"Ed-Tech Hucksters: Uncovering the Pseudoscientific Peddlers Behind Classroom Tech" A recent exposé has shed light on the questionable connections between influential educational thought leaders and ed-tech companies, highlighting a disturbing trend of pseudoscientific research being used to justify the rapid adoption of often ineffective classroom tools. John Hattie, a renowned learning guru, has been accused of lending his credibility to i-Ready, a data-slurping app that some argue is more focused on profit than pedagogy. But Hattie is not alone - a network of influential "thought leaders" is pushing ed-tech as the solution to classroom woes, often using dubious research to back their claims. This article aims to uncover the identities of these ed-tech hucksters and the systemic pressures that drive their pseudoscientific pitches, raising important questions about the role of research in informing educational policy and the impact on teachers and students alike.
I’ve spent the last couple months researching and writing about learning guru John Hattie's transition to an i-Ready pitchman. My goal was to document how his "Visible Learning" provides a pseudoscientific "Holy Grail" veneer that allows ed-tech companies to push data-slurping, gamified apps into classrooms while blaming teachers—not the tools—when the outcomes don't move. Having finished a long-form piece on this though (link below), I now feel like I've only scratched the surface of a much larger dysfunctional system. Aside from Hattie, who are some other conference guru types shilling ed-tech as pedagogy - so-called "thought leaders" whose research feels like gaslighting nonsense that gets used to justify fast-tracking pedagogical junk into classrooms? I’m trying to map out this landscape to better understand the systemic pressures you're under. Who else is in need of this kind of "Huckster Heaven" deep dive? https://johnallenwooden.substack.com/p/i-ready-and-john-hattie submitted by /u/maxvoncretin [link] [comments]
