No Significant Difference

So, I took the BingItOn challenge and it came out a draw.

You search five times and choose which results you like better.  Here are my searches:

Things to do near dallas - draw, neither one jumped out at me.
most wanted billboard locations - Google (I was asking about the game, not actual billboards)
popped in my head - Bing (the name of this blog. Ironic that I didn't choose Google)
davidinark - Google (the username I use most often)
addison, tx - Bing (where we are hanging out for a few days)

That says to me that there is no significant difference and there is no reason to change away from Google as my primary search tool. I have always seen the phrase "no significant difference" as one to mean "keep doing what you're doing because there is no reason to change it."

Don't ever tell me there is no significant difference. Instead, show me the difference and that it DOES make a difference.

That phrase is used most often in the world of distance learning/online education. It's used to justify using DL in conjunction with, or in place of, tradition classroom education. Frankly, I wish there was a significant difference - one way or the other. I mean, if there is no significant difference, then why bother using it?  Oh, I know, some students love online classes. Some hate them. Some are forced into them and thrive while others are forced into and fail miserably. Again, why bother?

I spent several years as a Distance Learning Coordinator and I am certified to teach online courses through PBS Teacherline and also as a CDLR facilitator. I know what I'm talking about. I know what I have seen in classes. I know what I've seen as a parent of a student who had some great DL experiences and some awful DL experiences. Likewise, I have seen both sides of the coin in traditional classrooms.  And, I agree: there is no significant difference. And, again I ask: why bother? Ironically, I wrote about this very thing back in 2011: "No Significant Difference"

Whether it is a search engine, a different way to prepare chicken, or distance education, if you can't show me a significant difference, then I'm not convinced it's worth changing.

Sorry, Bing, but 300 Bing Points (whatever those are) just aren't enough to make me switch. Good luck, though, and come back when you can show a significant difference.

No significant difference...

The phrase, "No significant difference" has been tossed around for years, usually in relation to something education-based: technology in education, technology in higher education, pay-for-merit teacher salaries, distance learning programs, etc.

The kicker is that the phrase itself can be used to prove a particular point or to disprove the same point.  For example, a decade ago, studies suggested that students taking classes through distance learning (more specifically, through interactive live video services) produced "no significant difference" in grades, assignment completion, etc compared to students who attended 'traditional' classes (that is, teacher live in the room).

This finding was used to convince schools that putting in distance learning systems would have little to no impact on graduation rates, grades, etc. and that they should jump on the bandwagon.

The same is being said for "target testing" these days, what with NCLB, AYP, API, and a myriad of other acronyms.

Maybe it's just my particular viewpoint, but my response to "no significant difference" surfaces as "then why bother?"  Why spend all the money to implement programs that ultimately show no significant difference than the programs already in place?  Why add to the already overworked, overstressed workload of teachers, principals and students if there is no significant difference between what they are already doing and instituting some new program that will cost the district (and/or state taxpayers) additional money?  What is the point?

As for distance learning, I see the implementation as one of providing opportunity. That is, schools should only use distance learning programs as a way to enhance student learning.  Many small schools cannot offer the same variety of classes as many larger ones (different foreign languages, various alternate career courses, etc).  I see that as a HUGE benefit.  Small schools (also any-sized economically challenged ones, etc) cannot afford to hire a fulltime teacher to reach 5-10 students interested in taking a particular course (or to take college credits while still in high school, etc).  In these cases, the cost of a distance learning teacher can be shared among several districts for one teacher to teach multiple sites.

As for testing?  I have no idea.  I would love some input, insight, direction on that one.  If target testing (target assessment or whatever your district may call it) is showing to have no significant difference (NSD), then why bother?

Now, I do understand that the problem with 'no significant difference' centers upon the question(s) being asked and upon the population of respondents/study subjects.  That is, NSD would be much more pronounced over a larger population surveyed than a targeted one.  I know of many teachers who love the assessments because they use the data to help reach their students where the students lack skill and understanding.  Other teachers might read this and have no idea what I'm talking about.  Perhaps the issue is not that testing makes NSD, but rather what is *done with* the information the testing provides.

In general, though, if a program (ANY program) is shown to make no significant difference, then I question the costs, the time, the resources involved with implementing and keeping up such a program.  Sometimes, NSD is not a good thing, but should instead serve as the point at which administrators, legislators, and taxpayers stop and say, "then why are we doing this?"