Comments on: “Peer-review” of Marzano’s IWB Study Report, Part I

By: Bill Bass

Bill Bass — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:01:56 +0000

I know I’m a little late to this, but I appreciate your critique of the Marzano’s research. I remember being skeptical when it came out and was announced that Promethean funded it. Because of his reputation, Marzano’s work is being cited wildly and I’m looking forward to reading the rest of the series. Thanks for addressing this.

By: No, just having IWBs does not make learning engaging » Moving at the Speed of Creativity

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 14:01:57 +0000

[...] Jon Becker’s five part “Peer-review of Marzano’s IWB Study” from this summer: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part [...]

By: Lee-Anne Oros

Lee-Anne Oros — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:48:25 +0000

This debate is more heated than yesterday’s episode of the “Jerry Springer Show.” Entertaining and enlightening, nonetheless.
As in many fields, practitioners often unquestioningly accept garbage fed to them from experts. Teachers and administrators should and must conduct their own research. Though flawed, research at that level is not corrupted – at least not usually.
My district now has 90 Promethean ActivBoards and ActivVotes and ActivExpressions. Due to this technology integration, our students are more engaged and our teachers have an excellent formative assessment tool. However, like an teaching and learning tool, it is only has powerful as the skills and knowledge of the teacher using the tool.
That is my two cents.
Enjoy.

By: Graham

Graham — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:29:47 +0000

Clearly Nina is affiliated with either Promethean or Marzano and is trying to discredit you because of your damaging comments on their work, shame on them.

By: Mike Scott

Mike Scott — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:47:58 +0000

Dang Jon,

You got a finger wagging, shame on you from Nina. At least you put your conflicts on the table, which I view as an ethically positive disclosure and a realization of the inherent conflicts in this kind of work. Haven’t seen such from Marzano yet.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:58:07 +0000

I believe you’ve offended a time traveler. That’s the only explanation for the use of ‘sir’ in such a pejorative manner and the oddly stilted writing style.

I would expect a follow up comment (or handwritten note) from her calling you a ‘scallywag’ or a ‘ne’er-do-well.’

Take advantage of this unique opportunity to study this rare creature.

By: Jon Becker

Jon Becker — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:02:31 +0000

Nina,
Thanks for stopping by and adding your thoughts.

First, you wrote, “You, sir, by your own admission, you have no credibility whatsoever.” I didn’t admit to being not credible. I was being honest about what I did. Do past indiscretions automatically discredit us? Do former drug addicts who become drug counselors have no credibility?

Second, you wrote, “[i]n addition, you eschew the “peer review” process…” I didn’t completely eschew the process. In fact, I wrote: “While I am very critical of the way peer-review is typically conceived and carried out in academia, there is real value in the process.” What about “there is real value in the process” is unclear? Furthermore, you are helping me make my exact point. I have offered a crtique that itself is not peer-reviewed. Yet, here you are offering a review. This open process is exactly how I hope peer-review is carried out in the future in academia.

Finally, as for my statements about action research…I’m not an expert, but I know enough to feel perfectly confident in stating that no part of what Marzano and his team did resembles action research in any way.

Maybe you’d prefer I be less than honest and pretend to be an absolute expert on every aspect of educational research?

By: Educational Insanity » Blog Archive » Peer-review of Marzano’s IWB Study, Part V

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 03:14:16 +0000

[...] of posts about a report recently issued based on a study done by Marzano Research Laboratory. Part I is here, Part II is here, Part III is here, and Part IV is [...]

By: Nina

Nina — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:51:13 +0000

Jon,

In your fourth paragraph, you wrote that as an independent researcher, you allowed your clients (Lightspan, Scholastic, eChalk, Jostens) to unduly influence the contents of your research reports. This is a corruption of the spirit of independent research. It’s called bribery. Your logical assertion is: since you did it, everyone does it.

Shame on you, sir.

Since your opinion can be bought and sold so easily, why should we believe you now? You, sir, by your own admission, you have no credibility whatsoever.

In addition, you eschew the “peer review” process, ostensibly due to the highly political influence peddling that this practice continuously elicits in academia. Yet you still offer a peer review after admitting your incapacity to even conduct an unbiased peer review of action research, stating, “I am not an expert in action research.”

So, in your own words: 1. You have accepted bribes in the past; 2. Your influence is readily up for sale, and 3. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Your whole thesis is underpinned by a foundation of corruption and ineptitude, and is therefore worthless in terms of any scholarly pursuit.

Again, shame on you, sir.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:03:56 +0000

Here is the link to the Marzano PDF

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14646326/Marzano-Preliminary-Report-on-ActivClassroom