Đọc Vị Thiên Hạ Lọc Những Cú Lừa

by Daniel T. Willingham

"Được dựa trên các nghiên cứu khoa học" vẫn luôn là cụm từ được giới truyền thông và những người chào hàng tận dụng triệt để. Nhưng thế nào mới là "dựa trên" và thế nào mới là "nghiên cứu khoa học" đúng chuẩn? Giữa muôn vàn lời quảng cáo bay bổng tới tận mây xanh, liệu bạn có đủ tỉnh táo để nhận ra những cú lừa ngoạn mục để rồi không phải tiền mất tật mang? Hãy cùng tác giả Willingham từng bước vén bức màn bí ẩn đằng sau ngôn từ hoa mỹ và lật mặt những kẻ mạo danh khoa học. Cuốn sách này chắc chắn sẽ là cẩm nang bí quyết dẫn lối đưa đường cho bạn đến với sự thật phũ phàng.

“Đây là một cuốn sách trí tuệ vô cùng hấp dẫn về một vấn đề quan trọng. Nếu bạn nghĩ giáo dục là một lĩnh vực phải được xây dựng trên cơ sở bằng chứng, thì đây là một cuốn sách đáng đọc. Còn nếu bạn coi giáo dục là một môn nghệ thuật không bị chi phối bởi khoa học, thì bạn rất cần phải đọc cuốn sách này.” – Russ Whitehurst, giám đốc, Trung tâm chính sách giáo dục Brown, Viện Brookings.

Genres: Education, Nonfiction, Science, Teaching, Psychology, Parenting, Research

384 pages, Unknown Binding

First published June 20, 2012

About the author

Daniel Willingham earned his B.A. from Duke University in 1983 and his Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology from Harvard University in 1990. He is currently Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, where he has taught since 1992. Until about 2000, his research focused solely on the brain basis of learning and memory. Today, all of his research concerns the application of cognitive psychology to K-12 education. He writes the “Ask the Cognitive Scientist” column for American Educator magazine, and is an Associate Editor of Mind, Brain, and Education. He is also the author of Why Don't Students Like School? (Jossey-Bass) and When Can You Trust the Experts? (Jossey-Bass). His writing on education has been translated into ten languages.

from http://www.danielwillingham.com/about...

Reviews

[Henk Roi · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must for teachers who are willing to change education but are wary of all the 'expert' advice they get and can't see the trees of good ideas for the forest of management mumbo-jumbo and educational myths. Not necessarily very directly practical, but it shows the reader how good science works and how we can arm ourselves against unsubstantiated claims.

[Ken · Rating 4 out of 5]

When we think "science" and "education," we think of those teachers who taught us how to set the Periodic Table, break beakers, and light fires. What we don't think of are white-coat types holding a magnifying glass to education research. Still, in this day of "research-based" this and "best-practices" that, shouldn't we at least question what that means? Daniel T. Willingham certainly thinks so, and he wrote WHEN CAN YOU TRUST THE EXPERTS? HOW TO TELL GOOD SCIENCE FROM BAD IN EDUCATION in an attempt to rectify that.

As I teach English and not science, I am probably a good test subject for this book. I'm happy to say that not all of it was new. In fact, if you, like me, know a thing or two about persuasion and logical fallacies, you will find some of Willingham's information warmed-up leftovers. He starts the book with a little history -- admittedly my favorite part -- about the Enlightenment, where science was king, and the Romantic Era, where emotions and nature held sway. Turns out, educational sorts are still tapping these roots to impress and persuade us that their particular form of educational-change-for-the-better is superior. Thus, we might see a picture of a scientist in a white coat (usually an avuncular sort with white hair and a clipboard) attached to the pitch. Also, statistics might be used, and the holy words "science" and "research" themselves might be invoked. People trust scientists and research, even more so in the U.S. than in many other countries.

Romantic roots? Think of the word "natural" (also used prolifically in the food business, where it means absolutely nothing). The Romantic movement also sends us our love of "the whole child" and of each learning style being unique and thus worthy of our attention and lesson planning. Yeah. We like that individualistic spirit, too -- and educational salesmen know that. Thus, they use the right buzzwords to sell us.

After explaining how we are easily fooled and how science might save us, Willingham moves on from background information to actions we might take. He advises that we "flip it, trace it, and analyze it." In brief, an example of "flipping it" might be the hamburger that calls itself 85% lean on its packaging. Flip it and you get the much less tantalizing 15% fat which is the same thing but would hurt sales if it appeared on the package in large red letters with exclamation points. "Trace it" teaches you how to sniff a trail, hound dog-like. Who is making this claim and where is his data coming from? Finally, "analyze it" shows you how a scientist would put said data to the test. There's data and there's data, after all.

If you don't know where to begin, you might start with this book, even if it can get a bit dry at times, especially for my right-brained (whoops, bad science!) mind. Still, I know it's good for me, so I carried on. Plus, Willingham was constantly providing tables to summarize key points. This is good science, apparently, especially when English teachers are reading.

