Where's the Evidence?

Do you remember the iconic "Where's the Beef?" commercials from the 1980s and 90s? Featured by the fast-food chain Wendy’s, these ads cleverly challenged competitors by asking a simple, but powerful question: "Where's the Beef?" The phrase quickly became a cultural catchphrase, symbolizing the demand for substance and authenticity. Today, we find ourselves asking a similar question, but in a different context: "Where's the Evidence?"

When it comes to education, we often hear about the importance of evidence-based practices. This is especially true with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which have prominently touted learning progressions as a core framework for fostering student development in science. But as we dig deeper, it becomes apparent that the evidence supporting these learning progressions is mysteriously lacking. Like the elusive beef in those famous commercials, we are left wondering where the substantial proof is.

The Hypothetical Learning Progressions

Learning progressions are theoretical models outlining the steps students typically follow as they develop understanding in a particular subject. They were originally described as "hypothetical" constructs based on intuition and limited observations. The idea was to map out a path that educators hoped students would naturally follow, thereby guiding curriculum development and teaching strategies.

The Magic Trick: Hypothetical to Evidence-Based

At some point, however, learning progressions made an astonishing leap from being "hypothetical" to being labeled "evidence-based." This transformation occurred without the rigorous research and empirical data typically required to validate such a significant shift. It’s as if, through an academic sleight-of-hand, these constructs were rebranded and presented as well-supported facts, despite a glaring lack of concrete evidence.

The Missing Evidence

We went looking for the foundational research behind the NGSS and its learning progressions, and we found a surprising scarcity of robust, empirical studies demonstrating their validity. The expected body of evidence—longitudinal studies, comparative analyses, and diverse, repeatable experiments demonstrating the efficacy of learning progressions—simply does not exist. Instead, what we often find are theoretical papers, research with very small numbers of participants, and speculative assertions that have been accepted without the scrutiny they deserve.

Follow the research trail we found by clicking here.

Also, we are not the only ones who have noticed problems. Review other's research here. 

Why This Matters

The shift from "hypothetical" to "evidence-based" without genuine evidence has significant implications. Educators, policymakers, and stakeholders make crucial decisions based on these frameworks. Teachers design lesson plans, administrators allocate resources, and curriculum developers create educational materials under the assumption that these learning progressions are grounded in solid research. When the foundation is shaky, the entire structure is at risk.

A Call to Action

So, what can be done? Much like the "Where's the Beef?" campaign called for transparency and quality in fast food, we need a similar movement in education. We must demand genuine, robust evidence to support the frameworks guiding our teaching practices. This means conducting comprehensive research, questioning assumptions, and being open to revising our methods based on new findings.

In conclusion, while the concept of learning progressions is appealing, we must critically examine their purported evidence base. As educators and advocates for quality education, it's our responsibility to ensure that the tools and frameworks we use are truly supported by solid, empirical evidence. Only then can we provide our students with the best possible foundation for learning and growth.

So, as we navigate the complex landscape of educational standards and practices, let's keep asking that crucial question: "Where's the Evidence?"