Return-Path: <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j05M0Vb09112; Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:00:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:00:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20050105215739.LBPS10436.out012.verizon.net@Barb> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Barbara Garner" <b.garner4@verizon.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:1251] research Terminology X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2651 Lines: 68 There’s an interesting discussion beginning on the LPRP discussion list. It follows up on the Meetings of the Minds Symposium, which brought together researchers and practitioners. Here’s a post from Erik Jacobson, who moderates the list. I will post the related responses here; please feel free to pick up the discussion on this list [I will share our discussion with the LPRP list]or join the LPRP list to participate there [see below on how to do so]. Barb Garner, Editor, “Focus on Basics” ---------------------------++++++++++++++ One of the main goals of the Meetings of the Minds symposium was to help practitioners become more comfortable with research terminology. During each session, participants were encouraged to ask questions about how the research was conducted, not just what the results were. In discussion I had with many practitioners at the Symposium, there was a sense that if practitioners want to participate in debates about research and program funding policy, they need to be able to talk some of the talk. As part of a continuing effort towards this goal, I would suggest that in addition to working together to build a resource (such as a wiki) that addresses the research questions that I recently circulated, I think we should build up a similar resource that deals with the vocabulary of research. Reflecting on my own presentation, I drew up this list of terms that were used and discussed (though not all with the same level of detail.) 1. empirical evidence 2. professional wisdom 3. quantitative methodology 4. qualitative methodology 5. experimental 6. quasi-experimental 7. correlational 8. case study 9. triangulation 10. sampling 11. statistically significant 12. “controlling for” factors 13. “socially expected responses” 14. Likert scale 15. multiple regression analysis Looking at this list, which terms would you really like to hear more about? In addition, what terms have you come across in your own experience in reading or dealing with research that you would like to add to the list? Erik Jacobson To join the LPRP list, The LPRPConnections discussion list is facilitated by Erik Jacobson, veteran practitioner and Research Analyst at CALPRO/American Institutes for Research. To subscribe send an email message to LPRPConnections-request@listproc.otan.us and type "subscribe" in the body of the message. You can also go to the webpage http://www.calpro-online.org/announce/lprp.asp Find more information about CALPRO at http://www.calpro-online.org/.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:28 EST