Despite the fact that it doesn't really name a lot of names, products, and strategies, I recommend the book for those who are questioning certain educational systems and claims, those who are vetting them, or those who must champion them. Know of what you speak before you endorse or challenge things! As E.D. Hirsch said, in a quote repeated in this book: "The enormous problem faced in basing policy on research is that it is almost impossible to make educational policy that is not based on research. Almost every educational practice that has ever been pursued has been supported with data by somebody. I don't know a single failed policy, ranging from the naturalistic teaching of reading, to the open classroom, to the teaching of abstract set-theory in third-grade math that hasn't been research-based. Experts have advocated almost every conceivable practice short of inflicting permanent bodily harm."

So much for "research." Almost as dependable as that "all natural" you see on so much unhealthy food.

[Mahmoud Aghiorly · Rating 4 out of 5]

على الرغم من أن هذا الكتاب موجه للأمور المتعلقة بنظريات وابحاث و طرق التعليم إلا انه سوف يخبرك كيف تقيم الافكار الجديدة و سوف يساعدك على تلافي اقتناعك بالادلة السيئة و خاصة اننا نعيش اليوم في عالم تنهال فيه علينا العنوانين الاخبارية بمئات وآلاف الابحاث والتي غالبا منا تناقض بعضها بعضا , والامر الممتع في هذا الكتاب كتاب متى يمكن الوثوق في الخبراء؟ للكاتب دانيال تي ويلينجهام هو انه يضع بعض اكثر النظريات شيوعا تحت مجهر البحث من مثل صحة النسبة الذهبية و صحة فكرة القراءة البصرية و استغلال فكرة انواع الذكاء في ترويج برامج تعليمية و استغلال امراض الاطفال من مثل مرض التوحد في النظم التربوية والالعاب المضرة ناهيك عن طرق علاجية كثيرة معظمها يفشل في اول خطوة تحقق علمية تطبق عليه , و مهما كان مستواك في المهارة البحثية فإن هذا الكتاب سوف يساعدك على طرح اسئلة تجعلك على الارجح تتمكن من تقيم صحة و جودة البحث العلمي المطروح امامك و فوق كل ما سبق فهو يضيف ايضا المسببات التي تجعل من العلم الزائف شائعاً و الاسباب التي تدفع الانسان إلى اقتناع فكر ما او قناعة ما والتعنت لصالحها مهما تبين له من حجج ناقضة لها , و اخيراً يقدم لك الكتاب دليل ارشادي حول تقبل التغيير العلمي من عدمه و خريطة بحث عن صلاحية وجودة الابحاث عبر المواقع العلمية , الكتاب بصورة عامة مفيد جداً الا انه يحتوي بعض المعلومات الفائضة للقارىء الغير مختص مما يجعل انسيابية قراءته غير سلسلة تماما , تقيمي للكتاب 4/5 و انصح بشدة قراءة الفصل الاول والاخير .

