WEBVTT 00:00:00.040 --> 00:00:02.779 This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your 00:00:02.779 --> 00:00:05.879 host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's podcast 00:00:05.879 --> 00:00:12.880 is, show me the research. Part one, researchers 00:00:12.880 --> 00:00:18.019 are not research. Now, I appreciate hearing from 00:00:18.019 --> 00:00:21.600 people online who disagree with me. It helps 00:00:21.600 --> 00:00:26.210 me evolve and expand my thinking. And it also 00:00:26.210 --> 00:00:30.210 invites me to revisit issues and to reify or 00:00:30.210 --> 00:00:35.170 revise my stance on things. And it helps me identify 00:00:35.170 --> 00:00:40.929 issues that need a bit of explaining. The research 00:00:40.929 --> 00:00:46.049 is one of these. In a recent online conversation, 00:00:46.509 --> 00:00:50.270 a conversationalist was explaining that, quote, 00:00:50.549 --> 00:00:55.130 the research, unquote, said something with The 00:00:55.130 --> 00:00:58.630 assumption that the issue was settled and we 00:00:58.630 --> 00:01:01.710 should believe what she was saying was true. 00:01:02.950 --> 00:01:05.629 Now when I asked for supporting research, the 00:01:05.629 --> 00:01:08.430 conversationalist responded by providing the 00:01:08.430 --> 00:01:13.849 name of a researcher. Dahin, go read Dahin, she 00:01:13.849 --> 00:01:16.170 said. Have you read Dahin? You need to read Dahin, 00:01:16.170 --> 00:01:20.230 Dahin, Dahin, Dahin. And for the record, I've 00:01:20.230 --> 00:01:26.060 read Dahin, Stanislaus Dahin. He's a famous cognitive 00:01:26.060 --> 00:01:30.340 neuroscientist whose research focuses on the 00:01:30.340 --> 00:01:34.760 neural basis of reading. I'm using him here as 00:01:34.760 --> 00:01:38.879 an example of a famous person. Simply naming 00:01:38.879 --> 00:01:43.239 a researcher even a famous researcher like Dahin 00:01:43.239 --> 00:01:48.260 is not research. Regardless of how well known 00:01:48.260 --> 00:01:52.519 that person might be or how extensively the person 00:01:52.519 --> 00:01:57.739 may be published, Researchers are not research. 00:01:58.939 --> 00:02:01.900 Citing a book or article written by a famous 00:02:01.900 --> 00:02:06.040 person who has conducted research is not research. 00:02:07.099 --> 00:02:11.120 Their research is research. They are not research. 00:02:12.419 --> 00:02:15.819 Research is the process of asking a question 00:02:15.819 --> 00:02:19.520 and using a systematic method to collect data 00:02:19.520 --> 00:02:23.960 to answer the question. However, data is not 00:02:23.960 --> 00:02:27.840 the same as research. Research is not research 00:02:27.840 --> 00:02:31.780 unless or until it has been subjected to blind 00:02:31.780 --> 00:02:37.500 peer review. Again, researchers are not research. 00:02:38.439 --> 00:02:42.020 Individual research studies conducted by researchers 00:02:42.020 --> 00:02:46.719 are research. And again, when making a declarative 00:02:46.719 --> 00:02:50.560 statement about research, you have an obligation 00:02:50.560 --> 00:02:56.370 to cite the research. not the research -er. So 00:02:56.370 --> 00:03:00.030 let's take a look at original research, secondary 00:03:00.030 --> 00:03:03.449 research, and research -based theory. Original 00:03:03.449 --> 00:03:06.909 research. This is when researchers conduct a 00:03:06.909 --> 00:03:09.949 study, write up the results, and send it out 00:03:09.949 --> 00:03:14.990 for peer review. Here the authors are the originators 00:03:14.990 --> 00:03:19.430 of information. And since it's impossible to 00:03:19.430 --> 00:03:23.319 study large populations, Original research in 00:03:23.319 --> 00:03:26.460 the social sciences often takes a detailed look 00:03:26.460 --> 00:03:30.500 at a small population and attempts to generalize 00:03:30.500 --> 00:03:35.139 this data to larger populations. Any applications 00:03:35.139 --> 00:03:40.180 that are made are or should be based solely on 00:03:40.180 --> 00:03:44.120 the data collected. Original research doesn't 00:03:44.120 --> 00:03:49.080 prove things or debunk things. It supports things 00:03:49.080 --> 00:03:53.139 and it strengthens or reifies the theory upon 00:03:53.139 --> 00:03:58.780 which it was based. And most importantly, research 00:03:58.780 --> 00:04:03.780 must always be evaluated because there can be 00:04:03.780 --> 00:04:07.120 methodological concerns or misinterpretations 00:04:07.120 --> 00:04:11.800 of the data. Secondary research and theoretical 00:04:11.800 --> 00:04:15.900 articles. Secondary research is when authors 00:04:15.900 --> 00:04:19.439 of a paper synthesize and apply the research 00:04:19.439 --> 00:04:23.480 that others have done. These are sometimes referred 00:04:23.480 --> 00:04:27.500 to as theoretical articles. In a theoretical 00:04:27.500 --> 00:04:30.579 article, writers set their propositions within 00:04:30.579 --> 00:04:34.699 the context of research -based theory. They take 00:04:34.699 --> 00:04:39.939 a broader look. And if you look at the citations 00:04:39.939 --> 00:04:43.019 for most academic books and journal articles, 00:04:43.560 --> 00:04:48.040 you will find these kinds of sources are often 00:04:48.040 --> 00:04:51.240 cited. And I would posit they are most often 00:04:51.240 --> 00:04:55.699 cited. So the importance of theories. You can 00:04:55.699 --> 00:04:59.620 find research to support almost any silly thing. 