On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Michael Paul Goldenberg <email@example.com> wrote: > It is trivial to make up what "education researchers do" and then apply it equally to every education researcher, regardless of accuracy. This is particularly easy to get away with on a forum which with one or two exceptions has no education researchers and no one trained in education research. >
I suggest we be liberal about what it means to do research in education.
My neighbor does early childhood development studies, raises posses of kids, parents delighted with the results, and she teaches on-line, had mentors. That's "education research" in my book. She may not publish, but she has students and a lifestyle that provides continual real world feed back (reality checks). She's not just "arm chair".
It could be that those typifying the mainstream in this field are advancing too slowly and not working closely enough with neuroscience. Who knows? Schools aren't always self checking. Since when did the AI camp heap skepticism upon itself? Checks and balances don't always come from within. "Peer review" can't always be the final arbiter. If you're in the classroom teaching, you're in a research role in some sense, in having access to lots of feedback.
Now is the time to keep constructing that reality of yours. It's not like that work is ever finished. Some are down to routine maintenance, while others are adding that "new wing".
The lay public should not be told to stand back and let the masters do their magic. Not yet, when we have too much bunk still in the pipeline. There's lots of squabbling. Lets be open about the warts here.
This is not the time to circle the wagons and huffily assert one's professionalism.
> Since you, Robert, have no such training, nor do the members of your chorus, it is unsurprising that education researchers and would-be education researchers do not flock here to discover your version of what it is education researchers do, what they believe, what their methods are, what the theoretical frameworks are in which they conduct their research, etc. >
Lets not forget the NSF has already changed / updated it policies in light of this Stanford family froo-frah, in that your plan for sharing access to data must now be built in to the study you want funded.
Lets head off future fires of this kind, by agreeing on some criteria in advance. The fact that this kind of rule-making is still happening suggests an infant science.
Likewise, in coming from medical research, which I would think is related, in that statistics and human subjects are involved, I'm cognizant with how doctors are making it easier to study public data sets, scrubbed of traceable information.
The education research community seems to lag the medical community in this respect. In any case, I'm aware of what's possible. Being able to dial up lots of tests scores from across the land: could be useful to make that easier yes?
> Meanwhile, you and your chorus tell each other that your views are precisely the way things "really are." How fun it must be to find three or four likeminded individuals who can all squawk the same falsehoods loudly and repeatedly, seemingly ad infinitum. > > I am impressed with the individual and collective chutzpah, but not with the accuracy of any of your tales.
I'd say I'm involved in education research too, not so much medical anymore. And when it was medical, I was just in a janitorial role, piping data from A to B, getting grist to the mills.
Anyway, ideas about how to use technology to promote education -- we can't help but experiment, i.e. if that's the business you're in, then you can't help but do one thing at the expense of something else. Coursera is into identity checking by means of keystroke patterns. But if you're not doing robo-grading, then you get to probe your students more to verify in other ways. You can go off script, as the human mentor.
"What's their incentive to cheat anyway?" (a good research question). Who wants to be the faux brain surgeon asked to scrub up? Where does that go? So what you fooled everyone? "Duck typing" better mean more than just getting you through the front door, if you don't want your program to crash. ** Of course if you're a screenwriter you may have thought of some angles.
Just saying: in the wild real world, we can't just all sit back and wait for multi-year longitudinal studies to tell us which curriculum does a better job of communicating 1800s type physics. Or what about that study of what computer languages lead to productive careers? Obviously if there were such a study it would have a host of problems. Too big a question. What's "productive"? Languages in what domain? Just to talk about a computer language is to say nothing about what it's "about". So maybe the question was just not the right question. So much research is just a waste of time.
We can't all stand around paralyzed waiting for "education research" to tell us how to most wisely use our energy time. Or rather, we're open to the voice of experience, but when it comes to longitudinal multi-year studies, please understand that we can't be bound to wait for those outcomes. Our multiple generations / cohorts move forward relentlessly and time pressure is no joke. Time waits for no one. "Doing nothing" is a radical option and usually the wrong choice.
Bottom line: lets not let education researchers fault us for "doing something" they haven't had time to fully research and support what we're doing. Sorry charlie, but it was never an option to "just wait". Great if you can provide relevant advice however. Not saying I just want quacks on my advisory team.
** "duck typing" is used by dynamically typed languages such as Python to keep a scripts egalitarian, judging individuals by their capabilities and not by their titles. You're allowed to participate if you can do the job. Statically typed languages, on the other hand, need up front stipulations and aren't about to "audition" any wanna be ducks as to whether their quack and walk is "like a duck" enough.