مقتطفات من كتاب متى يمكن الوثوق في الخبراء؟ للكاتب دانيال تي ويلينجهام
-----------------------
لماذا تصدّق ما تصدّقه؟ ما الأدلة التي تقنعك بأنّ أحد الأشخاص على صواب أو أن أحد المنتجات جيد حقا ؟
--------------
نحن نستغلّ على نحو منهجي بشكل متكرّر من قبل قوى خارجة عن نطاق إدراكنا، أو خارجة عن نطاق سيطرتنا في حالة إدراكنا لها.
-------------
لاحظ الباحثون وجود هذه النسبة ١.٦١٨ في العمارة الكلاسيكية؛ فعلى سبيل المثال: عرض وارتفاع واجهة معبد البارثينون في اليونان يلتزمان بالنسبة الذهبية. تلاحظ النسبة الذهبية أيضا في الهرم الأكبر في الجيزة، فإذا رسم المرء مثلثا , فإن نسبة طول إحدى الواجهات إلى نصف طول القاعدة تكون في حدود واحد في المائة من النسبة الذهبية
------------
إن الوجوه ليست جذّابة بسبب الشكل الجيد للعينين والفم فحسب؛ فلا بد أن تكون أبعاد الوجه صحيحة؛ فإذا كانت عينا الشخص شديدتي القرب أو شديدتي البعْد، فلن يعتبر جذّابا، فالممثلة جيسيكا ألبا، تعتبر عادة جذّابة للغاية، ليس فقط لأنها تمتلك ابتسامة ساحرة وعينين جميلتين، لكنْ لأن المسافة بين ملامحها تطابق النسبة الذهبية على نحو مثالي
---------------
إننا ننجذب طبيعيا إلى الأشياء التي تظهر النسبة الذهبية نظرا لوجود هذه النسبة في كل أنحاء الطبيعة
----------------
السميوطيقا (علم دراسة الرموز)
------------------
بعض ظواهر النسبة الذهبية دقيق لكنه تافه؛ تافه لأنّ الأمثلة التي توافق النسبة الذهبية يجري التركيز عليها، بينما الأمثلة التي لا توافقها يجري تجاهلها. لماذا ندرس أبعاد معبد البارثينون وليسالبانثيون؟ لماذا هرم الجيزة وليس هرم خفرع؟ بالإضافة إلى ذلك، لماذا لا تنطبق هذه النسبة على الكولوسيوم الروماني، أو تاج محل، أو قصرالحمراء أو برج إيفل؟
----------------
يؤمن الناس بأمور كثيرة لا يوجد لها دليل علمي؛ فهم يؤمنون أن عملة معدنية معينة تجلب لهم الحظ، أو أن الكائنات الفضائية تزور الأرضبانتظام، أو أن تنبؤات المنجمين صادقة بحيث يستحيل عزوها إلى الصدفة. كثير من هذه المعتقدات، على الرغم من كونها غير مدعومة بالأدلة، غير ضارة. ربما تكلّفنا القليل من الوقت أو المال، لكننا نجدها ممتعة أو مثيرة، ولا نتعامل معها بقدر كبير من الجدية على أية حال
-----------------
المعتقدات غير المدعومة بالأدلة المرتبطة بالتعليم لها أهمية أكبر؛ فكلفتها من حيث الوقت والمال يمكن أن تكون هائلة، والأسوأ من ذلك أن المعتقدات الخاطئة المتعلقة بالتعليم من الممكن أن تكلّف الأطفال تعليمهم
-----------------
لن تجد نعيا أكاديميا لهذه الفكرة المثيرة التي تقول ان هناك من يتعلم سماعيا و هناك من يتعلم بصريا والتي اتضح أنها خاطئة، بل ستجد تقريبا مليونيْ نتيجة، وستجد تقريبا ألفيْ كتاب على موقع أمازون، وستجد المصطلح مذكورا في مناهج آلافالدورات في الكليات، وستجد الكثير والكثير من المنتجات التي تعد بنتائج تعليمية محسنة بمجرد معرفة أساليب التعلّم الخاصة بالطلبة … على الرغم من أن معرفة أسلوب تعلّم الطفل تتطلّب غالبا شراء الكتاب الذي يريدون منك شراءه، أو حضور الورشة التي يقيمونها.
-------------------
الكتابة تعتمد على الصوت، فإن تعليم القراءة بطريقة تتجاهل الصوت يبدو خطرا.
--------------------
تقدّم جهات مخادعة مجموعة من العلاجات البيولوجية المشبوهة لعلاج اضطراب طيف التوحّد، ولا تحظى أيّ منها بموافقة إدارة الغذاء والدواء الأمريكية، ويبدو أن جميعها يعد بعلاج السبب الجذري للمرض
----------
العلاج السلوكي لاضطراب طيف التوحّد محْبط لكل الأطراف المعْنيّة؛ فهو عملية بطيئة تتطلّب قدرا كبيرا من الجهد والدقة، ولا بد أن الوالدين يشعرون بأنه حلّ مؤقت، فهذا العلاج لا يخاطب المشكلة الأساسية، بل يواجه الأعراض فقط. والمشكلة الأساسية بالتأكيد ليست سلوكية؛ فالأطفال ليسوا مصابين باضطراب طيف التوحّد بسبب شيء فعله الوالدان، أو بسببشيء لم يفعلوه. إنّ اضطراب طيف التوحّد لديه أساس بيولوجي؛ ومن ثمّ يبدو أن العلاج يجب أن يكون بيولوجيا
--------------
إن مجرد محاولة تحديد مكان الدراسات العلمية الخاصة بإحدى الممارسات قد تخبرك أن هذه الدراسات لم تجْر من الأساس. هذا وحده أمر مفيد، ومن دواعي السرور أن معرفة هل الدراسات أجريت أم لا، أصبحت الآن سهلة إلى حدّ بعيد باستخدام الإنترنت.
--------------
أن معرفة هل البحث أجري بالطريقة الصحيحة ليس بالأمر الهيّن. إن الخبرة في الأبحاث تشبه بالضبط أيّ نوع آخر من الخبرات؛ إذ يتطلّب اكتسابها الكثير من العمل الجاد والممارسة، ومعظم الأشخاص الذين لديهم أسر ووظائف وغيرهما من المسئوليات لا يستطيعون بذْل هذا القدر من الوقت
----------------
الناس يقتنعون بحجج ضعيفة لا سيما تلك الحجج التي تبدو علمية . لسوء الحظ، الناسغير قادرين على التمييز بين العلم الجيد والعلم السيئ ، ولديهم التباسعادة حول كيفية استخدام المكتشفات العلمية في حلّ مشكلات التعليم .
-------------
كنت أجري دراساتي العليا، حين أوضح الأستاذ أدلة النسبة الذهبية بوجه خال من الابتسامة، ولم أكن مهتما فحسب، بل كنت مندهشا أيضا. لقد كنت متأكدا من أن الرب نفسه قد وضع هذا الرقم في الطبيعة كنوع من الشفرة كي نحلّها، وعندما أوضح الأستاذ كلّ العيوب في حجة النسبة الذهبية، شعرت أنني تعرّضْت للخداع.
---------------
يقلّد البشر بعضهم بعضا أثناء التفاعلات الاجتماعية.
-----------------
