{"id":4158,"date":"2019-01-15T08:00:18","date_gmt":"2019-01-15T13:00:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/blog\/?p=4158"},"modified":"2019-01-10T11:38:34","modified_gmt":"2019-01-10T16:38:34","slug":"dodging-dodgy-research-strategies-to-get-past-bunk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/dodging-dodgy-research-strategies-to-get-past-bunk\/","title":{"rendered":"Dodging “Dodgy” Research: Strategies to Get Past Bunk"},"content":{"rendered":"

If we’re going to rely on research to improve teaching — that’s why you’re here, yes? — we need to hone our skepticism skills.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

After all, we don’t want just any research. We want the good stuff<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But, we face a serious problem. If we’re not psychology or neuroscience researchers, how can we tell what’s good?<\/p>\n

Over at TES, Bridget Clay and David Weston have four suggestions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Seek out review articles.<\/p>\n

Don’t be impressed by lists.<\/p>\n

Look for disagreement.<\/p>\n

Don’t be impressed by one shiny new study.<\/p>\n

Their post is clear and thoughtful; I encourage you to read it all.<\/p>\n

Second Look<\/h2>\n

I want to go back to their third suggestion: “seek criticism.” This one<\/strong> habit, I believe, can make us all substantially wiser readers of classroom-relevant research.<\/p>\n

Here’s what I mean.<\/p>\n

When I first started in brain-research world, I wanted to hear the enduring truths that researchers discovered about learning.<\/p>\n

I would then (nobly, heroically) enact those truths in my classroom.<\/p>\n

As an entirely hypothetical example: imagine I heard a presentation about research showing that fluorescent lights inhibit learning<\/em>. (To be clear: I have no idea if this is true, or even if anyone claims that it’s true. I just made this up as an example.)<\/p>\n

Given that research finding, I would boldly refuse to turn on the fluorescent lights in my classroom, and set up several lamps and candles. Learning would flourish.<\/p>\n

Right?<\/p>\n

Research Reality<\/h2>\n

Well, maybe. But, maybe not.<\/p>\n

Researchers simply don’t discover “the truth about learning.” Instead, they try to disprove<\/strong> a particular claim in a particular way. If they can’t<\/strong> disprove it, then that claim seem slightly more plausible<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

But, someone else might disprove it in some other way. Or, under some other conditions.<\/p>\n

Such an incremental, lumpy process isn’t surprising or strange. The system\u00a0should work this way<\/em>.<\/p>\n

When Clay and Weston warn us against being impressed by one new study, they’re making exactly this point. If one<\/em> research team comes to a conclusion once<\/em>, that’s interesting … but we shouldn’t make any changes to our classrooms just yet.<\/p>\n

So, back to my example. I’ve heard that presentation about fluorescent lights. What should I do next?<\/p>\n

I should — for the time being — assume that the claim (“fluorescent lights inhibit learning”) is UNTRUE, and go look for counter-examples<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Or, perhaps, I should assume the claim is CONTROVERSIAL, and seek out evidence on both sides<\/em>.<\/p>\n

How do I do that?<\/p>\n

Skeptical Research, with Boundaries<\/h2>\n

Believe it or not, start by going to google.<\/p>\n

Use words like “controversy” or “debate” or “untrue.”<\/p>\n

So, I’d google “fluorescent lights and learning controversy.” The results will give you some ideas to play with. (In fact, I just tried that search. LOTS of interesting sources.)<\/p>\n

You might go to Google Scholar<\/a>, which provides links to scholarly articles. Try “fluorescent light learning.” (Again, lots of sources — in this case including information about ADHD.)<\/p>\n

When you review several of these articles, you’ll start noticing interesting specifics. Researchers call them “boundary conditions<\/strong>.” A research claim might prove true for one subset of learners — that is, within these boundaries<\/em> — but not another.<\/p>\n

So: perhaps 3rd graders<\/em> do badly with fluorescent lights. What about 10th graders?<\/p>\n

Perhaps such light hampered learning of math facts<\/em>. What about critical thinking?<\/p>\n

Perhaps the researchers studied turtles<\/em> learning mazes. Almost certainly, you aren’t teaching turtles. Until we test the claim with humans, we shouldn’t worry too much about turtle learning.<\/p>\n

Perhaps — in fact, quite often — culture matters. Research findings about adolescence<\/em> will differ in the US and Japan because cultural norms shape behavior quite differently.<\/p>\n

Back to Beginnings<\/h2>\n

Clay & Weston say: seek out disagreement.<\/p>\n

I say: AMEN!<\/p>\n

Science works by asking incremental questions and coming to halting, often-contradictory findings.<\/p>\n

Look for the contradictions. Use your teacherly wisdom to sort through them. You’ll know what to do next.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If we’re going to rely on research to improve teaching — that’s why you’re here, yes? — we need to hone our skepticism skills. After all, we don’t want just any research. We want the good stuff. But, we face a serious problem. If we’re not psychology or neuroscience researchers, how can we tell what’s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":4161,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[18,27,19],"class_list":["post-4158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lb-blog","tag-adhd","tag-boundary-conditions","tag-skepticism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4158"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4158\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4163,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4158\/revisions\/4163"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4161"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}