[StClaire]

Education bias suffers insane bias. I've never seen a study (though I'm sure there are some) where the researchers rejected the teaching techniques they advocated.

Specific Example: I've been in flipped classrooms. They suck. Everyone hated it. The instructor justified it by showing studies "proving" how great flipped classrooms work conducted by people who advocate and teach in flipped classrooms

[nonbel]

Education research was probably the first field to adopt NHST[1], so it is not surprising it is messed up. Psychology was next. The most recent (still in progress) is physics. Sometime in the middle it happened to biology/medicine. You can see the order is inversely correlated with the reliability of the modern results.

[1] See eg Gigerenzer 2004 for an intro: http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/gg/GG_Mindless_2004.pdf

[barry-cotter]

> I've been in flipped classrooms. They suck. Everyone hated it. The instructor justified it by showing studies "proving" how great flipped classrooms work conducted by people who advocate and teach in flipped classrooms

That everyone agreed on disliking the flipped classroom format is at best very weak evidence against their effectiveness. Ebbinghaus' 1885 research [0] on how people learn and remember still doesn't inform the teaching of any subject goes in any national education system. If it did revision would be a great deal more integrated into teachers' practice. And we have a great guess at why.

It feels less effective than moving on to the next topic and doing all your revision before the test.

The same domination of what people think works, what feels like it's working over what actually works better is seen in the greater popularity and use of massed practice over distributed, which works better[1].

[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgetting_curve

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_practice