5:58 PM
Matthew E. Park
Week1_Wimba
My FAVORITE part was the literature discussion. Why?! Because I needed the most clarification on this (long long story), but this has been a HUGE frustration for me. So I'm SUPER thankful for this clarification FINALLY!
"lit rev is a survey [overview] of a lot of literature..."
"what did the world say about what I want to do?"
Broad spectrum - no list - not research paper
A dialogue that covers the spectrum of what you're researching.
Jen Geiger said during a conversation, "What would Diane Sawyer say about the literature?" which went along with the professor's analogy of a good talk show host!!! Where was this analogy eight months ago?! Super thankful for a fresh viewpoint to this process. Think the curtain is finally pulling away from the window. I can see daylight. Oh wait, those are street lights!
Professor Bustillo said, "hmm I had this question and I'm wondering what all these people said." So does that mean we can state the question in the introduction?
Second portion of very needed information: CBR!
I need to update the site and consistently throughout all pages. Update all pictures and videos. Basically fill in all pages that we have started thus far.
On the plan page I need to add how many participants were added. Update LR references page and the notes with the mind mapping.
Data data data...gotta put the data together and make a few statistics. Did you know that 86% of all statistics are made up on the spot!
Abstract: 120 words or less! Descriptive...Haiku -- initial questions, lit review, methodology, results, conclusion...don't defend, not why i did it, but how.
(insert record scratch here) WHAT?! We are going to apply to present or be published?! I'm wondering who the collective "we" is in the "we weren't getting as big of a payoff as we could get or should get given the amount of work that you guys have already done." Because the "we" if that includes me would mean that my payoff of a raise, job advancement, etc could be sufficient for me and therfore my choice to then go into retirement would be my choice if I chose not to get published. I'm really caught off guard by this even though a peer mentioned it in a conversation last night after class (I watched archive today). In month 1 (and 2) it was stressed that we could if we wanted to, but we wouldn't be forced to publish even though we'd be fully prepared to publish if we so chose. The analogy that has become forefront for this process is "It's all fluid"(always changing) in this Alice in Wonderland world.
I guess I now know what a fish feels like when I'm fishing. Oh this pretty lady is providing me with food, how nice is that?! "Swim little fishies over to my line." *gulp* Oh no! There's a hook! Swim away! Swim away! Nope, I'm snagged.
I was looking into getting published or presenting at some point in the future, but not necessarily with this project. The lit review is turning into a community written plan and not necessarily something that I would put my name on as a finished product. However, I am reworking it this week to see if I can salvage my voice.
As I'm listening to the archive, this song started running through my head.
The chorus keeps running through my head, "whatya want from me?" However, as I actually listened to the lyrics it fits this process pretty well.
written by: Pink, Max Martin, and Shellback and released on Adam Lambert's November 2009 album "For your Entertainment".
Posted by Jenney Grover
My reponse
Jenney,
Yes... There seems to be a surprise around every corner. I think your frustration is understandable and most of us can identify with it. We may not all admit it, but we understand.
I also think your comments about data are spot on. Numbers are often manipulated and unreliable. In particular, that which is done in the name of 'education research' definitely needs to be examined with a suspicious and discerning eye. I am not arguing that valid education research doesn't exist, but often I think liberties are taken with the data. For example, Gardner's MI theory is often quoted and taken as the gospel by professionals in education. Despite much criticism by reputable sources like Lynn Waterhouse (Child Psychologist) and John White (Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Education at the Institute of Education University of London) to name a few, Gardner's theories are bandied about in secondary circles like they are facts and indisputable science. Even Gardner himself, according to Waterhouse, has lamented that his research lacks reliable data yet he has greatly altered the landscape of education. In my opinion, education isn't a science and in many cases it cannot be argued or have new theories and revelations proven as such. And in attempts to make it a science, data sometimes gets distorted.
I have included links to two articles below.
http://lynnwaterhouse.intrasun.tcnj.edu/Inadequate%20evidence%20for%20Multiple%20Intelligences,%20Mozart%20%20Effect,%20and%20Emotional%20Intelligence%20Theories.pdf
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spanglefish.com%2FMariesSite%2Fdocuments%2Freferences%2FWhite%252005%2520HowardGardner_171104.pdf&rct=j&q=white%20multiple%20intelligences&ei=ufcQTvaGFpCKsAKTyq2dCg&usg=AFQjCNHRzvGHKr6uOOgeNFf25UpXFpxbrg&sig2=3u25WU-OXGsbHKaDq2mzJg&cad=rja
0 comments:
Post a Comment