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

From your reply I take it you are basing your generalising comments on this

>From your reply I take it you are  basing your generalising comments on this
one example that says its a review of the research being done on the
subject?  
If that is the case, are you equally to be commented on when you are
evaluating/criticising empirical research  from behind your desk and basing
your comments on just one flawed example?

On 22/05/2008 21:06, "dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk" <dolfrog at dolfrog.org.uk>
wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 