[senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery

From: dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk>

Jeeez, dolfrog,

How are we meant to take you seriously?

Try googling 'definition of empirical research'

Try this for starters:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

Maggie

--- On Thu, 22/5/08, dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk> wrote:

> From: dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk>
> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery
> To: maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk, "'Philip MacMillan'" <P.Macmillan at exeter.ac.uk>, "'Stuart Lucas'" <lucass at loretto.com>, "'Becta Senco'" <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>, SEN at tringham.net
> Date: Thursday, 22 May, 2008, 1:03 PM
> Empirical Researchers do not move away from their desks,
> they do not look at
> the complexities of real life. They only statically test
> theories, using
> second hand data.
> These empirical researchers should be forced to go out into
> the field to
> test their theories in real life situations.
> The live in a world of Chinese whispers which they distort
> to fit their
> masters needs especially when it comes to educational
> research. They never
> go into schools to finds out how children learn. They never
> do any realistic
> practical field tests before they reject any theory.
> Children are not
> statistical data they are individuals who have greatly
> varying learning
> needs.
> So field researchers should be the researchers we trust not
> the idiot pen
> pushers who prove and disprove what ever they like
> depending on they use the
> statistical data. Empirical researchers should be the
> slaves of field
> researchers, for it is field researchers that get the
> results, which the
> empirical researchers play with to best suite their
> political or financial
> masters needs.
> 
> If an empirical researcher has a theory regarding people
> then they should go
> out and do a great deal of filed research to either prove
> or disprove that
> theory, and not sit behind a desk playing with numbers.
> People are people
> with feelings and needs they are not numbers.
> 
> Empirical researchers are just over rated, deskbound,
> number manipulators;
> who have no real life experiences or research to form the
> basis their
> opinions. And they are not able to prove anything one way
> or the other. 
> 
> No, you can not trust empirical researchers many of whom
> have secret or
> hidden agendas, but you can trust field researchers who try
> to make sense of
> the problems that exist in real life.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> dolfrog
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maggie Downie [mailto:maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk] 
> Sent: 21 May 2008 16:46
> To: 'Philip MacMillan'; 'Stuart Lucas';
> 'Becta Senco'; SEN at tringham.net;
> dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk
> Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery
> 
> I think you are somewhat confused as to what 'empirical
> research' actually
> is.  
> 
> This is one definition:
> 
> 1.
> a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment:
> empirical results
> that supported the hypothesis.
> b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or
> experiment: empirical
> laws.
> 2. Guided by practical experience and not theory,
> especially in medicine.
> 
> In other words, a researcher sets up an experiment in order
> to test a theory
> and uses the data gained from that experiment to judge
> whether it confirms
> or disproves that theory.  A good piece of empirical
> research, far from
> 'ignoring the complex issues that exist in real
> life' will be carefully
> controlled to take account of those issues.  The experiment
> will generate
> data, which is then analysed.  A researcher may be
> *wanting* to prove a
> theory, but if the evidence from their research results is
> contrary to their
> theory they will abandon it.  If the results seem to
> confirm their theory
> and can be replicated by other researchers in the field,
> then the theory
> will generally be accepted as being valid.  The process of
> peer review and
> replication of results is meant to ensure that any one
> particular theory
> will not gain acceptance without solid evidence of its
> validity.
> 
> If you can't trust rigorous empirical research then you
> can't trust
> anything.
> 
> Maggie
> 
> 
> --- On Wed, 21/5/08, dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk
> <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > From: dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk
> <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk>
> > Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading
> recovery
> > To: "'Philip MacMillan'"
> <P.Macmillan at exeter.ac.uk>, "'Stuart
> Lucas'"
> <lucass at loretto.com>, maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk,
> "'Becta Senco'"
> <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>, SEN at tringham.net
> > Date: Wednesday, 21 May, 2008, 4:27 AM
> > Hi Philip
> > 
> > I find empirical research to lack credibility, and
> ignores
> > the complex issue
> > that exist in real life. There is a greater need to
> get
> > these desk bound
> > number crunchers to do some real field research and so
> > begin to understand
> > the real problems. 
> > From what I have read from empirical researches is
> that
> > they are selecting
> > their source data, and then use their selected data to
> > prove and justify
> > their own interest groups cause.
> > This may not be the case of some empirical
> researchers, but
> > from my own
> > experience they usually ignore the most important
> details,
> > and have little
> > understanding of the field research data that they are
> > assessing.
> > 
