This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your
host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's podcast
is, show me the research. Part one, researchers
are not research. Now, I appreciate hearing from
people online who disagree with me. It helps
me evolve and expand my thinking. And it also
invites me to revisit issues and to reify or
revise my stance on things. And it helps me identify
issues that need a bit of explaining. The research
is one of these. In a recent online conversation,
a conversationalist was explaining that, quote,
the research, unquote, said something with The
assumption that the issue was settled and we
should believe what she was saying was true.
Now when I asked for supporting research, the
conversationalist responded by providing the
name of a researcher. Dahin, go read Dahin, she
said. Have you read Dahin? You need to read Dahin,
Dahin, Dahin, Dahin. And for the record, I've
read Dahin, Stanislaus Dahin. He's a famous cognitive
neuroscientist whose research focuses on the
neural basis of reading. I'm using him here as
an example of a famous person. Simply naming
a researcher even a famous researcher like Dahin
is not research. Regardless of how well known
that person might be or how extensively the person
may be published, Researchers are not research.
Citing a book or article written by a famous
person who has conducted research is not research.
Their research is research. They are not research.
Research is the process of asking a question
and using a systematic method to collect data
to answer the question. However, data is not
the same as research. Research is not research
unless or until it has been subjected to blind
peer review. Again, researchers are not research.
Individual research studies conducted by researchers
are research. And again, when making a declarative
statement about research, you have an obligation
to cite the research. not the research -er. So
let's take a look at original research, secondary
research, and research -based theory. Original
research. This is when researchers conduct a
study, write up the results, and send it out
for peer review. Here the authors are the originators
of information. And since it's impossible to
study large populations, Original research in
the social sciences often takes a detailed look
at a small population and attempts to generalize
this data to larger populations. Any applications
that are made are or should be based solely on
the data collected. Original research doesn't
prove things or debunk things. It supports things
and it strengthens or reifies the theory upon
which it was based. And most importantly, research
must always be evaluated because there can be
methodological concerns or misinterpretations
of the data. Secondary research and theoretical
articles. Secondary research is when authors
of a paper synthesize and apply the research
that others have done. These are sometimes referred
to as theoretical articles. In a theoretical
article, writers set their propositions within
the context of research -based theory. They take
a broader look. And if you look at the citations
for most academic books and journal articles,
you will find these kinds of sources are often
cited. And I would posit they are most often
cited. So the importance of theories. You can
find research to support almost any silly thing.
And this is why theories are important. Theories
provide context for research. Research -based
theories are built on many research studies conducted
over time that have been replicated and confirmed
by other studies. They've been shown to adequately
explain a wide set of facts and to understand
a range of phenomena. Theories are neither right
nor wrong, rather they are robust or weak. Robust
theories explain and help us understand a lot
of things. Weak theories explain and help us
understand a few things. Research snobbery. There's
a natural tendency for those conducting original
research to think that their kind of knowledge
is the best kind of knowledge. That their kind
of knowledge trumps all other kinds of knowledge
in academic conversations. Well, this is kinda
true. It's only true when one uses some variation
of the term research says. However, knowledge
from original and secondary research are both
legitimate sources of knowledge in academic conversations.
Let me explain. Original research takes a narrow
and very focused look at a single phenomena.
Secondary research takes a much broader look
at a wide range of phenomena. In other words,
one describes the elephant, the first one, from
a distance of two inches, while the other, the
second one, describes an elephant from a distance,
where they can see the whole elephant, interacting
with other elephants in its environment. Both
views are equally legitimate and important. One
is no more important than the other. But again,
any time a person uses the word research followed
by a verb, there must be a citation to a specific
research study. and not a person who's done research.
Basic and applied research. Basic research is
research conducted apart from the setting in
which it's used or applied. And in the case of
education, it would be research conducted outside
a classroom or similar learning environment.
And this would include research related to brain
imaging, eye movement, miscue analysis, and priming
study. This kind of research is essential in
building theories and understanding how the brain
creates meaning with print. However, this kind
of research does not translate to actual classroom
practice. Basic research may suggest certain
practices, but applied research is necessary
to study how practices work in a real -world
environment. So let's take a look at applied
research. Applied research is that which is conducted
in the setting in which it's used. In this case,
of course, it would be a classroom setting or
real -world learning environments. In a classroom,
the researcher studies human behavior. Does a
certain teaching behavior or approach impact
a learning behavior? Now remember, we never study
learning directly. It's a cognitive thing. We
can only study the effects of learning. Now according
to Tim Shanahan, the science of reading is a
set of applied research studies applied, used
to show that one teaching behavior is effective
in producing learning behaviors, or one teaching
behavior is more effective than another teaching
behavior. So in book one, when I talked about
the science of reading, I said it seems to refer
to a general consensus. related to the strategies
and practices that lead to improved reading outcomes.
These strategies and practices have been determined
to be effective using experimental or quasi -experimental
research and conducted in authentic learning
environments. Also, this research has established
a causal link between strategies or practices
and student outcomes, which in this case is reading
achievement. So, reading research articles. You
can't read research articles in the same way
that you read an article in People magazine.
It takes time and practice to be able to effectively
read and critically evaluate research articles
published in an academic journal. But it also
helps to know what to look for and how to interpret
what you see. But this doesn't mean that research
articles are the only valid source of information,
or that to be well informed you must only read
research articles. I'm not suggesting that teachers,
parents, policymakers, and administrators should
only read research articles, and I'm not suggesting
that academic books like the one I'm working
on should only include citations of authentic,
peer -reviewed, original research studies. That
would lead to a very narrow and distorted view
of the world, especially since the Education
Science Reform Act of 2002 effectively banned
qualitative research from the conversation. But...
If somebody makes the claim that research says
something, one has an obligation to have read
a research article at least once in their life.
And if someone says, show me the research, that
person should know what research is and how to
read and interpret it. A recent online conversationalist
tried to challenge a proposition made by saying,
show me the Research. And this is a common tactic.
Here the conversationalist knows that things
should be supported by research, but doesn't
quite understand how research works. the correct
way to challenge that proposition would be with
a question. Can that proposition be supported
by research, or is there research to support
that proposition, or is that a research -based
proposition, or do you have supporting evidence
for that proposition? I can show you research,
but I can't show you the research. The research
doesn't exist. This has been the Reading Instruction
Show. I am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.