Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:44:36.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roadblocks to Scientific Thinking in Educational Decision Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Gregory C. R. Yates
Gregory C. R. Yates*
Affiliation:
University of South Australia, Magill, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Principles of scientific data accumulation and evidence‐based practices are vehicles of professional enhancement. In this article, the author argues that a scientific knowledge base exists descriptive of the relationship between teachers’ activities and student learning. This database appears barely recognised however, for reasons including (a) the scientific tradition may not be seen as an appropriate basis for humanistic decision making; (b) personal observations can override impersonal statistics; (c) alternative frames, such as postmodernism, may contribute towards an anti‐science stance; (d) qualitative research may be viewed as representing a sampled universe; (e) educational theorising thrives upon dichotomisations which cannot be mapped against objectively‐secured data; and (f) individuals are relatively unable to undertake the mental processes demanded of theory change. The author also discusses the distinction between scientific reasoning and everyday cognition, as illustrated by research findings into cognitive biases and heuristics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 32 , Issue 1: A Scientific Approach to Special Education , April 2008 , pp. 125 - 137
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

Adams, G., & Carnine, D. (2003). Direct instruction. In Swanson, H. L.,Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 403–416). New York: Guildford.Google Scholar
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Graham, S. (2003). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: Research-based applications and examples. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 109–123.Google Scholar
Baker, S., Gersten, R., Dimino, J. A., & Griffiths, R. (2004). The sustained use of research-based instructional practice. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479.Google Scholar
Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science Technology and Society, 24(3), 200–212.Google Scholar
Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teachers’ behavior and student achievement. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Campanario, J. M. (2002). The parallelism between scientists’ and students’ resistance to new scientific ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1095–1110.Google Scholar
Campanario, J. M., & Acedo, E. (2007). Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(5), 734–743.Google Scholar
Chin, C. (2005). First-year pre-service teachers in Taiwan: Do they enter the teacher program with satisfactory scientific literacy and attitudes toward science? International Journal of Science Education, 27(13), 1549–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.Google Scholar
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1996). Mental models in data interpretation. Philosophy of Science, 63(Supplement), 211–219.Google Scholar
Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2002). Investigation of presevice elementary school teachers’ thinking about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1016–1031.Google Scholar
de Lemos, M. (2005). Effective strategies for the teaching of reading: What works and why. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10(3/4), 11–17.Google Scholar
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69–106.Google Scholar
Gersten, R., & Smith-Jones, J. (2001). Reflections on the research to practice gap. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(4), 356–361.Google Scholar
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. W., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgement. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Graves, S. E., Davidson, D. C., Ingerson, L., Ryan, P., Griffith, E. C., & McDermott, B. F. et al. (2004). The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Medical Journal of Australia, 180(5 Supplement), 31–34.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2007). Developing potentials for learning: Evidence, assessment and progress. Paper presented at Biennial Conference, European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest. Available from http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/education/staff/j.hattie/presentations.cfm.Google Scholar
Hempenstall, K. (2006). What does evidence-based practice in education mean? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(2), 83–92.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgement and choice. Available from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2002/kahnemann-lecture.pdf Google Scholar
Kida, T. (2006). Don’t believe everything you think: The six basic mistakes we make in thinking. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.Google Scholar
Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, J. E. H., & Maas, C. J. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 233–251.Google Scholar
Levitt, N., & Gross, P. R. (1996). Academic anti-science. Academe, 82(6), 38–43.Google Scholar
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Butcher, K. (1997). How effective is inquiry learning for students with mild disabilities? Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 199–211.Google Scholar
Pressley, M., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2006). The state of educational intervention research as viewed through the lens of literacy intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowe, K. (2006). Effective teaching practices for students with and without learning difficulties: Issues and implications surrounding key findings and recommendations from the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(3), 99–115.Google Scholar
Smith, F. (1992). Learning to read: The never-ending debate. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 433–441.Google Scholar
Smith, F. (1999). Why systematic phonics and phonemic awareness instruction constitute an educational hazard. Language Arts, 77(2), 150–155.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–406.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1993). Dysrationalia: A new specific learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(8), 501–515.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Reconceptualizing intelligence: Dysrationalia as an intuition pump. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 11–22.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2002). Rationality, intelligence, and levels of analysis in cognitive science. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Why smart people can be so stupid (pp. 124–158). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, P. J., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Research into practice in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(5), 477–482.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Harvard.Google Scholar
Yates, G. C. R., & Chandler, M. (2000). Where have all the skeptics gone? Patterns of new age beliefs and anti-scientific attitudes in preservice primary teachers. Research in Science Education, 30(4), 377–387.Google Scholar