When I return to my cooking thoughts from yesterday, I have to think of methodology and resources. Will I use “glass microwaveable” dishes in the microwave? A double boiler on the stove?

And what about the fudge?  Do I really “butter” the pan? Not that nasty cooking spray either! Can I just use parchment paper to line the pan? (Shudder as I think of butter/oleo visible on the 9 x 13 glass casserole plan! Total ICK!)

When do I follow the directions to the letter vs. letting previous experience guide my planning?

Today’s post is considering Rule 4 from P. David Pearson’s presentation as a part of an #ILA19 panel titled: “What Research Says About Teaching Reading and Why that Still Matters.”

So who are the “cousins”? These are some possibilities from the table in “10 Things Every Literacy Educator Should Know About Research.” (Link)

(Note. The information in this table was drawn in part from “Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Publications: American Educational Research Association,” by P.A. Moss, J.W. Pellegrino, B.L. Schneider, R.P. Duran, M.A. Eisenhart, F.D. Erickson, et al., 2006, Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40; “Qualitative Analysis on Stage: Making the Research Process More Public,” by V.A. Anfara, Jr., K.M. Brown, and T.L. Mangione, 2002, Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38; Literacy Research Methodologies, by N.K. Duke and M.H. Mallette (Eds.), 2004, New York: Guilford; Literacy Research Methodologies (2nd ed.), by N.K. Duke and M.H. Mallette (Eds.), 2011, New York: Guilford; and Educational Research: An Introduction (8th ed.), by M.D. Gall, J.P. Gall, and W.R. Borg, 2007, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.)

The methodology is not set in concrete, but it has to make sense and follow general research principles.  All of these involve “science.” ALL. of. these. involve. “science.”

Some seem to over emphasize RCTs – Randomized Controlled Trials. We saw that in the “gold standard” in Reading First. And meta analyses were NEVER allowed but some RCTs just are NOT possible in education. Controlling for every thing in the environment is tough even when two classrooms sit side by side. Equally difficult is the history of single-subject experimental designs. At one point, single-subject experimental designs were the most favored and at other times they were not indicative of “authentic” treatments in classrooms so they were used more infrequently.

Narrowing the field to only one methodology is, in my mind, similar to giving someone a math problem and saying that you can only use addition to solve it. No other process. Just one.

Not helpful. Not logical. Totally restrictive for no real reason.

More productive thinking about the math problem could be multiple routes to solutions with the use of several processes. The solutions could be studied for efficiency or effectiveness . . . or “innovative” status.

What doesn’t count?

Relying on “The Google”

Relying on “Op-Ed” Pieces

Or               

Do the Work.

Stop.

Think.

Does this make sense?

What do you need to add to your repertoire to have a “full portfolio of methods?”

Where will you begin? 

When will previous experience guide methodology?

If you have not been following along, here are the posts to date:

Rule 1 #Headlines

Rule 2 #Research Applied Evenly

Rule 3 #Best Evidence