Wednesday, April 19, 2017

NaughtyBots Part 4: Researchbots, Bought, or Naught, Theoretically Speaking? | Truth in American Education

NaughtyBots Part 4: Researchbots, Bought, or Naught, Theoretically Speaking? | Truth in American Education:

NaughtyBots Part 4: Researchbots, Bought, or Naught, Theoretically Speaking?


This is the fourth part in a four-part NaughtyBots series about the #commoncore Project: How Social Media is Changing the Politics of Education.
Researchbots, Bought, or Naught
I tend to be linear, not millennial-ear, and had to read the pdf version of the #commoncore Project report. I found it difficult to follow the online format that has been lauded as an innovative interactive presentation. This is not a typical format for presenting research findings and adds to the notion of this being fake research as I have heard many refer to it. The interactive online presentation lost me until after I read file2051252012506much of the pdf version and gained an understanding of how the information is organized. Is this the way future research reports will be presented? What’s next? Is this a precursor to research reports being presented as interactive online video games? Research report gamification—kind of like the gamification of education?
There are actually two #commoncore Project reports. The citation for the first report says 2015 and the citation for the second says 2017. I used the 2017 report. Having heard a comment that the first report was more objective and interesting, I thought I ought to take at least a quick look. I found that the first report does not include theories brought up in the second report and appears to be more straight forward in presenting information not laden with so much opinion and ideology. Does the difference make you wonder why?
DSC03524-BThe first report shows a statement that says, “This project received no external funding from any source.” The second reports says, “This project received funding support from the Milken Family Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education. The analyses, findings, and conclusions are the authors’ alone.”
For many advocates, any sense of credibility is lost upon seeing all to familiar funding sources for the project’s second report. It can be enough to make one wonder. Was this research bot bought? Did funding bring on the opinions and ideology in the second report? Would researchers compromise standards of professional ethics that guide most academic research as a result of NaughtyBots Part 4: Researchbots, Bought, or Naught, Theoretically Speaking? | Truth in American Education:

Latest News and Comment from Education

LATEST NEWS AND COMMENT FROM EDUCATION

LATEST NEWS AND COMMENT FROM EDUCATION
EduBloggers