Sitting inside a conference venue in Dallas, Texas during the NSDC conference the following point was made (my notes):
"The power of a meta-analysis is that we can take a bunch of smaller studies and draw richer and more valid conclusions from them because the "n" is larger. When I was getting my PhD, my dissertation involved research using the perceptions and work of 45 teachers. I made determinations or found some trends "inconclusive" because I didn't have enough data. But when we combine research studies - we have a richer base to draw more accurate conclusions."
In this world of collaboration and creation via Web 2.0 tools - why can't we have doctoral dissertations (done on a small scale) become compiled as a meta-analysis in order to draw better conclusions? What are the roadblocks to this happening?
2 comments:
I'd love to hear more about what you're thinking. How do you see Web 2.0 intersecting with meta-analyses?
I may have answered my own question with a tool that I found last night and will post about later today BUT....
What if researchers in a particular field, around a particular topic created a social networking group (like in NING or (gasp!) Facebook) and shared their topics and the finding of their data. They would do their own research but as a group, would be able to develop their own meta-analysis that might have powerful implications (as Classroom Instruction that Works already has!) They could write the meta on a wiki! They could give each other feedback via a blog!!
I am also thinking that in the field of education - this might make the work of these researchers more accessible to those in the field. It is out there - we would stumble upon it as we search for answers.
Oh...and they would still be published!!
Post a Comment