[senco-forum] [SENco-forum] empirical esearch

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

Is there concensus on any aspect of learning or cognition -- or any 
disroders or labled difficutlies? Is there consensus on Autism -- its 
causes, effects and managementsd / teratment? Same for speech and 
language -- check out the debate, for exampe - on the notion of  
seperate semantic / pragmatic disorder. Do 'experts' / human 
individuals ever find total agreement on such matters -- impossible -- 
they are so complex -- so many vested interests -- there will always be 
controversy. Brendan King

-----Original Message-----
From: Maggie Downie <maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk>
To: 'Sheridan Sharp1' <sheridan.sharp1 at btinternet.com>; '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; dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk
Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 21:49
Subject: Re: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] empirical esearch

dolfrog,

The author of that review never claimed it was his'empirical research'. 
    It was a research REVIEW.  In other words, someone reviews all the 
EMPIRICAL research on a particular topic and analyses the research 
papers to see if the conclusions/results agree or differ.  It is very 
useful to have all the evidence drawn together in one place.  As you 
can see from that particular review of empirical research,( and 
'opinions'), there is very little consensus on 'dyslexia'.

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] empirical esearch
> To: "'Sheridan Sharp1'" <sheridan.sharp1 at btinternet.com>, 
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, 9:06 PM
> Hi Sheridan
>
> A good example of the man behind the desk is now at the
> bottom of a recently
> revised web page, which now adds some qualification to the
> reports
> conclusions. Over time there must have been an observed
> need for these so
> called clarifications.
> The report is "Developmental dyslexia in adults: a
> research review" which
> can be downloaded from the bottom of the following web
> page.
> http://www.nrdc.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=603&ArticleID=477
>
> Which is part of the NRCD Skills for Life Program.
> The changes to the web page have happened after an NRCD
> conference earlier
> this year, where during questions to Minister David Lammey
> questions were
> asked regarding disability discrimination in the Skills for
> Life program
> which failed to recognise the needs of those who have
> disabilities that
> prevent them from fully accessing their proposed literacy
> and numeracy
> teaching and support programs. And that some of the
> existing Skills for Life
> programs publications and materials were promoting
> disability
> discrimination.
>
> Best wishes
>
> dolfrog
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheridan Sharp1
> [mailto:sheridan.sharp1 at btinternet.com]
> Sent: 22 May 2008 20:19
> To: dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk; maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk;
> 'Philip MacMillan';
> 'Stuart Lucas'; 'Becta Senco';
> SEN at tringham.net
> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] [SENco-forum] empirical esearch
>
> With tongue in cheek, I have to ask what you are basing
> your comments on
> Dolfrog? What research have you done and what evidence have
> you got on those
> you claim sit behind their desks? ;-)
>
>
> On 22/05/2008 20:02, "dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk"
> <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

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

________________________________________________________________________
AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at 
http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now.