00:05:00.139 --> 00:05:04.339 And this is why theories are important. Theories 00:05:04.339 --> 00:05:07.949 provide context for research. Research -based 00:05:07.949 --> 00:05:11.970 theories are built on many research studies conducted 00:05:11.970 --> 00:05:16.290 over time that have been replicated and confirmed 00:05:16.290 --> 00:05:20.949 by other studies. They've been shown to adequately 00:05:20.949 --> 00:05:24.569 explain a wide set of facts and to understand 00:05:24.569 --> 00:05:28.550 a range of phenomena. Theories are neither right 00:05:28.550 --> 00:05:33.800 nor wrong, rather they are robust or weak. Robust 00:05:33.800 --> 00:05:36.620 theories explain and help us understand a lot 00:05:36.620 --> 00:05:40.220 of things. Weak theories explain and help us 00:05:40.220 --> 00:05:46.699 understand a few things. Research snobbery. There's 00:05:46.699 --> 00:05:49.560 a natural tendency for those conducting original 00:05:49.560 --> 00:05:52.519 research to think that their kind of knowledge 00:05:52.519 --> 00:05:55.980 is the best kind of knowledge. That their kind 00:05:55.980 --> 00:05:58.959 of knowledge trumps all other kinds of knowledge 00:05:58.959 --> 00:06:03.250 in academic conversations. Well, this is kinda 00:06:03.250 --> 00:06:09.790 true. It's only true when one uses some variation 00:06:09.790 --> 00:06:15.490 of the term research says. However, knowledge 00:06:15.490 --> 00:06:19.389 from original and secondary research are both 00:06:19.389 --> 00:06:23.709 legitimate sources of knowledge in academic conversations. 00:06:25.069 --> 00:06:29.589 Let me explain. Original research takes a narrow 00:06:29.839 --> 00:06:33.339 and very focused look at a single phenomena. 00:06:35.120 --> 00:06:38.180 Secondary research takes a much broader look 00:06:38.180 --> 00:06:43.100 at a wide range of phenomena. In other words, 00:06:43.480 --> 00:06:46.560 one describes the elephant, the first one, from 00:06:46.560 --> 00:06:49.920 a distance of two inches, while the other, the 00:06:49.920 --> 00:06:53.060 second one, describes an elephant from a distance, 00:06:53.279 --> 00:06:56.860 where they can see the whole elephant, interacting 00:06:56.860 --> 00:07:01.839 with other elephants in its environment. Both 00:07:01.839 --> 00:07:07.100 views are equally legitimate and important. One 00:07:07.100 --> 00:07:12.279 is no more important than the other. But again, 00:07:12.920 --> 00:07:17.620 any time a person uses the word research followed 00:07:17.620 --> 00:07:23.420 by a verb, there must be a citation to a specific 00:07:23.420 --> 00:07:28.899 research study. and not a person who's done research. 00:07:30.439 --> 00:07:34.560 Basic and applied research. Basic research is 00:07:34.560 --> 00:07:37.579 research conducted apart from the setting in 00:07:37.579 --> 00:07:40.779 which it's used or applied. And in the case of 00:07:40.779 --> 00:07:44.319 education, it would be research conducted outside 00:07:44.319 --> 00:07:47.639 a classroom or similar learning environment. 00:07:48.139 --> 00:07:50.939 And this would include research related to brain 00:07:50.939 --> 00:07:55.060 imaging, eye movement, miscue analysis, and priming 00:07:55.060 --> 00:07:59.920 study. This kind of research is essential in 00:07:59.920 --> 00:08:03.339 building theories and understanding how the brain 00:08:03.339 --> 00:08:07.759 creates meaning with print. However, this kind 00:08:07.759 --> 00:08:12.759 of research does not translate to actual classroom 00:08:12.759 --> 00:08:17.699 practice. Basic research may suggest certain 00:08:17.699 --> 00:08:21.639 practices, but applied research is necessary 00:08:21.639 --> 00:08:25.639 to study how practices work in a real -world 00:08:25.639 --> 00:08:28.660 environment. So let's take a look at applied 00:08:28.660 --> 00:08:31.699 research. Applied research is that which is conducted 00:08:31.699 --> 00:08:35.419 in the setting in which it's used. In this case, 00:08:35.419 --> 00:08:38.220 of course, it would be a classroom setting or 00:08:38.220 --> 