Vibes aren't enough: Schools need evidence of what works (or flops)

If an edtech vendor claims students will learn more, make them prove it, says Nicole Barnes, the American Psychological Association's lead education specialist. Schools shouldn't ban all edtech, says the APA in a new report.

School districts are limiting technology use, especially for younger children, reports Erica Meltzer on Chalkbeat. "New York City’s school system just adopted what might be the most restrictive AI policy in the country," while Los Angeles Unified "banned laptops and tablets for young learners and prohibited the use of AI tools on school-issued devices."

The APA report warns that learning can't be measured by how much time students spend on apps, completion rates or student enjoyment. Often, "features designed to maintain student attention can district from learning."

In addition, "learning platforms can be good for practicing specific skills, but claims about improved critical thinking are rarely supported by evidence," the report states.

"Schools should ask for independent evaluations of the effectiveness of learning tools, not studies commissioned by ed tech vendors," the report advises.

Education is "finally (finally) beginning to turn toward scientific evidence to help make better decisions to benefit kids," writes "Bell Ringer" Holly Korbey.

"A lot of education is done on vibes," Carl Hendrick, co-author of Instructional Illusions, told her. "In other words, I feel like I’m doing a really good thing. The kids are feeling like they’re having a good time, so what’s the problem?”

England has made significant gains in achievement by funding research and using the results, writes Helen Pearson in Beyond Belief: How Evidence Shows What Really Works. The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) ran "more than 160 randomized controlled trials on everything from behavior interventions to phonics to tutoring" to create a Teaching and Learning Toolkit that's widely used in schools.

By contrast, U.S. research on evidence-based practices in reading and math was "pretty much ignored," writes Korbey. The What Works Clearinghouse, launched in the early 2000s, found "few of the popular interventions used in American schools were shown to have any evidence of efficacy behind them." As Pearson notes, it became known as the “Nothing Works Clearinghouse."

Now, Korbey sees signs of hope. "More university programs are incorporating cognitive science courses and evidence-based practices into clinical practice for new teachers." (You'd think it would be 100 percent.) Furthermore, "individual teachers are gathering, mostly online in social media forums, to share ideas about evidence-based practices" and report on what kinds of instruction produce the best results in their classrooms.

Parents don't have to rely on vibes to pick the best school for their children, Korbey concludes. "There is a bedrock of knowledge on what works in teaching and learning."