<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Patting myself on the back?!?!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://edinsanity.com/2008/06/10/patting-myself-on-the-back/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://edinsanity.com/2008/06/10/patting-myself-on-the-back/</link>
	<description>“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  Albert Einstein</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:19:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Becker</title>
		<link>http://edinsanity.com/2008/06/10/patting-myself-on-the-back/comment-page-1/#comment-626</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Becker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:56:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edinsanity.com/?p=122#comment-626</guid>
		<description>Ah, Ken DeRosa!  I&#039;ve been meaning to add D-edreckoning to my aggregator for a LONG time and never did it.  Thanks for reminding me.

Anyway, like the rest of the ed. policy world, I&#039;ve chosen to ignore the Project FT studies.  No, I&#039;m mostly kidding.  Truth is, I&#039;ve been the principal or co-investigator on LOTS of large-scale studies, most of it &quot;unpublished&quot; (unfortunately).  Those endeavors have hardened me and lead me to the conclusion you&#039;ve challenged.  I just don&#039;t think achievement moves much one way or the other in short periods of time.  That said, I don&#039;t know enough about DI to comment really intelligently, but one guess that I would have is that DI teaches best what is measured by the tests used for that study.  So, if you value what is measured by those tests, then DI may make a difference there.  But, if you don&#039;t value what those tests measure...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, Ken DeRosa!  I&#8217;ve been meaning to add D-edreckoning to my aggregator for a LONG time and never did it.  Thanks for reminding me.</p>
<p>Anyway, like the rest of the ed. policy world, I&#8217;ve chosen to ignore the Project FT studies.  No, I&#8217;m mostly kidding.  Truth is, I&#8217;ve been the principal or co-investigator on LOTS of large-scale studies, most of it &#8220;unpublished&#8221; (unfortunately).  Those endeavors have hardened me and lead me to the conclusion you&#8217;ve challenged.  I just don&#8217;t think achievement moves much one way or the other in short periods of time.  That said, I don&#8217;t know enough about DI to comment really intelligently, but one guess that I would have is that DI teaches best what is measured by the tests used for that study.  So, if you value what is measured by those tests, then DI may make a difference there.  But, if you don&#8217;t value what those tests measure&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KDeRosa</title>
		<link>http://edinsanity.com/2008/06/10/patting-myself-on-the-back/comment-page-1/#comment-624</link>
		<dc:creator>KDeRosa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:09:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://edinsanity.com/?p=122#comment-624</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;I think if you read or hear someone saying that there is a “program” or “initiative” or “reform” that significantly improves student achievement for a large group of students (lets say, for arguments sake, greater than 384), especially in a short period of time, they are lying (or, at least, terribly misleading you).&lt;/i&gt;

You never heard of project follow through (N = many thousands) the largest educational experiment in education history?

Where one of the tested interventions, Direct Instruction, significantly improved student achievement, to the tune of about a standard deviation, for about 2000 students in K-3.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>I think if you read or hear someone saying that there is a “program” or “initiative” or “reform” that significantly improves student achievement for a large group of students (lets say, for arguments sake, greater than 384), especially in a short period of time, they are lying (or, at least, terribly misleading you).</i></p>
<p>You never heard of project follow through (N = many thousands) the largest educational experiment in education history?</p>
<p>Where one of the tested interventions, Direct Instruction, significantly improved student achievement, to the tune of about a standard deviation, for about 2000 students in K-3.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
