Thanks, Robert.
Junaid Mubeen
11

No worries, you didn’t come across in that way at all. I appreciated the point you made and I agree with what you said in your response — one of the big challenges for users of edu research is knowing where the flaws and limitations are in these studies, and that’s often outside the training of many people.

And at the same time researchers don’t need to use their studies to “sell” certain kinds of pedagogy. I’ve rejected many a journal manuscript because it uses spurious research methods to attempt to lend credence to the author’s pet pedagogical projects. As a flipped learning person I have to be on my guard against that too — if I do a flipped learning study and it shows a major flaw in flipped learning then I need to resist the urge to cover it up.

As for your last question — I think a lot of physics education research has been very rigorous lately dating back to the “6000 student” study done by Hake. Math education (my area) has flashes of rigor and it’s better than it used to be, and physics ed has been sort of the standard for us; but still too many research articles of the form “I tried stuff in my class and gave a survey and students said they liked it”.

Like what you read? Give Robert Talbert a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.