لماذا نقلّد؟ التقليد يولّد الألفة، ونحن نحب الأشخاص الذين يشبهوننا
---------------
الأمور المألوفة تبدو موثوقا فيها وآمنة ومحبّبة وقابلة للتصديق
----------------
من الصحيح أن الإعجاب — أي الإعجاب بأحد الأشخاص — يجعل ما يقوله ذلك الشخص أكثر مصداقية؛ حتى إن إعجابنا السريع بأحد الغرباء يؤثّر على مدى المصداقية التي نشعر بها نحوه.
----------------
إننا نحب (ومن ثمّ نصدّق) ليس فقط الأشخاص الجذابين، بل أيضا الأشخاص الذين نعتقد أنهم يشبهوننا
---------------
إن الأشخاص الذين يشبهوننا يبدون لنا أكثر مصداقية، وتقلّ في عيوننا احتمالية أنْ يوجّهونا على نحو خاطئ
---------------
السعي للحصول فقط على تأكيد للمعلومات في سياقات أخرى قد يؤدّي إلى مشكلة، فمن الممكن أن يكون افتراضك خاطئا — بل هو خاطئ جدا — لكنك على الرغم من ذلك قد تجد بعض الأمثلة الإيجابية، وتلك الأمثلة قد تجعلك تعتقد أنك محق
--------------------
إننا نرى ما نعتقد أننا سنراه، وهذا يساعدنا في فهم كيف يمكن أن تستمر التصوّرات النمطية؛ على سبيل المثال: المتعصّب الذي يعتقد أن الأمريكيين ذوي الأصل الأفريقي كسالى، سوف يميل إلى ملاحظة وتذكّر أيّ مثال على الكسل يلاحظه في الأمريكيين ذوي الأصل الأفريقي؛ ومن ثمّ، سوف يلاحظ المتعصّب (ويتذكّر) أي مصادمة مع موظف متجر متكاسل أسود، لكن المعاملة نفسها مع موظف أبيضسوف تمرّ دون ملاحظة، أو سوف يفترض المتعصّب أن الموظف لديه عذْر مشروع لكونه بطيئا نسبيا
---------------------
حدّد العلماء بضعة معتقدات ماورائية يشترك فيها كثير منا، من أمثلتها معتقد العالم العادل وهو إحساس يقضي بأن العالم منصف في جوهره. وفقا لهذا المعتقد فإن عيش حياة عادلة أخلاقية يجلب السعادة والحظّ السعيد، بينما السلوك غير الأخلاقي يعاقبه القدر في نهاية المطاف
--------------------
إن أصعب الموضوعات يمكن تفسيرها لأقل الأشخاص ذكاء إذا لم يكن قد كوّن أية فكرة عنها بالفعل، لكنّ أبسط الأمور لا يمكن توضيحها لأكثر الأشخاص ذكاء إذا كان مقتنعا اقتناعا راسخا بأنه يعلم بالفعل، دون أدنى شكّ، حقيقة الأمور المقدّمة له
---------------------
بعض المعتقدات قد تكون مرتبطة بجوانب مهمة من هويّتنا وبتصوّراتنا لذواتنا
--------------------
لحماية أنفسنا من تصديق أمور زائفة نحتاج إلى ما يلي: ( ١) معرفة الإشارات الثانوية التي تقنعنا كي نتمكّن من إسقاطها من حساباتنا. و( ٢) معرفة المعتقدات التي نتبنّاها حاليا لأنها سوف تجعل طريقة تقييمنا للمعلومات الجديدة متحيّزة
---------------------
إذا كان الأمر متعارضا مع التجربة، فهو خاطئ. في هذه الجملة البسيطة يكمن أساس العلم. لا يشكّل فارقا مدى جمال تخمينك، لا يشكّل فارقا مدى ذكائك، أو من خمّن هذا التخمين، أو ماذا يكون اسمه. إذا تعارض الأمر مع التجربة، فهو خاطئ.
---------------------
الفشل هو أمر جيد في واقع الأمر. لماذا؟ لأن هذه هي الطريقة التي يتقدّم بها العلم
------------------------
كيف تعرف إنْ كان عليك أن تتمسّك بالنظرية وتأمل تفسير الانحرافات لاحقا، أم تتخلّى عن النظرية؟ لا توجد قواعد واضحة لاتخاذ هذا القرار. في العموم، كلما زادت البيانات التي تفسّرها النظرية، زاد استعداد العلماء لتحمّل الأمور القليلة التي تخطئ فيها. إذا كانت النظرية غير ناجحة للغاية من البداية، ثم رأيت ملاحظة تتعارض معها، يقل احتمال استمرار تصديقك لها. في النهاية، إنه قرار متوقّف على حكمك، فمن الممكن أن يختلف الأشخاص العقلاء حول وجوب التخلّي عن النظرية أو الاحتفاظ بها.
---------------------
توجد صفة مهمة بصفة خاصة عند التفكير في رفض نظرية قديمة لصالح نظرية أخرى جديدة، وهذه الصفة هي أن العلم الجيد تراكمي؛ هذا يعني أنه من أجل أن تحل نظرية جديدة محل نظرية قديمة، فإنها لا بد أن تفعل ما فعلته النظرية القديمة وأكثر منه. من المفترض دائما أن يتحرّك العلم للأمام
-------------------
التزام العلانية فيما يخص الطرق العلمية مهمّ لأنه من الصعب التفكير في كل اعتراض ممكن على عملك، وليس مهما لذلك فحسب، بل أيضا لأن العلماء معرّضون للوقوع في فخّ الانحياز التأكيدي أيضا. عندما نجري تجربة فإننا نعلم ما نتوقّع أن نكتشفه، ومن المحتمل (دون وعي منّا) أن نشوّه انطباعنا عن النتائج كي نؤكّد توقّعنا
--------------------
لنفترضْ أن هدفي من التعليم المدرسي ليس تحقيق الذات، بل الإعداد لعالم العمل. عندما يسعى أطفال اليوم في يوم من الأيام إلى الحصول على وظيفة وحياة مهنية، فإنهم لن يتنافسوا فحسب مع أطفال من شارعهم أو من بلدتهم، بل سوف يتنافسون مع أطفال من برلين، وساو باولو، ونانجينج. إننا ملزمون تجاه أطفالنا بإعدادهم لهذا الأمر، من أجل ازدهار مستقبلهم. مع وضع هذا الهدف في الاعتبار، لا تبدو نظرية الذكاءات المتعددة غير مفيدة فحسب، بل من الممكن أن تكون مدمّرة؛ فمعظم الأطفال لن يكسبوا قوتهم من عزف الموسيقى؛ ومن ثمّ سأرى أن الموسيقى أمر إضافي، إضافة ممتعة يجب أن يمارسها الأطفال في وقت فراغهم. لا أريد عالم نفس يخبرهم أن الموسيقى، بطريقة ما، تعادل قدرة عملية مثل الرياضيات. بعبارة أخرى: إن نتائج تعليم إحدى الحقائق العلمية تعتمد على أهداف التعليم المدرسي.
---------------------
من يصنع معروفا لغيره يجب أن يفعله بتفاصيل دقيقة. الخير العام هو عذر الوغد والمنافق والمتملق، لأن الفن والعلم لا يمكن أن يوجدا إلّا في التفاصيل المنظمة بدقة.
---------------------

