NSW Schools Ethics Trial Evaluation - Want to EVALUATE IT YOURSELF?

... you may want to, if you have an active interest in this issue. The final evaluation, authored by the independent evaluator Sue Knight, has been published. As you now know Verity Firth (our current education minister) followed up with her announcement that after 'successful trial' the St. James run ethics course will roll out in term 1 to year 5 & 6 kids in state primary schools.
It will be included, within the much-protested time in schools for Special Religious Education as a 'complement' course, which parents may only choose for their child competitively against religious ed. classes.

I offer you two bits of reading in this post

1. The final report by Sue Knight, evaluating the ethics course - http://bit.ly/ethicstrialreport

2. A Critical Independent Evaluation of the trial, by Dr. James Athanasious
- http://bit.ly/ethicstrialerrors

The second one gets a little technical, as an critical review from the world
of statistics and experimental research methodology. By all means read it, because
James uncovers 11 METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS that the trial report reveals about this
hastily administered trial (which may in fact not be a true experimental trial,
but more statistically appropriately labelled a 'pilot program.')
James is a PhD and works for both University of Technology Sydney and
LaTrobe University.

If you want to know, the two MOST SIGNIFICANT errors I believe James has
uncovered, here is a quick run-down. The two BIG issues in whether research
can be trusted or not are Reliability and Validity. The evaluation from
Sue Knight asserts that there is valid and reliable findings that students
scores on tests "post" the course show improved ethical reasoning & orientation
compared to those students "pre" scores. Anyone can just say that in their report.

James found 11 reasons why this has been, in pure statistical & scientific jargon,
only a pilot study and not a TRUE TRIAL. The reliability and especially Validity on
the NSW trial are not unqualified successes. Validity of a research test is whether a test actually measures what it SAYS it does. There are 2 answers that James gives why the
trial is only a "pilot" (a dry run with few valid & conclusive findings):

1. The constitution of the 530 trial students has not been reflected on for
skewing effects on the conclusion; 32% of them were PRIOR SRE Students
who then joined in the trial... So their "post" scores compared with already
high "pre" scores on ethical thinking skills may not have risen due to the trial
course at all - it may have been prior religious education that boosted their scores.

2. There was NO control group surveyed concurrently with the classes of
ethics course participants. Even undergraduate psych. majors like me know
what that means: a conclusion of 'raised skills' means little in terms of knowing
what CAUSED a raise in skills. A control group comparison can determine whether
the rise is a VALID RESULT of a course, or due to "confounding variables".

For more, go to James' paper - you can download your full copy at http://bit.ly/ethicstrialerrors

Al Hewetson