> > So get these researchers out in the field to do their
> own
> > field research
> > instead of sitting behind desks speculatingor should
> we say
> > guessing.
> > 
> > Best wishes
> > 
> > dolfrog
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
> > [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On
> Behalf
> > Of Philip
> > MacMillan
> > Sent: 20 May 2008 19:43
> > To: Stuart Lucas; maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk; Becta Senco;
> > SEN at tringham.net
> > Subject: Re: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading
> recovery
> > 
> > Empirical educational research is just ignored by the
> > system at all levels. 
> > The system spends other people's money (they have
> no
> > option but to pay) on 
> > other people's children (they have no choice as to
> what
> > is provided to them,
> > 
> > unless of course you can afford private).   The
> government
> > is always 
> > bleating about tax payer value for money and how we
> all
> > need ot be 
> > accountable for what we do and yet they ignore the
> advice
> > from their own 
> > chosen experts for that of the old guard.  RR has been
> > shown to be close to 
> > fraudulent in the way that it gathered and manipulated
> the
> > data and what 
> > does HMG do, why it gives them more.  A bit like all
> the
> > failed IT 
> > contracts, those who fail get paid more as there is
> plenty
> > more where that 
> > came from.  Oh to be a non dom and pay nothing to live
> in
> > the UK.  Fat 
> > chance!
> > 
> > Philip EP
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Stuart Lucas"
> <lucass at loretto.com>
> > To: "Philip MacMillan"
> > <P.Macmillan at exeter.ac.uk>;
> > <maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk>;
> > 
> > "Becta Senco"
> > <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>;
> > <SEN at tringham.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:58 AM
> > Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading
> recovery
> > 
> > 
> > 10 O'clock news last night -
> > Reading Recovery - being pushed by .......?
> > Looks like added some 20 odd billion pounds to Ed
> budget
> > but not much
> > rewards??????
> > 
> > Stuart
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
> > [mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On
> Behalf
> > Of Philip
> > MacMillan
> > Sent: 19 May 2008 20:36
> > To: maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk; Becta Senco;
> SEN at tringham.net
> > Subject: Re: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading
> recovery
> > 
> > If you look at the INDEPENDENT evaluations of RR you
> will
> > find that it
> > by
> > and large a sham.  RR obviously still has big friends
> in
> > big government.
> > 
> > They should not be spending any of our money on it.
> > 
> > Philip EP
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Maggie Downie"
> > <maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk>
> > To: "Becta Senco"
> > <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>;
> > <SEN at tringham.net>
> > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 7:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading
> recovery
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 19/5/08, SEN at tringham.net
> > <SEN at tringham.net> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Where the system always breaks down is for the
> unlucky
> > > 20-25% where dealing with
> phonics/blending/consonant
> > > clusters 'str' or 'tion', or,
> abstract
> > > whole words - 'was/are' is difficult and
> where
> > > context in dictation sentences has to be used to
> learn
> > and
> > > then these broken back down to individual words
> in
> > > isolation.
> > 
> > Sharon, I don't quite understand what you are
> saying
> > here.  I work with
> > 'the
> > bottom 25%' of readers in my school ( a perfectly
> > ordinary comp. in an
> > area
> > of social deprivation)and I suppose I must count
> myself
> > fortunate that
> > I've
> > never worked with a single child who couldn't
> grasp the
> > principles of
> > phonics and of blending.  On the other hand, they are
> > uniformly confused
> > and
> > messed up by having had a mish mash of methods thrown
> at
> > them at primary
> > 
> > school.  While I appreciate that you have had
> particular
> > problems with
> > your
> > own children, I strongly suspect that Solity's
> figure
> > of 3 -5% of
> > children
> > being REALLY difficult to teach is the truer one.
> > 
> > >
> > > Not sure how this scheme got to be pushed to the
> fore
> > by
> > > government.
> > >
> > I think it's a case of money talking (RR are
> extremely
> > well funded) a
> > relentless publicity machine and knowing the right
> people
> > (they have the
> > ear
> > of the PM).
> > 
> > Maggie
> > 
> > 
> >      
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> > Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> > A Smarter Email
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email
> > Security System.
> > For more information please visit
> > http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > School postal address: Loretto School, Linkfield Road,
> > Musselburgh,
> > East Lothian, Scotland, UK. EH21 7RE.  T +44 (0)131
> 653
> > 4444
> > E reception at loretto.com  www.loretto.com
> > 
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > Charity No. SCO13978. Loretto School Ltd is registered
> in
> > Scotland,
> > No. SCO59500. Registered office: 16 Heriot Row,
> Edinburgh,
> > EH3 6HR.
> > 
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > 
> > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email
> > Security System.
> > 
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
>      
> __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
> A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Email http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html