[Miriam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Willinghams eerdere boek 'Why Don't Students Like School? A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How The Mind Works And What It Means For The Classroom' vond ik erg interessant en nuttig, dus dit boek van hem wilde ik zeker lezen. Willingham stelde niet teleur, ook dit boek is weer goed geschreven, interessant en nuttig, zowel voor docenten, ouders als thuisonderwijzers.

[J.S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is specifically aimed at educators (teachers and administrators, but parents, too) who might be considering "educational software, games, workbooks or other programs" which claim to be "based on the latest research." While some of these products may be based on actual research, many are not. But how can you tell? Willingham discusses the history of science and the role it plays in persuading us and appeals to our biases (especially the "confirmation bias" where we look for "evidence" that supports what we already believe and discard what doesn't support it). Ultimately he outlines and explains four steps:

- Strip it and Flip it. Strip the claim down to its essentials and promises: "If I do X, then there is a Y percent chance that Z will happen."
- Trace it. Should you take statements by "authorities" at face value?
- Analyze it. What evidence is offered? Is there any scientific evidence (from reliable studies) that support or refute the claims?
- Should you do it? And how will you measure results, or when do you call it quits?

It's a rather straightforward process that can weed out a lot of programs and help you find (and understand) the kind of research for making better-informed decisions. And while it's geared more toward eduation professionals it's also written plainly enough that parents can use the same processes. I picked it up hoping it could apply to other areas where science is touted. Such issues are certainly beyond the scope of this book, but I think Willingham's method is a good place to start and can be applied in more areas than just education. It's not a long book and Willingham's writing style is easy to follow. But the main idea is to get people thinking for themselves and not be misled by emotional appeals or psuedo-science.

[Christy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not as practical as I would have liked. The final three chapters are where Dr. Willingham tells how to evaluate programs and research. His steps are to strip it and flip it, trace it and analyze it before deciding if it's a good fit for you/your school.

Strip it of any emotional appeals, analogies, "experts", claims, etc. to determine what is being claimed.
Flip it to see the adverse outcomes (if reading scores improve in 30% of students, what about the other 70%?), your/your school's behavior.
Trace it - Basically, education doesn't have a good authority to vet research, the closest is the What Works Clearinghouse and not everyone agrees that WWC is very good. Therefore, we are left tracing research on our own and often find conflicting studies.
Analyze it and beware of your own bias when doing so. Make sure you pay attention to the outcomes you desire...it's great if the program helps kids be more organized, but if your desired outcome is improved math scores, organization isn't the focus.

[Erika Daniels · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love Daniel Willingham's work. He is a cognitive scientist who focuses on education issues. I use his text "Why Don't Students Like School" in one of my undergrad classes b/c it is an engaging way of presenting research on how we learn. His most recent book has the same great writing style but is a little slower. It is still very good though and offers practical suggestions for reviewing research and deciding what claims to believe. I wish that policy makers, parents, and educators would apply Willingham's principles before jumping on the bandwagon of the next big reform. I definitely recommend this book.

[عامر شافع · Rating 4 out of 5]

العلم الزائف 😧 ما اكثر ما اصبح يروج اليوم للاسف الشديد ، واحسن مثال على ذلك " التنمية البشرية " .

