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

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

In that case the term has been hijacked by those who are fail to do any
field research, and only sit behind desks using and not understanding the
work of others.

Those who rely on the observations of others and do not carry out any filed
research themselves. If they are real researchers then they are field
researchers who make the observations and create theories based on their
observations.
The are too many who claim to be researchers who just pass comment on the
observations of others and do no field work themselves or practical
observations themselves. They only use the second hand data from the work of
others and only select the data that supports the claims that they wish to
make or that they have been asked to make. Making a name for themselves
using the work and observations of others.

So may be the imposters are those who make claim to be empirical researchers
but who are actually distorting the observations of others to conceal their
own research inadequacies. Not being able to design and carry out their own
field research programs with real people. The universities appear to be full
of these pretenders who are only able to pass second hand comments on the
field observations of others. 

So may be the term empirical research is being miss used by those who sit at
a university desk reviewing the research of others, and failing to do their
own research design and field work to substantiate any comments that may
make. All they do is to make an unqualified review of the work of others,
and make no attempt to carry out their own field research to justify their
comments.

So may be we should require Researchers to define the field observations
that they will use for their empirical research. And if they are only
reading the and comparing the works of others then this can not be justified
as empirical research because they have not designed and carried out their
own field research to substantiate any conclusions that they may make. 

So any research that states all that has been done is to read the research
and compare the research of others can not be called empirical research
because the researcher did not design or conduct a field research program to
justify any claims he may make from just reading the research of others. 

There is a difference between field based research done say for the Medical
Research Council based on designing and carrying out a research program
using observation and practical tests to resolve real problems is empirical
research.  In comparison to those who spend days reading through the
selected works of others and who do no practical field work to verify any
conclusion that they may make, and with no field based observations. 

So I support those who design, and carry out their own field research, and
carry out research program which justify their claims, or that can
demonstrate that their observations can apply to at least one individual.
Such as the work carried out by the Medical Research Council and others
which has to be peer reviewed. 

But those who site behind a desk using and fail to carry out their own field
research but denounce the observations of others are charlatans. In many
cases they do not begin to understand the nature of the observations that
they are reviewing. 

Best wishes

dolfrog

-----Original Message-----
From: Maggie Downie [mailto:maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk] 
Sent: 22 May 2008 17:53
To: 'Philip MacMillan'; 'Stuart Lucas'; 'Becta Senco'; SEN at tringham.net;
dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk
Subject: RE: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] reading recovery

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