Of course, we don’t teach as we heal. But in terms of knowledge transfer between research and practice, there are similarities between the two fields.
I who come from health and am now in education, so I read with great interest the two open letters co-signed by a large number of professors from all the faculties of education sciences in Quebec in this journal about from the National Institute for Excellence in Education (INEE): “INEE, an institute of naïveté par excellence in education” and “How will we judge the excellence of Quebec schools? “. I salute their contribution to the public debate and, recognizing with them the importance of “places for consultation and continuous dialogue” – including digital ones –, I would like to respond to them.
Especially since I have already spoken in The duty by positioning myself for the INEE in an open letter published here about a year ago… and that I would not regret it if the INEE diverges too much from the National Institute of Excellence in Health and Social Services (INESSS) , which it is supposed to imitate.
The signatories of these letters mention on several occasions their fear of interference in the teaching choices of teachers. Let’s compare this idea with the place that INESSS takes in medical practice. Physicians are the practitioners with the greatest professional autonomy. They are also those who are most expected to know the guidelines promoted by INESSS… and to apply them. This does not limit their “creative and innovative initiatives”, but brings them back to where they belong: in the adaptation of the guidelines – valid at the level of a population – to a particular person.
The guidelines say at what dose to start a medication; but it is the primary effect and the secondary effects that tell how to adjust it.
The creativity that these teachers call for is also that of “our community of researchers”. I embark. Educational research is testing interventions of an originality that often overwhelms me, and that has nothing to envy to the proliferation of medical treatments. But what is innovative is not necessarily effective. These fine ideas must be put to the test of the facts — and, for the good of the pupils, refrain from promoting those which have not resisted them.
Evidence
Evidence-Based Medicine (evidence-based medicine) is rooted in three sources: research results, experiential knowledge and patient preferences. Curiously, when we transferred the model to education to talk about evidence-based education, we only kept the results of research. However, these are only a starting point. It is obvious that knowledge of the context of practice and professional experience are necessary to refine its application. But not starting from the results of large-scale quantitative research condemns one to rely on one’s intuition. And it is such an idea that deprofessionalizes teaching.
Some do not like the use of the term “proof” for the human and social sciences, even natural ones: they say that one only proves in mathematics. However, even in mathematics, theorems sometimes have a limited lifespan. I have nothing against the idea of abandoning the word that annoys, and with it its logical corollary of “evidence”. The expression contributes nothing to the debate, insofar as the debate concerns precisely what is proven – and the extent to which it has been successfully proven.
So let’s talk about “compelling data” instead. The data collected by a researcher and a teacher do not differ in kind, but in quality — according to the collection method used, for example, or even according to the width of the sample. An experienced teacher will only have had access to a sample of a few hundred students at most. Some research has studied samples of tens of thousands of students. They seem to me more convincing to indicate which pedagogical technique to use from the outset when faced with a class that we know little about.
Signatories say INEE should define excellence. He doesn’t need it. Excellent in education is that which best achieves the objective established for the school. But this one is chosen democratically; not by experts. Experts will only determine the most effective ways to achieve the goal. And in this regard, not everything is equal. Qualitative research, which does not aim to produce generalizable results, should not pretend to do so like quantitative research — which can.
They also argue that teachers will resist, as they will feel pressured into adopting pedagogical methods. I trust them to be convinced by what is convincing. I have the impression that here, the signatories commit a “presumption of [l’im]relevance of the medium” about the INEE and that they decided that the teachers would follow them there. It’s a funny conception of their professional autonomy.