[Ilib4kids · Rating 2 out of 5]

370.72 WIL
我不太同意他的教育基本观点，但书中讲的现象很值得思考

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
---Francis Bacon

Confirmation bias p46
"The first principle is you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool". --- Richard Feynman p102

"Them most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him" -Tolstoy p50

Chap2: Science and belief
meta-belief: Enlightenment vs. Romantic era
1st meta-belief: The best way to understand the world is through reason (Enlightenment, Newton's principia, nature was governed by laws, like enormously complicated clockworks p67, Francis Bacon)

2nd meta-belief: the best way to understand the world is through personal experience
One impulse from a vernal wood
May teach more of man,
of moral evil and good,
Than all the sages can
---Wordsworth "Tables Turned"

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings
Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things
We murder to dissect
---William Wordsworth

A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects By David Human

Non-traditional schooling
Leonard and Gertrude by Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi
Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Childrearing by Alexander Sutherland Neill

Chap3: What Scientist call good science
Science cycle: Observation, theory, test
Good science
1.The provisional nature of scientific theory
2. Cyclical nature of scientific method is self-correcting.

Good Observation: first principle pick a problem that one can observe; second principle: Observation means measurement p89

Correlation vs. Causation P98
The fact that you observe that two factors are related doesn't mean you can draw a causal link. For example, ice cream consumption and crime are correlated, but not because ice cream makes peoples criminals. Hot weather makes peoples want ice cream, and it also make people more short tempered, which increases violent crime. Surprisingly often, people conclude cause-and-effect relationships from correlations - for example, the relationship of race and academic performance.

Chap4: How to use science
Relationship between Applied and Basic Research
Levels of analysis: when you've analysed something and understand it, your understanding applies only to what you've studied, not necessarily to a group of things you've studies. p121
3 ways basic scientific information from lower levels of analysis can benefit education. p125

Chap5: Step one: Strip it and Flip it
(1)Precisely what change is being suggested
(2)Precisely what outcome is promised as a consequence of change
(3)the probability that promised outcome will actually happen if you undertake the change p136

"If I do X, then there is a Y percent chance that Z will happen.. p136

Frame effect: the way a problem or question is described influences the solution or answer we provide.

What Works Clearinghouse whatworks.ed.gov
The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) was established in 2002 as an initiative of the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) at the U.S. Department of Education.The goal of the WWC is to be a resource for informed education decision making. p181

Where to find research p197
ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) http://eric.ed.gov
maintained by U.S department of Education. A fairly comprehensive search of articles to education.
have check box for "peer reviewed"
Using quotation like "Singapore math" limited to exact phrase "Singapore math" or contain Singapore and math
First look for abstract: a summary of article.

PubMed www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed‎
maintained by U.S National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health
almost all articles are peer reviewed

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics www.nctm.org

Statistical Vs. Practical Significance p203
Statistical Significance: you're justified in concluding that difference is real, not a quirk due to chance.
Practical Significance is a judgement call.

A suggested "Scorecard" to keep track of research findings p200
What was measured? Comparison? How many kids? How much did it help?


Chap 8: Step four: Should I do it?

p211 Some indicate the Change won't work, some indicate suspicion that changes wont' work, and some don't tell you whether or not the Change will work, but indicate that scientific evidence on the question is lacking. The fourth category points to instances where the Change may have scientific support, yet you may not want to adopt it

p212 I kept encouraging you to frame the promised Chang as "If I do X, there is a Y percent chance that Z will happen." Predicting the likelihood of Z is what science good for. Science is not, however, good for telling you how badly you want Z to happen.

p174 Howard Garden's Theory of multiple intelligences
Musical–rhythmic & harmonic
Visual–spatial
Verbal–linguistic
Logical–mathematical
Bodily–kinesthetic
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Naturalistic
Existential

p221 I think architecture serves as a better comparison than medicine does. Architects, like teachers, usually have multiple goals that they try to satisfy simultaneously.... In addition, architects make use scientific knowledge, notably principles of physics, and materials science. But this knowledge is certainly not prescriptive. It doesn't tell architect what a building must look like. Rather, it sets boundary conditions for construction to ensure that building will not fall down..

In the same way, basic scientific knowledge about how kids learn, about how they interact, about how they respond to discipline - this knowledge ought to be seen as a boundary condition for teachers and parents, meaning that this knowledge sets boundaries that, if crossed, increase the probability of bad outcomes. Within these broad boundaries, parents and teachers pursue their goals.


other books
A Companion to the Philosophy of Science by William H. Newton-Smith (Editor)

[Rod Naquin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow!!! My favorite learning scientist—I’ve seen him a few times at conferences in New Orleans but this is the first book of his I’ve done. Beyond expectation, practical, approachable, accessible, realistic, and almost encyclopedic in its claim skepticism and approach to evidence based reform

[Steven Cooke · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is essentially a primer on Critical Thinking. It emphasizes clear examples and an extensive bibliography to help people evaluate what they know (or what they think that they know) better. The downside (for some) is that it DOES take some effort and time (including reading this book) to improve.
But if you really want to know what to do in today’s information floods, this is an excellent book to start with! The focus of the book is on improving education, and that is an important objective. The methods demonstrated are equally useful in other areas of life and this book is highly recommended for anyone who is not already capable with critical thinking and the Scientific Method.

[Nguyên ngộ ngộ · Rating 2 out of 5]

so với các cuốn như bạn ko thông minh lắm đâu, nghệ thuật tư duy rành mạch...thì cuốn này mình đọc ko ép phê bằng, vì hai lý do
1. thiên về khía cạnh giáo dục
2. thiên về cải cách tầm vĩ mô

Còn các cuốn trước mình đọc là ứng dụng luôn cho cá nhân, nên đọc thấy thực tế hơn cuốn này.

