Educational Research - the Ethics and Aesthetics of Statistics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

142 U. Stadler-Altmann and E. Keiner initiatives become subject to quantitative education and research. I assume that this degree is rather low. The efficiency of the rhetoric of the knowledge society and the sweeping application of categories, numbers and figures to education systems could also indicate the high persistence of reproduction of the social strata. It could explain the boom of visions on ‘new education’ as a pathway for middle-class children to take the opportunity to ascend the social ladder. This trend would also allow upper-class children to escape from being statistically measured and qualitatively modelled. They would be elevated from standardised comparability to incomparable uniqueness. 9.2.3 The Dirty Backyards? Against this background it is necessary that we do not simply defend the statistics. Rather we should focus on the relationship between statistics as a technique and the research context (theory and method). We should look not only at numbers and figures, but also at the methodological conditions of their meaningful construction and at the theoretical frames of their interpretation. And we should use the only means we are experts at: sound (so-called quantitative and qualitative) research and stringent criticism. By using the metaphor of foreground and background or of camouflage and disclosure (perhaps even enlightenment) we can direct attention to our own (and others’) ‘dirty backyards’ – the methodological conditions of significance and validity of education research findings usually concealed in footnotes or appendices. From an epistemological point of view these left-over elements could indicate an aesthetics of the residual, the fringe, the halo, the ground noise, the no man’s land of the outlaws in the outback. This aesthetics of the DIRTY represents an alternative vision to the future marked out as the knowledge society. It is close to pedagogical textures of thinking and reasoning. It takes the present world as a deficient mode of a better one, the seed of which could be found in the outback, the ‘excluded’ areas, and the hopeless hopes. Against this background, the DIRTY should not be taken as the remainder to be avoided, but as characteristic of good empirical research, which produces new challenging questions instead of non-credible answers. What remains is the aesthetics of construction as deconstruction and deconstruction of construction. It is the aesthetics of critique. Annex Kurt Schwitters 1 An Anna Blume O du, Geliebte meiner siebenundzwanzig Sinne, ich liebe dir! - Du deiner dich dir, ich dir, du mir. -Wir?
9 The Persuasive Power of Figures and the Aesthetics of the Dirty Backyards 143 5 Das gehört (beiläufig) nicht hierher. Wer bist du, ungezähltes Frauenzimmer? Du bist - - bist du? - Die Leute sagen, du wärest, - laß sie sagen, sie wissen nicht, wie der Kirchturm steht. Du trägst den Hut auf deinen Füßen und wanderst auf 10 die Hände, auf den Händen wanderst du. Hallo, deine roten Kleider, in weiße Falten zersägt. Rot liebe ich Anna Blume, rot liebe ich dir! - Du deiner dich dir, ich dir, du mir. - Wir? Das gehört (beiläufig) in die kalte Glut. 15 Rote Blume, rote Anna Blume, sie sagen die Leute? Preisfrage: 1. Anna Blume hat ein Vogel. 2. Anna Blume ist rot. 3. Welche Farbe hat der Vogel? Blau ist die Farbe deines gelben Haares. 20 Rot ist das Girren deines grünen Vogels. Du schlichtes Mädchen im Alltagskleid, du liebes grünes Tier, ich liebe dir! - Du deiner dich dir, ich dir, du mir, - Wir? Das gehört (beiläufig) in die Glutenkiste. 25 Anna Blume! Anna, a-n-n-a, ich träufle deinen Namen. Dein Name tropft wie weicher Rindertalg. Weißt du es Anna, weißt du es schon? Man kann dich auch von hinten lesen, und du, du Herrlichste von allen, du bist von hinten wie von vorne: 30 “a - n - n - a”. Rindertalg träufelt streicheln über meinen Rücken. Anna Blume, du tropfes Tier, ich liebe dir! References Beck, U., & Bonss, W. (Eds.). (1994). Weder Sozialtechnologie noch Aufklärung? Germany: Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Vom Gebrauch der Wissenschaft. Für eine klinische Soziologie des wissenschaftlichen Feldes. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz. Chance, B., Garfield, J., & delMas, R. (2000, December 11–14). Developing simulation activities to improve students’ statistical reasoning. Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Education (PICTME), Auckland, NZ. Crozier, M., & Erhard, F. (1979). Die Zwänge kollektiven Handelns. Über Macht und Organisation. Königstein im Ts.: Äthenäum. Falk, R. (1986). Misconceptions of statistical significance. Journal of Structural Learning, 9, 83–96.
