original researcher mentioned but did not control for (e.g., motivated subjects versus unmotivated subjects). Additionally, much research in education is not well-designed, or is well-designed but on a relatively meaningless topic. There is a lot of touchy-feely research out there (like the idea that folks can learn math with just problem solving skills), and folks p-hack the hell out of data to support their a priori conclusions. It’s a smart thing to do to maximize funding and/or visibility in academic journals, but it is absolutely irresponsible in the quest for “truth” and knowledge, which one would hope our education researchers would want (n.b.,they largely don’t).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - JustinSkycak 2y ago
    I would agree there are a lot of problems with a lot of education research. Many purported findings do not replicate or are otherwise impossible to replicate. However, there are also many findings that are actually legit. As you say, they're rare, but there are enough of them to paint a surprisingly complete picture when you pull them together. Discussed at length a couple months ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40348986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40348986
epgui 2y ago
What it is saying is that we need to stop acting as if, or believing that, this knowledge is solid.
JustinSkycak 2y ago
This is only one piece within a larger argument. You need to read on to understand what the rest of the argument is. The form of the argument is this: there is no direct evidence for X, but there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence supporting "not X", so therefore, almost certainly, "not X." X = "we can teach students how to solve problems in general, and that will make them good mathematicians able to discover novel solutions irrespective of the content"
- Icy0 2y ago
  Nice to see a response from you! I have read the rest of the argument. However, my take upon reading it is that this is just one more contribution in a back-and-forth argument about every aspect that has been studied in math education. Despite the fact that this was published in 2010, the landscape in 2024 very much points to "it's unclear" as the answer to "is [anything] effective?", at least for me, unfortunately.
  - JustinSkycak 2y ago
    > the landscape in 2024 very much points to "it's unclear" as the answer to "is [anything] effective?", at least for me, unfortunately. Interesting. Not sure if you saw the following post from a couple months ago, but if not, you may wish to check it out: Which cognitive psychology findings are solid that I can use to help students? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40348986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40348986
    - Icy0 2y ago
      I did! On MESE first, then on Hacker News. Usually when there's a replication crisis, people talk about perverse incentives and p-hacking. But there's 2 things I want to mention that people don't talk as much about: - Lack of adequate theoretical underpinnings. - In the case of math education, we need to watch out for the differences in what researchers mean by "math proficiency." Is it fluency with tasks, or is it ability to make some progress on problems not similar to worked examples?

by Icy0 2y ago

ziofill 2y ago

Maybe you haven’t had reasons to come across such research before, but rest assured there’s plenty of it https://acrl.ala.org/IS/instruction-tools-resources-2/pedagogy/a-selected-list-of-journals-on-teaching-learning/ https://acrl.ala.org/IS/instruction-tools-resources-2/pedago...

Icy0 2y ago
You seem to have linked a collection of general research on teaching and learning, which I am aware of exists. I'm talking about randomized controlled trials, where you assign a group of students to receive the intervention and another group to not receive it, and if it's single- or double-blinded, without them and/or the researchers being aware of which group they are in. Even writing this brings up logistical questions about how you might get a reliable research result doing this for teaching (instead of, say, medicine, where it's easy to fool a patient into thinking a placebo is the drug).
csa 2y ago
> Maybe you haven’t had reasons to come across such research before No op, but I’ve “come across” a lot of education research. By “come across”, I mean I’ve read so much that it makes my eyes bleed. There is some good research that yields interesting and compelling results. Rare, but out there. Usually by an individual researcher and maybe with a team. Almost never by a school of education of significant size or by (almost?) any specific field in education. Results in education are challenging to replicate by a different researcher in a slightly different context, and studies are often trivially easy to replicate and come out with a competing/contrary conclusion by controlling a variable that the original researcher mentioned but did not control for (e.g., motivated subjects versus unmotivated subjects). Additionally, much research in education is not well-designed, or is well-designed but on a relatively meaningless topic. There is a lot of touchy-feely research out there (like the idea that folks can learn math with just problem solving skills), and folks p-hack the hell out of data to support their a priori conclusions. It’s a smart thing to do to maximize funding and/or visibility in academic journals, but it is absolutely irresponsible in the quest for “truth” and knowledge, which one would hope our education researchers would want (n.b.,they largely don’t).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JustinSkycak 2y ago
  I would agree there are a lot of problems with a lot of education research. Many purported findings do not replicate or are otherwise impossible to replicate. However, there are also many findings that are actually legit. As you say, they're rare, but there are enough of them to paint a surprisingly complete picture when you pull them together. Discussed at length a couple months ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40348986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40348986

epgui 2y ago

What it is saying is that we need to stop acting as if, or believing that, this knowledge is solid.

JustinSkycak 2y ago

This is only one piece within a larger argument. You need to read on to understand what the rest of the argument is. The form of the argument is this: there is no direct evidence for X, but there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence supporting "not X", so therefore, almost certainly, "not X." X = "we can teach students how to solve problems in general, and that will make them good mathematicians able to discover novel solutions irrespective of the content"

Icy0 2y ago
Nice to see a response from you! I have read the rest of the argument. However, my take upon reading it is that this is just one more contribution in a back-and-forth argument about every aspect that has been studied in math education. Despite the fact that this was published in 2010, the landscape in 2024 very much points to "it's unclear" as the answer to "is [anything] effective?", at least for me, unfortunately.
- JustinSkycak 2y ago
  > the landscape in 2024 very much points to "it's unclear" as the answer to "is [anything] effective?", at least for me, unfortunately. Interesting. Not sure if you saw the following post from a couple months ago, but if not, you may wish to check it out: Which cognitive psychology findings are solid that I can use to help students? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40348986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40348986
  - Icy0 2y ago
    I did! On MESE first, then on Hacker News. Usually when there's a replication crisis, people talk about perverse incentives and p-hacking. But there's 2 things I want to mention that people don't talk as much about: - Lack of adequate theoretical underpinnings. - In the case of math education, we need to watch out for the differences in what researchers mean by "math proficiency." Is it fluency with tasks, or is it ability to make some progress on problems not similar to worked examples?