[Chase Parsley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Educators are constantly bombarded with shiny new bells, whistles, and golden bullets that promise to "fix" what teachers do in their classrooms, raise test scores, and bring our youth up to 21st century technological speed. The problem is that many of these changes are misguided and can even backfire. Daniel Willingham questions these changes and more importantly gives the reader advanced tools to question them too. Every educator and concerned parent ought to digest the contents of this book.

Some key takeaways include (spoiler alert):
- Familiar people and ideas, beauty, and social proof are all powerful persuading techniques that we must be able to recognize.
- Western culture is obsessed with anything "scientific" and/or "natural". This cultural trend has deep roots in the Enlightenment and Romantic Ages.
- Goals and mission statements across the country (in school districts, school buildings, etc.) are often fluffy and next to worthless when you ask basic questions about its exact nature.
- With new ideas, "strip it and flip it." Ask: IF I DO X, THEN THERE IS A Y PERCENT CHANCE THAT Z WILL HAPPEN." A brilliant strategy!
- Also with new ideas, ask whether doing nothing would be better. Question the source. Flip the promises and see how that sounds (85% fat free meat vs. 15% fat meat sound different, etc.)
- Education is extremely complex to measure. Case studies go deeper yet only focus on a narrow berth. Larger studies cover more ground yet are shallower. Lots of external factors influence education.

I give this book a 4/5 star rating because the last few chapters were a bit dry and applied more to people in education who implement change decisions - something I am not. Otherwise this was a very good read! Thank you for your work Professor Willingham and thank you to my wife Reby for shoving this book in my face to read. :)

[Mohammed · Rating 5 out of 5]

(متى نصدق الخبراء: كيف نعرف العلم الجيد من السيء في التعليم)

كتاب يناسب جميع القراء وخاصة من يهتم بالتعليم والبحث
مايميز الكتاب هو أسلوب الكاتب في الكتابة بترابط الافكار وتناسقها

يأخذك الكتاب في مقدمته الرائعة عن بعض الأفكار والقرارات التي نمارسها بدون وعي منا بحيث نعتقد أنها قرارات وأحكام منطقية
ليبين لك أهمية البحث عن المعلومة بعيد عن نظرتنا النمطية التي تتأثر بعوامل لا ندركها

أنطلق الكتاب بعدها ليصف بعض القرون السابقة وكيف كانت تحكمهم الطبيعة وبعض الأعراف قد تكون بدون تقصي المعلومة وتفحصها

يتحدث بعمق مفصل كيف لنا أن نتفحص المعلومات وندقق فيها قبل أتخاذ قرارات مصيرية وخاصة فيما يتعلق بالتعليم دون التأثر بأسلوب المتحدث أو المسوق للمنتج

فيما يتعلق بالتعليم يذكر بأن القرارت التي تتخذها الوزرات والمؤسسات التي التعليمية مالم تنطلق من منظور الطالب وتحصيله العلمي فتأثيرها قد يكون ضعيف جدا

يتحدث عن التعليم والطب وكيف من الممكن عدم المقارنة بينهما لأن الطب يبحث عن علاج يساعد المرضى ولكن في التعليم يختلف الوضع كليا بسبب اختلاف الاهتمامات مثلا هل نعمل على تطوير مهارات القراءة أو الرياضيات أو التقنية وهكذا

كتاب في نهايته يثير فيك الريبة وأن الدراسات والتجارب العلمية الرصينة تكمل بعضها البعض لتستمر . . . . .

[Lupe B. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, but I didn't feel particularly impressed by this book. I would be interested in reading Willingham's other books as I feel they'd be more informative for me, personally. It wasn't a bad read, but at the same time, I don't think it really was something I *needed* to read. That being said, it did raise some interesting points about the way education research plays a role in our education system ranging from k-12 through post-secondary education. I did come away feeling even MORE skeptical and more able to question those in the position to enact changes, so I am grateful for that.

[Grace Hill · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought the first five chapters were good because it talked about the difficulty of doing science in the education field.

The rest was kind of an Idiot's Guide to Real Science. I'd skip the chapters, and read two other things:
1) a very short but good blog post:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/i...
2) a great book:
Priceless: The Myth of Fair Value (and How to Take Advantage of It) by William Poundstone.

Much more entertaining (at least to me)

[Exavidreader]

I wanted to stop reading when he puts his argument about the "Reading Wars". However, I wanted to give the book the benefit of the doubt so I skipped to part 2. Some of the tips given made sense, some were ones that I already do without even thinking. So maybe this book would be more useful for people who are easily taken in by ads. But cynics and sceptics are already good at filtering the good from the bad.

[Lindsey · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book for teacher whose preparation programs focused more on emotions than evaluating research and using data to think critically.

Willingham recognizes that many teachers won’t be able to become researchers—and even explains that what is accepted as educational researcher is a bit of a fraught term-and lays out a framework that can be used to analyze claims that a practice or resource is “research based”.

[Hanh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tiêu đề là 1 cú lừa, sách nói về các nghiên cứu trong lĩnh vực giáo dục, nhưng tựa sách của 1980 gây hiểu lầm.
Dịch giả rất cố gắng!
Nội dung không hấp dẫn, lặp đi lặp lại không có logic xuyên suốt. Bản thân lập luận của tác giả cũng không đủ chặt chẽ, đặc biệt là các ví dụ mang tính đời thường thực tiễn (Roger Federer, sừng tê giác) trong khi lại phân tích lập luận của người khác. Phần suy luận thì còn tạm được.

