On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 08:36:02 -0700, Louis E. Schmier wrote: >> See, here is the problem: you or a workshop leader may say "all of >> the things I am about to tell you are 'true' and tested and *YOU* can >> find the relevant studies in the literature". > >No, you're putting words into my mouth.
Implicit in providing a set of vague references is the message "you find what I am specifically referring to" or "read my mind'. If one is actually serious about scholarship, one would provide the most important *PAGE NUMBERS* in the books that one should focus on. To provide a list of books and saying "read these for starters" is absurd. Do you really think that any Tipster or college professor has that much free time? How long do you estimate it would take just to read all of the books you have for starters? Then ask yourself where would one find that time out of the time spent teaching, doing research, administrative/committee work, professional activities, reading for one's own academic area, and so on. >I specifically offered a "start with," list nothing more and nothing less. Then I suggest that you offer nothing. At the very least, organized the list into "most important", "less important", and "save it for a rainy day". >I guess you want me to offer an "on and on and on" list. You going >to replicate and try to prove every one of them? Now who's putting words in other people mouths. NOTE: *I* don't have to replicate someone's research but I can check to see if anyone else has or, more importantly, NOT replicated it. [SNIP] >> The first time I heard this I wondered "Well, how do I know that the >> studies *I FIND* are the studies *YOU ARE REFERRING TO?* >> It is not enough to simply provide an author's name and say >> "look him/her up" -- if that can be called a demonstration of the grasp >> of a literature or scholarship, it is a very, very poor form of scholarship. > >Last time I looked, I offered titles, not just names. And, when I next offered >names, they were the authors. You offered names and title of *BOOKS*, that is, *SECONDARY SOURCES*. It is common for books to summarize and present MANY individual research studies to make their points. When you say "So and So" make "Such and Such" a point in "This and That" book, what are actually saying? You agree with everything that author says? Are there things you agree with and things you don't agree with (if so, what are they and why is there a disagreement). What is it exactly that is practical and usable? Consider the following book you provided: |26. Leo Buscaglia, LOVE: "The true function of education should be the |process of helping a person to discover his uniqueness, aiding him toward its |development, and teaching him how to share it with others." What exactly does this mean? How does this translate into practice? And perhaps more importantly, what is the research that shows that this attitude actually improves things like student learning? And then consider this one: |30. Dr. Seuss, OH THE PLACES YOU'LL GO I admit to a deprived childhood where I didn't have children's books read to me or even owned children's books (that had to wait until I was an adult), so I am somewhat at a loss at how this fits in. I mean, can you tell me what specific research Dr. Seuss presents in this book that comes from the peer-reviewed research literature? Or did you mean to refer to "Green Eggs and Hams" or "One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish"? >> The person making the presentation, the person making claims on >> the basis of the research literature, is under the obligation to clearly >> identify specific references that are being relied upon for no other >> reason then to allow others to determine whether those references >> are being accurately presented. > >Again, I didn't merely provide a name. I provided a work, many of which are >research based. And, I kept it to a barely manageable number. Again, you provided *SECONDARY SOURCES* which provide summaries and interpretations of research. In discussing a topic like "how to teach", there are *ORIGINAL SOURCES", key research studies that identify *WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T WORK* -- there's a whole website devoted to this which I provided a link to but which you have deleted and ignored. C'mon Louis, provide original sources that support your points, whatever they may be, and don't force others into trying to read your mind. NOTE: Louis wrote all of the below in an act of self-reference. >> There's a plethora of peer reviewed stuff out there just in your discipline >> of the >> works I cited: Deci, Dweck, Amabile, Gardner, Kohn, Goleman, Boyatzis, >> Frankl, >> that "Mikhalyi guy," Rogers, Gilbert, Brooks, etc, etc, etc. > >Well, all of the people I listed above are or were accomplished, recognized, >and respected researchers and pracitioners. Louis, this is not a cult of personality, this is about figuring out what works and what doesn't. It is like my saying that Fred Keller is a great source for teachers without explaining how or why he is. >> Yes, I been given a list of names before and then told "let's play a >> guessing game: which specific articles am I relying on?" > >And, the opinion piece is, then, "fluff" by its very nature? Ah, a teachable moment! The danger of an opinion piece is that some folks might not appreciate that the article is in fact just interpretation and presentation of a particular viewpoint and not actual research, like that that would be reported in a research journal. As an example of how dangerous this can be, consider the claim by R*mney & Ry*n (R&R) that there are "six studies" that support the claims they make about the R&R budget. The problem is that it is not true. For a detailed analysis of this, see this article on the Atlantic website: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/romneys-tax-plan-had-a-bad-night/263541/ NOTE: op-ed and blog posts have magically become "studies". >And, if the op-ed >piece is by one of the researchers based on his/her research? If that's what >you think, you're doing these people a gross injustice. And, let's face it >honestly, too often the peer-review journals are heavily politicized in their >selection for a variety of reason. I'm sure that you can provide empirical research on this point and I'll await your production of it. >> This become more pressing when one confuses an opinion piece >> with a empirical research study -- the conclusions one presents in >> an opinion piece is not the same as the conclusions based on >> valid research. > >I told you the titles I'm relying on--for starters. Besides, you don't have to >accept my list if you read all these works and others. Louis, you seem to miss a very serious point, namely, that SECONDARY SOURCES are not to be preferred to PRIMARY/ORIGINAL SOURCES. Now, if you want to attack primary sources stop and consider: what are your secondary sources based on? If you dismiss primary sources, then you have to dismiss the secondary sources that use them. I think you have a particular problem in this regard with "Oh, The Places You'll Go!". >>> Of course, peer review >>> isn't necessarily infallible end-all, especially if a work being reviewed >>> goes >>> against established norms and is banished to the hinterland. You know, >>> Deci, >>> for example, ran into that decades ago. >> >> Again, people who teach research methods typically cover research >> sources and how to evaluate them. Peer review is not infallible but >> works well enough to catch the most egregious failures in research and >> its interpretation. > >It doesn't always want to encourage the innovators and challengers to an idea >or conclusion in which others have a vested interest or on which they have >staked their reputation. And, sometimes peer review fails because of >reputation, band-wagon effect and other influences. It's not peer review, it's >a matter of whose doing the reviewing. Okay, provide the references for the research that support these points. NOTE: anecdotes do not constitute evidence. [SNIP] >> The most obvious example >> of this is the research by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren who showed >> that a number of cases of stomach ulcers are caused by the bacteria >> H. Pylori. When their research was first presented it was rejected >> because medical theory asserted that bacteria could not exist in the >> acid environment of the stomach. Their view, however, prevailed and >> changed the established view, winning them the 2005 Nobel Prize in >> physiology and medicine. For more on this point, see: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori#History > >Wikipedia? My, my, my. :-)) WOW! Slamming a SECONDARY SOURCE! And here I thought that someone who is willing to accept an op-ed as a source would also be willing to accept an encyclopedia entry. Wait! I got it!. IT WAS A STARTER REFERENCE!!!! For fans of original sources, here's a PDF from the journal "Breaktroughs in Bioscience" (published by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology") that provides some of the history for Marshal and Warren's research and the subsequent research that it engendered. http://www.faseb.org/portals/0/pdfs/opa/pylori.pdf -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=21220 or send a blank email to leave-21220-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
