Talk:Evidence-based education

The neuroscience section of "evidence-based education" is good, but offtopic
It makes no reference to use of randomized trials. This section should include studies from educational neuroscience that would include rcts. Does anyone mind if I remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Sammallahti (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Merging Scientifically based research and Evidence-based education
I know that a great deal of work has gone into these two articles Scientifically based research and Evidence-based education, so please don't be offended by my suggestions. However, would it make sense to merge them into one article, make it lean, efficient and easy to maintain? And we can use REDIRECTS so people can find it.

Both articles require updating. They should not try to include too much detail or serve as an instruction manual because the field is changing rapidly.

In my view, Evidence-based education contains so much information that makes it impossible to keep up to date. The Coalition For Evidence-Based Policy appears to have wound down in 2015. And, Best Evidence Encyclopedia appears to be mentioned only in Scientifically based research.

Instead, the merged article would highlight the best available sources of information and offer unbiased information about them. This would enable educators to seek out reliable sources and make their own decision.

This is a hot topic and worth doing a good job.

Are there other articles that attempt to cover this same area? The merged article could be featured briefly in Evidence and Evidence-based practice.

I am not an expert in this area and am hoping you are.

John (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To add to my above comment, I propose we remove the charts because they are not dated, I don't think they are verifiable, and are very difficult to keep up to date.

I am preparing a revision and will post it soon. I welcome any comments and suggestions. John (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Added Best Evidence
More to follow. John (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed chart
As mentioned before, I removed this chart because it was undated and unnecessary since the site has filters.

Out of date chart for The Coalition For Evidence-Based Policy
This chart is out of date and misleading, so I will remove it and add material that will enable our readers to find the current information they want. John NH (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The chart needs to go. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Evidence-based learning techniques
I have a few concerns about this portion. Firstly with spaced repetition and the apparent promotion of commercial software. Secondly, it does not deserve such a prominent position in the article. I believe readers are more interested in sources of legitimate evidence, hence the section on Research sources and information. With that in mind, I will move Evidence-based learning techniques to the end of the article. Thirdly, as this article is about "evidence" readers would expect that it would have very reliable references. Some of the references do not appear to meet the Wikipedia standards. For example, the reference "Human Memory: Theory and Practice", Alan D. Baddeley, 1997 does not seems to make any mention of spaced repetition.

I will make some changes and welcome comments. John NH (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Jnhmunro: Thank you for your concern. However, the efficacy of the spaced repetition technique is "proven", as shown by a review in Nature Magazine. No evidence-based education technique has more evidence behind it than this one. As such, it deserves a prominent place in the article. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I am not disputing the efficacy of spaced learning. However, I suggest we use more scientific language (just the facts) to describe the theory and the evidence. I will make an attempt to do this a little later and you can tell me what you think. Also, I feel the order of the material is appropriate since it goes from the general to the specific. For the record; I have no connection with any software organization, nor am I employed in anything related to the education field; however I am a volunteer member of a non-profit organization that encourages research literacy in education. That is my only COI in regards to this article. Thanks again. John NH (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. More scientific language is a good idea. Sorry if I'm a bit pushy -- I just have strong feelings about this (haha). I appreciate the work you've done and I hope we can work together to improve the article. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)