[Nikki Baker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Willingham is a cognitive psychologist who focuses on educational issues in a clear and approachable way. This book is a bit slower than his others I have read, but provides useful information for teachers who do not want to get swept away by current fads and look at educationally materials in a critical manner.

[Elisha Lawrence · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book for my classes, but it was really good. It was about evaluating statistical claims. He talked about the reasons that we are so confident when someone cites a study or statistic and why we should have skepticism about certain claims. He outlined a process for evaluating claims and ensuring that research is backed and reliable. Overall, it was interesting and helpful.

[Travis Schwan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another must read.

Great book!!!
This must be required reading for every board member and district administrator. Of course it’s great reading for anyone in education but often times changes are made without a clear process is place to evaluate it.

[Abdullah MUSLIM · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب جيد. يطرح تساؤلات مهمة حول طرق التفكير و التعليم و النقد.
يقدم طريقة جيدة للتفريق بين العلم الجيد الصادر عن علماء و بين الترهات التي يبتكرها المحتالون و الدجالون.
"اطرح الاسئلة الصحيحة و اجب عنها بصراحة"

انصح بالكتاب و بشدة.

[JJ Meredith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Again, a homerun by Willingham. Big takeaway: To analyze 'scientific' claims, reduce them to "If X happens, there is a Y% chance of Z happening." Unpack the claim and examine the evidence.

[Genie Nguyễn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too much information about how to create/build the best solution/change in nowadays's education but the ways author points out seem like goin' in the blurring places.

[Joel Carter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great introduction to the topic. Very simply and clearly presented. I would have appreciated a few more examples of Willingham working through educational research articles.

[Jason Anger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most of the book relays common sense methods for telling truth from fiction. The final two chapters are excellent though.

[Fifi · Rating 4 out of 5]

'But in addition to being willing to evaluate an argument, we must also be able to do so, and here we may encounter significant stumbling blocks.'
#DeZinVanHetBoek #ThePointOfTheBook

[Craig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Willingham starts with a good overview of the nature of science and scientific research. He then shows why it can be so difficult to apply scientific methods to evaluating education reforms.

[Jim Erekson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I believe Willingham's arguments about critiquing research, and his review of basic positivist logic is pretty good, even though he fails to position himself within that philosophical tradition. Yet he falls way short of a useful argument when he can't even apply his own principles with any rigor. This bothered me most when he got the section on learning to read wildly wrong, an area of research in which he claims to be a great expert!

This book showcases an almost hilariously under-researched argument about the research on learning to read. Throughout the section in chapter 1, Willingham does not apply his own principles, setting up the whole book as a cheap irony.
1. He sets up a straw man out of whole language, the single most popular first move of anyone trying to position themselves to tell the world about the "science" of learning to read. He begins by falsely equating the 1930s whole word method (Dick & Jane) to the psycholinguistics research that became whole language, which is best characterized by the observation in the late 60s that readers make word errors by applying cognitive strategies unevenly. Dick & Jane whole-word reading and the whole language research aren't even close to each other. This is a false equivalency, based on a simple failure to read, or to actually look at the results of the psycholinguistics research. We see this tired mistake again and again, handed from person to person without any revision--most recently in popular outcry raised by Emily Hannaford in her similarly faulted publications with NPR and the New York Times (she seems to quote from Willingham directly, without citing him). Willingham then plays on this false equivalency to set up a right side and wrong side in the reading wars, which he understands from secondary sources only. Although much has been made of the conflict in the popular press, the consensus among cognitive scientists has long been that learning to read is an interaction between top-down and bottom-up processes. Choosing sides isn't science, when the cognitive processes are complex and interact with each other. Science says that different research traditions answer questions about learning to read in different ways, from different starting points. The psycholinguistic tradition pursues Piagetian arguments that each reader's schemata (the knowledge and expectations they show up with) are going to have an effect on how they read. What do those effects show teachers about learning and learners? Why would we ignore these results based on the science of direct observation and data analysis? When the research studies in this tradition employ research designs that make the results trustworthy, we can use their answers to make decisions about teaching and learning. Shutting down a whole tradition of research because of a misreading of history is a big mistake. Willingham is just one member of a whole club that makes this mistake willfully, usually in the interest of selling books or training programs for teachers.
2. He gerrymanders the research findings to fit his pre-decided argument (confirmation bias). For example, in any responsible review of the era he touches on, he should have brought in results from the 1st-grade studies reported on by Durkin, not just a quick nod to Chall. Chall's respectable research represents one line of inquiry, which was not nearly as comprehensive or thorough as what was done throughout the entire field of research in the same era.
3. He puts a heavy load of his argument on clippings from the popular press, including Flesch's book from the 50s, mingled with a couple of nods to research findings. Looking into his book on reading, I see he makes many of the same mistakes there, albeit with a deeper dive into still hand-picked swaths of the research.
Like many positivists, Willingham applies his chosen logic when it is convenient to him, but not with any thoroughgoing rigor. Disappointing.