00:08:42.950 real -world learning environments. In a classroom, 00:08:43.590 --> 00:08:49.389 the researcher studies human behavior. Does a 00:08:49.389 --> 00:08:52.830 certain teaching behavior or approach impact 00:08:52.830 --> 00:08:57.529 a learning behavior? Now remember, we never study 00:08:57.529 --> 00:09:01.370 learning directly. It's a cognitive thing. We 00:09:01.370 --> 00:09:05.909 can only study the effects of learning. Now according 00:09:05.909 --> 00:09:08.450 to Tim Shanahan, the science of reading is a 00:09:08.450 --> 00:09:12.600 set of applied research studies applied, used 00:09:12.600 --> 00:09:15.940 to show that one teaching behavior is effective 00:09:15.940 --> 00:09:19.960 in producing learning behaviors, or one teaching 00:09:19.960 --> 00:09:23.039 behavior is more effective than another teaching 00:09:23.039 --> 00:09:27.220 behavior. So in book one, when I talked about 00:09:27.220 --> 00:09:29.860 the science of reading, I said it seems to refer 00:09:29.860 --> 00:09:33.659 to a general consensus. related to the strategies 00:09:33.659 --> 00:09:37.200 and practices that lead to improved reading outcomes. 00:09:37.879 --> 00:09:40.580 These strategies and practices have been determined 00:09:40.580 --> 00:09:45.059 to be effective using experimental or quasi -experimental 00:09:45.059 --> 00:09:48.299 research and conducted in authentic learning 00:09:48.299 --> 00:09:52.179 environments. Also, this research has established 00:09:52.179 --> 00:09:57.059 a causal link between strategies or practices 00:09:57.059 --> 00:10:00.720 and student outcomes, which in this case is reading 00:10:00.720 --> 00:10:07.750 achievement. So, reading research articles. You 00:10:07.750 --> 00:10:11.509 can't read research articles in the same way 00:10:11.509 --> 00:10:13.590 that you read an article in People magazine. 00:10:14.610 --> 00:10:18.850 It takes time and practice to be able to effectively 00:10:18.850 --> 00:10:22.750 read and critically evaluate research articles 00:10:22.750 --> 00:10:26.950 published in an academic journal. But it also 00:10:26.950 --> 00:10:30.509 helps to know what to look for and how to interpret 00:10:30.509 --> 00:10:34.190 what you see. But this doesn't mean that research 00:10:34.190 --> 00:10:37.710 articles are the only valid source of information, 00:10:38.210 --> 00:10:41.210 or that to be well informed you must only read 00:10:41.210 --> 00:10:45.409 research articles. I'm not suggesting that teachers, 00:10:45.950 --> 00:10:48.529 parents, policymakers, and administrators should 00:10:48.529 --> 00:10:53.289 only read research articles, and I'm not suggesting 00:10:53.639 --> 00:10:56.259 that academic books like the one I'm working 00:10:56.259 --> 00:10:59.519 on should only include citations of authentic, 00:10:59.799 --> 00:11:04.379 peer -reviewed, original research studies. That 00:11:04.379 --> 00:11:07.620 would lead to a very narrow and distorted view 00:11:07.620 --> 00:11:10.919 of the world, especially since the Education 00:11:10.919 --> 00:11:14.919 Science Reform Act of 2002 effectively banned 00:11:14.919 --> 00:11:19.179 qualitative research from the conversation. But... 00:11:19.210 --> 00:11:23.230 If somebody makes the claim that research says 00:11:23.230 --> 00:11:27.830 something, one has an obligation to have read 00:11:27.830 --> 00:11:30.629 a research article at least once in their life. 00:11:31.269 --> 00:11:34.070 And if someone says, show me the research, that 00:11:34.070 --> 00:11:37.970 person should know what research is and how to 00:11:37.970 --> 00:11:44.129 read and interpret it. A recent online conversationalist 00:11:44.129 --> 00:11:46.750 tried to challenge a proposition made by saying, 00:11:46.970 --> 00:11:51.500 show me the Research. And this is a common tactic. 00:11:52.299 --> 00:11:54.980 Here the conversationalist knows that things 00:11:54.980 --> 00:11:57.799 should be supported by research, but doesn't 00:11:57.799 --> 00:12:02.940 quite understand how research works. the correct 00:12:02.940 --> 00:12:05.679 way to challenge that proposition would be with 00:12:05.679 --> 00:12:09.059 a question. Can that proposition be supported 00:12:09.059 --> 00:12:12.320 by research, or is there research to support 00:12:12.320 --> 00:12:15.299 that proposition, or is that a research -based 00:12:15.299 --> 00:12:18.659 proposition, or do you have supporting evidence 00:12:18.659 --> 00:12:23.179 for that proposition? I can show you research, 00:12:23.559 --> 00:12:28.620 but I can't show you the research. The research 00:12:28.620 --> 00:12:32.340 doesn't exist. This has been the Reading Instruction 00:12:32.340 --> 00:12:34.580 Show. I am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.