Profile avatar
cbokhove.bsky.social
Professor in Mathematics Education, Director of Research, @MASEsoton, TIMSS+PISA, Research Methods, R, School Mathematics Project
192 posts 999 followers 215 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
Posts 19 Comments 31

Instats has an incredible set of statistics courses. Recently this free MPlus seminar series by Muthen, e.g. Using Mplus for Dynamic SEM instats.org/seminar/usin...

submitted 14 days ago • 0 comments

Excited to go to Japan on Saturday for a project on digital mathematics books.

submitted 15 days ago • 2 comments

Last night got tickets for the Ghibli Museum in Tokyo. 🙌

submitted 17 days ago • 0 comments

I'm addicted to car rebuild channels now.

submitted 18 days ago • 0 comments

I've always been surprised that school inspection in England is so visible. In my opinion, you should only really notice them locally when a school 'falls through the bottom' one way or another (this does sometimes create local media attention).

submitted 19 days ago • 1 comment

📊 'Reliability is a single point of failure for inspection' @cbokhove.bsky.social and @drsamsims.bsky.social schoolsweek.co.uk/report-card-...

submitted 20 days ago • 0 comments

Is it helpful to think about Cognitive Load Theory as a heuristic? This was just one question from our discussion with @dylanwiliam.bsky.social, @olicav.bsky.social, @drchendrick.bsky.social, and @cbokhove.bsky.social, which is available in full at the link in the reply. youtu.be/vOgrnJZiXho

submitted 20 days ago • 1 comment

Cracking piece from @cbokhove.bsky.social and @johnjerrim.bsky.social on the fundamental issue at the heart of new Ofsted report cards - grade reliability schoolsweek.co.uk/report-card-...

submitted 20 days ago • 0 comments

"We can spend months discussing the detail of the new framework. But unless the judgments inspectors produce are sufficiently reliable, it will all be for nought." 100% agree with @cbokhove.bsky.social, John Jerrim and @drsamsims.bsky.social. This won't go away. schoolsweek.co.uk/report-card-...

submitted 20 days ago • 1 comment

Conversations are more helpful when they're more reflective and less dichotomous. Thanks to @dylanwiliam.bsky.social, @olicav.bsky.social, @drchendrick.bsky.social, & @cbokhove.bsky.social for joining me for this lovely chat on Cognitive Load Theory! wegrowteachers.com/cognitive-lo...

submitted 22 days ago • 3 comments

Thank you to @cbokhove.bsky.social for running our Introduction to Computational Research Methods course this week. Pleased to hear it was fun.

submitted 21 days ago • 0 comments

I think a lot about this @cbokhove.bsky.social diagram always (like multiple times a day...) But especially when it comes to AI stuff.—And I'm MOSTLY AI AGNOSTIC! (...but it's often good when we use it correctly)

submitted 32 days ago • 0 comments

Teachers who want to be truly ‘evidence-informed’ need to treat all research equally, avoiding bias in favour of the studies that they like, says @cbokhove.bsky.social

submitted 30 days ago • 0 comments

"it does become an issue when people want to signal how “evidence-informed” they are, but apply different standards to the evidence selected" A challenge to the evidence standards you hold yourself to from @cbokhove.bsky.social this morning

submitted 30 days ago • 2 comments

On twitter I always reacted to what I saw on my timeline, and mainly when I felt I had something to contribute. So, I would not often be the 51st to say learning styles sucked. But I would be someone who would be critical about hyperbole re the 'science of learning'.

submitted 35 days ago • 2 comments

I remember when asking Dweck about her mindset theory invited comments that you could hardly get an objective view from someone who was so invested in the theory. So, why would we only ask a view on the 'science of learning' from the most invested? It reeks of new gatekeeping.

submitted 35 days ago • 2 comments

Looking on Facebook, linkedin, X, BlueSky... Many of them have a lot of signalling of being 'evidence-informed' through hyperbole and misrepresentation of evidence. Often it goes something like the diagram...

submitted 37 days ago • 1 comment

#MissingYou was incredibly bad

submitted 41 days ago • 2 comments

The reason why the values for 'load' are so notable is that the theory itself argued biologically primary knowledge is 'easy' to acquire (low load) and biologically secondary is 'hard' to acquire (high load). They did that here: statistical difference but is the binary category really distinctive?

submitted 53 days ago • 1 comment