In this article Dan Berrett and Beckie Supiano respond to readers "asking us to cite research more often, and lean a little less on anecdotal classroom experiences." It's a good discussion, but I would want to shift the perspective. Consider this: "if journalism is already several degrees removed from scholarship, the newsletter is further still." It's a world view where research is the foundation, and everything flows from that. But my own view of 'scholarship' is that it is secondary literature, often reporting on things long since developed (and sometimes abandoned) in the field. In may ways, I view my own newsletter as being placed somewhere between that work in the field and academic literature. They also note, " I can think of plenty of examples (that) despite being 'evidence-based,' those interventions don't work." Me too. We all can. The fact is, the secondary literature (aka 'academic research' or 'scholarship') often gets it wrong. So, for that matter, does everyone else. Including me. There isn't a 'foundation'. It is a conversation, but nobody's voice is privileged.
(P.S. Dear Chronicle, when you send newsletters like Teaching Newsletter, as you did today, please grant your authors the dignity of last names, which you didn't today. It's pretty bad when your writers get more recognition in my newsletter than they do in yours.)
Today: 3 Total: 100 [Direct link] [Share]
