Thought Leaders Blog

I am worried that this presidential campaign has ignored most of the education issues that our country faces. And there is one that I believe is pressing: I believe we need to know more, a lot more, about what effective teaching is and how we can help teachers teach all children and youth at high levels. Congress wants to know; teacher educators want to know; superintendents want to know; the public wants to know.

Part of what is stalling the hard work to identify what works in teaching is the debate about the use of randomized controlled studies (RCT). Often called the "gold standard" of research methods, RCT allows for statistical testing of research hypotheses. Rejecting the null hypothesis (that an intervention makes no difference) with a high degree of probability means that one can say that the intervention caused the outcome. So did the guided reading program improve reading scores over no intervention or over another intervention? Did the multiplication homework assignment that took 20 minutes to complete improve learning better than the homework assignment that took 40 minutes or no assignment at all?

A scientific approach is needed because teaching can be thought of in part (we admit this is not all of what teaching is or does) as an intervention. This is similar to what a physician does when he makes a diagnosis and prescribes penicillin to cure pneumonia. He chooses interventions (e.g., penicillin) that have a high probability of success. RCT has demonstrated that penicillin is better than no treatment (the null has been rejected). Of course such an intervention requires expert judgment beyond a formulaic "if pneumonia, use penicillin" response. Is the patient allergic to penicillin? Does the age or weight of a child or elderly person influence dosage? Should the penicillin be administered orally or through an injection? These are all questions a physician must answer in determining when and how to use a particular intervention. Teaching is similar. Should a teacher give homework to first graders and if so, what type? Do grades enhance learning, increase effort, or motivate students? When and under what conditions should a teacher praise students' work? What is the best strategy for introducing fractions? Teachers make decisions about such issues daily. Perhaps if teachers can see such decisions as "interventions" in the same way that a physician intervenes to produce a desired outcome, they will insist that they have evidence to help them make those decisions.

Researchers Maribeth Gettinger (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and Karen Stoiber (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) recently published a chapter for The Handbook of School Psychology, 4th Edition. They make a distinction between Evidence Based Interventions (EBI) and Evidence Based Practice (EBP). For an intervention to be considered evidence based, it must meet the following criteria: "a) used an experimental and/or quasi-experimental design; (b) occurred for a reasonable length of time; (c) incorporated multiple outcome measures; (d) collected post-intervention as well as follow-up data after a specified period of time subsequent to program implementation; (e) assessed treatment integrity (intervention implemented as intended); (f) employed appropriate statistical methods; (g) had a sufficient sample size to measure effects; and (h) showed significant positive effects on appropriate outcomes (e.g., improved reading comprehension, school attendance, attitude to school, compliance to teacher directions)." This is the gold standard, but one that is required if a causal link between an intervention and an outcome is to be demonstrated. Unfortunately for teachers, there are few EBI that have been identified, which is why the Institute for Education Sciences has been advocating for RCT research.

In contrast, Evidence Based Practice, according to Gettinger and Stroiber, reflects the fact that teachers make instructional decisions in light of the available evidence from research and theory. Teachers use a research approach to systematic planning, monitoring, and evaluating the results of the teaching decisions they make. In short, they act as researchers of their own practice, gathering evidence that a particular strategy works or altering the strategy when the results indicate it is not having the desired effect. Evidence Based Practice is important given the lack of EBI research on specific learning outcomes.

Teachers need to be encouraged in their early training to use both EPI and EBP approaches. Both are attempts to apply science to rigorously examine the results of teaching interventions. And researchers need to be encouraged to fill the gap of knowledge about evidence based interventions.

Of course teachers do a lot more than teach reading, writing arithmetic. Teachers are mentors and role models and guides. They develop classroom climates, and instill trust, and even love their students. They bring characteristics like integrity and intelligence to their task. All these things make a difference and we don't need RCT to prove that.

However, we do need a scientific approach to understanding how teachers appropriately can intervene to promote learning. I think EBI and EBP are two ways to achieve that.