Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T03:23:30.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Can’t a Teacher Be More Like a Scientist? Science, Pseudoscience and the Art of Teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Mark Carter  and
Kevin Wheldall
Mark Carter*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Kevin Wheldall
Affiliation:
Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia E-mail: mark.carter@mq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, the authors argue the case for scientific evidenced‐based practice in education. They consider what differentiates science from pseudoscience and what sources of information teachers typically regard as reliable. The What Works Clearinghouse is discussed with reference to certain limitations of its current operation. Given the relative paucity of ‘gold standard’ research in education, an alternative model for assessing the efficacy of educational programs is proposed as a temporary solution.

Type
Editorial Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 32 , Issue 1: A Scientific Approach to Special Education , April 2008 , pp. 5 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Cancer Society. (n.d.). Vitamin C. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Vitamin_C.asp?sitearea=ETO.Google Scholar
Apps, M., & Carter, M. (2006). When all is said and done, more is said than done: Research examining constructivist instruction for students with special needs. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 30, 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, S., & Jarvis, W. T. (Eds.) (1993). The health robbers: A close look at quackery in America. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Boardman, A. G., Arguelles, M. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Klingner, J. (2005). Special education teachers’ views of research-based practices. Journal of Special Education, 39, 168–180.Google Scholar
Carnine, D. (2000). Why education experts resist effective practices (and what it would take to make education more like medicine). Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://www.edexcellence.net/doc/carnine.pdf.Google Scholar
Carroll, R. T. (2005). The skeptic’s dictionary: Blondlot and N-rays. Retrieved 12 June, 2007, from http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html.Google Scholar
Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1995). An evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 240–263.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., & Prior, M. (2007). Learning to read in Australia. Occasional Paper of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, 1/2007 (Policy Paper #6).Google Scholar
Department of Education, Science and Training. (2005). Teaching reading. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.Google Scholar
Forness, S. R. (2001). Special education and related services: What have we learned from meta-analysis? Exceptionality, 9, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164.Google Scholar
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.Google Scholar
Huizenga, J. R. (1993). Cold fusion: The scientific fiasco of the century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Iverson, S., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112–126.Google Scholar
Jacobson, J. W., Foxx, R. M., & Mulick, J. A. (2005). Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science in professional practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Landrum, T. J., Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Fitzgerald, S. (2002). Teacher perceptions of the trustworthiness, usability, and accessibility of information from different sources. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 42–48.Google Scholar
Nature Neuroscience. (2006). Editorial. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 135.Google Scholar
NSW Institute of Teachers. (n.d.). Continuing professional development policy. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.nswteachers.nsw.edu.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/Continuing%20Professional%20Development%20Policy.pdf.Google Scholar
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. D., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. (2004). Quality indicators for research in special education and guidelines for evidence-based practices: Executive summary. Retrieved 15 June, 2007, from http://education.uoregon.edu/grantmatters/pdf/DR/Exec_Summary.pdf.Google Scholar
Reynolds, M., & Wheldall, K. (2007). Reading Recovery 20 years down the track: Looking forward, looking back. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54, 199–223.Google Scholar
Rudland, N., & Kemp, C. (2004). The professional reading habits of teachers: Implications for student learning. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 28, 4–17.Google Scholar
Sagan, C. (1997). The demon haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. London: Headline.Google Scholar
Sasso, G. M. (2001). The retreat from inquiry and knowledge in special education. Journal of Special Education, 34, 178–193.Google Scholar
Seethaler, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). A drop in the bucket: Randomized controlled trials testing reading and math interventions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 98–102.Google Scholar
Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 958–996.Google Scholar
Shane, H. C. (1994). Facilitated communication: The clinical and social phenomenon. San Diego, CA: Singular Press.Google Scholar
Shermer, M. (1997). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. (2003). A reader’s guide to scientifically based research. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 12–16. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.459dee008f99653fb85516f762108a0c/.Google Scholar
Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education. (2007). Quality of school education. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Stephenson, J. (2004). A teacher’s guide to controversial practices. Special Education Perspectives, 13, 66–74.Google Scholar
Stephenson, J., Carter, M., & Wheldall, K. (2007). Still jumping on the balance beam: Continued use of perceptual motor programs in Australian schools. Australian Journal of Education, 51(1), 6–18.Google Scholar
Stephenson, J., & Wheldall, K. (2008). Miracles take a little longer: Science, commercialisation, cures and the Dore program. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading: Early phoneme awareness and phonics teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city second language learners. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 587–605.Google Scholar
Viadero, D. (2006, September 27). ‘One stop’ research shop seen as slow to yield views that educators can use. Education Week, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
Victorian Institute for Teaching. (n.d.). Renewal of Registration. Retrieved October 15, 2007, from http://www.vit.vic.edu.au/files/documents/1133_renewal-info-brochure-2007.pdf.Google Scholar
What Works Clearinghouse. (2006a). Evidence standards for reviewing studies. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/reviewprocess/study_standards_final.pdf.Google Scholar
What Works Clearinghouse. (2006b). WWC intervention report: Arthur. Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/PDF/Intervention/WWC_Arthur_091406.pdf.Google Scholar
What Works Clearinghouse. (2006c). WWC intervention report: Arthur appendix. Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/PDF/Intervention/techappendix10_259.pdf.Google Scholar
What Works Clearinghouse. (n.d.a). Extent of evidence categorization. Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/reviewprocess/extent_evidence.pdf.Google Scholar
What Works Clearinghouse. (n.d.b). Intervention rating scheme. Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/reviewprocess/rating_scheme.pdf.Google Scholar
Wheldall, K. (2007). Turning a blind eye to Nelson. Bulletin of Learning Difficulties Australia, 39(1), 1–2.Google Scholar