Comments on: EDTECH597 – Discussion Entry: Do We Care If Research Is Flawed?

By: EDTECH597 – End Of The Course « Virtual School Meanderings

EDTECH597 – End Of The Course « Virtual School Meanderings — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:01:22 +0000

[...] Discussion Entry: Do We Care If Research Is Flawed? [...]

By: mkbnl

mkbnl — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:55:07 +0000

Russ, I’m a little disappointed by the words of your statistics professor – as I think he or she was misleading you. I acknowledge that many practitioners and many in the popular media misuse statistics – a substantial amount. I also acknowledge that quantitative or statistical research can be skewed to generate the result that you desire – if you plan it out properly. However, I don’t think any of these factors apply – in most instances – to researchers from academia. Institutional review or human subjects or ethical review boards at universities will require researchers to plan and implement a study in a way that is methodologically rigorous and ethically responsible. As such, research conducted by academic researchers should be fairly reliable and valid – assuming the researchers were properly trained in the first place.

Having said that, it is good to see that someone in your academic career pushed you to be a critical consumer of research. I find it interesting when I work with education graduate students, because several of the courses I teach include the generational differences readings that you read earlier in the semester. I am always amazed at how many students buy into Prensky hook, line and sinker because it is consistent with their own non-empirical, non-systematic observations. It is what Steve Wheeler calls a convenient untruth – something which makes sense to practitioners, but isn’t true. It is one of the reasons for the past two years I have delved into this topic of practitioners and research for the discussion entry for both years that I have offered EDTech597.

Anyway, thanks for the comment!

By: Russell Nash

Russell Nash — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 04:59:50 +0000

I think education and experience have a lot to do with the answer to this question. I remember hearing a statistics professor in Oregon tell us that 90% of all statistics were trash. I appreciated the irony of his using a statistic to make the claim (which he did on purpose). Ever since finishing his course I have wondered, when reading research findings, if the statistics in the report are sound and what claims of significance really mean. It wasn’t until someone taught me to look critically at the methodology and claims of researchers that I realized all studies were not created equally. If practitioners haven’t been taught to do likewise, what can research possibly mean to them? If practitioners can’t see the flaws, how much can they care about the flaws?