Robert Slavin, a prominent American researcher from Johns Hopkins University, imagined the following situation in 2019: “Imagine that school principals, teachers, parents, enlightened members of school boards and other people in a given territory all are encouraged to use evidence-based and research-based intervention programs to support student success. Imagine many of these people writing letters to school board leaders, letters to education journalists, or maybe, if that’s not enough, holding protests at the offices of those boards. with signs saying something like “Use only what works” or “Our children have a right to research-based educational programs”. Who could be against that? »
In principle, no one should be. However, in practice, and quite curiously, it must be recognized, the discourse on evidence is rather the subject of fierce opposition from certain academics in the faculties of education (Leroux, Allaire, Granger and Tremblay published on 2 december in The duty).
Under the pretext of wanting to bring nuance to the evidence, they rather contribute to darkening research results that are nevertheless very clear! For example, Normand Baillargeon in his text of November 19 indicates that the concept of universal design for learning (UDL) is not based on research having shown its effectiveness on student performance. To support his assertion, he cites Murphy’s study to which it would have been possible to add those of Matthew and Boysen.
These researchers reviewed the scientific literature to identify research comparing the effectiveness of using an ADL-based intervention in experimental groups with no such intervention in control groups. These researchers come to the same conclusion: the effectiveness of this intervention has not been demonstrated. What should be nuanced then? Why should it be done when no rigorous proof is available? There is therefore nothing to qualify in their conclusions. The effectiveness has not been shown until now, period. It is rather on the side of the why that we must ask ourselves questions.
Indeed, evidence from experimental research seems to give a lot of academics in education hives, because the majority of them abhor this type of research. Need we remind you that more than 250 of them signed a petition against the creation of a National Institute for Excellence in Education (INEE) in Quebec, which could have used evidence-based research (Bourdon and Gauvreau, 2017). Help, Professor Slavin!
As the latter rightly pointed out in our introduction, school personnel are looking for effective interventions. More than ever, it needs effective interventions, and the use of evidence is essential to achieve this. Indeed, at a time when he is grappling, day after day, not only with the numerous school delays of the pupils, but also with the resurgence of behavioral difficulties as much of the externalized type (hyperactivity, attention, aggressiveness, etc.) as internalized (anxiety, depression, stress, mental health, etc.), now many “nuanced” academics are questioning the data from experimental studies that can help identify effective interventions, without offering anything it is equivalent or even more rigorous!
Under the pretext that each teaching situation is supposedly unique, it would be, according to them, inappropriate, if not impossible, to identify effective interventions based on evidence. Fortunately, such a statement is totally false, as evidenced in particular by the implementation of the Success for All program for the teaching of reading, which has produced constantly positive effects since its implementation and its generalization among 50,000 teachers in more than 1,000 schools. in the United States, in 48 states, and in four other countries reaching more than 500,000 students!
Obviously there are differences between the classes, but we must not forget that there are also many similarities (a teacher, a group of students working in the same room, a study program to be taught to the course of a school year of approximately ten months) which explain the repeated effectiveness of several interventions.
Moreover, it is thanks to conclusive data that we now know that, first, teaching based on learning styles and types of intelligence is now recognized as ineffective. Second, that methods of teaching reading centered on the written code are more effective than global methods. And finally, three, that positive reinforcement is more effective in changing behavior than punishment.
If it is necessary to qualify the results when the studies are contradictory, requiring nuances when the research results are clear demonstrates rather in a radical way an objection of principle. This actually contributes to darkening the very well-lit speeches!