Page 2 and 3:
Educational Research: The Ethics an
Page 4 and 5:
Paul Smeyers · Marc Depaepe Editor
Page 6:
Earlier Volumes in this Series Educ
Page 9:
viii Contents 10 The Good, the Beau
Page 12 and 13:
2 P. Smeyers and M. Depaepe their a
Page 14 and 15:
4 P. Smeyers and M. Depaepe more fo
Page 16 and 17:
6 P. Smeyers and M. Depaepe The cha
Page 18 and 19:
8 P. Smeyers and M. Depaepe concern
Page 20 and 21:
10 P. Smeyers and M. Depaepe appear
Page 23 and 24:
Chapter 2 The Lure of Statistics fo
Page 25 and 26:
2 The Lure of Statistics for Educat
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35:
Page 38 and 39:
28 M. Depaepe of the Leuven Catholi
Page 40 and 41:
30 M. Depaepe Tan’s final verdict
Page 42 and 43:
32 M. Depaepe of methodological bot
Page 44 and 45:
34 M. Depaepe tapping other sources
Page 46 and 47:
36 M. Depaepe In the context of dem
Page 48 and 49:
38 M. Depaepe combination. Moreover
Page 50 and 51:
40 M. Depaepe 4. See Pelleriaux (19
Page 52 and 53:
42 M. Depaepe Schneider, J. (2010).
Page 54 and 55:
44 J.J.H. Dekker (see Section 4.4).
Page 56 and 57:
46 J.J.H. Dekker from their own par
Page 58 and 59:
48 J.J.H. Dekker a cohort study tha
Page 60 and 61:
50 J.J.H. Dekker child” (Van IJze
Page 62 and 63:
52 J.J.H. Dekker USA resulted in ev
Page 64 and 65:
54 J.J.H. Dekker of the problem”.
Page 66 and 67:
56 J.J.H. Dekker Dekker. J. J. H.,
Page 69 and 70:
Chapter 5 Constructing Social Unity
Page 71 and 72:
5 Constructing Social Unity and Pre
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Chapter 6 n = 1: The Science and Ar
Page 91 and 92:
6 n = 1: The Science and Art of the
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102: 6 n = 1: The Science and Art of the
Page 107 and 108: Chapter 7 To Frame the Unframable:
Page 109 and 110: 7 To Frame the Unframable: Quantify
Page 125 and 126: Chapter 8 European Citizenship and
Page 127 and 128: 8 European Citizenship and Evidence
Page 137: 8 European Citizenship and Evidence
Page 140 and 141: 130 U. Stadler-Altmann and E. Keine
Page 156 and 157: 146 J.P. Van Bendegem et al. quite
Page 158 and 159: 148 J.P. Van Bendegem et al. expres
Page 160 and 161: 150 J.P. Van Bendegem et al. This i
Page 162 and 163: 152 J.P. Van Bendegem et al. A good
Page 164 and 165: 154 J.P. Van Bendegem et al. Day wi
Page 166 and 167: 156 J.P. Van Bendegem et al. statis
Page 168 and 169: 158 J.P. Van Bendegem et al. 10.4 C
Page 170 and 171: 160 J.P. Van Bendegem et al. Van Be
Page 172 and 173: 162 P. Smeyers to be told. Moreover
Page 174 and 175: 164 P. Smeyers us’. It goes witho
Page 176 and 177: 166 P. Smeyers at the basis of the
Page 178 and 179: 168 P. Smeyers indeterminism, as we
Page 180 and 181: 170 P. Smeyers are steps (a plan as
Page 182 and 183: 172 P. Smeyers to the simple fact t
Page 184 and 185: 174 P. Smeyers 6. The role of the a
Page 186 and 187: 176 P. Smeyers conditions. It is in
Page 188 and 189: 178 I. Munday etc. on a PowerPoint
Page 190 and 191: 180 I. Munday To show how Derrida p
Page 192 and 193: 182 I. Munday might talk of 20 bags
Page 194 and 195: 184 I. Munday is unclear whether th
Page 196 and 197: 186 I. Munday in numerals. This mig
Page 198 and 199: 188 I. Munday We might also note th
Page 200 and 201: 190 R. Smith ‘Statisticism’, on
Page 202 and 203:
192 R. Smith identify, and twice in
Page 204 and 205:
194 R. Smith of the final sentence
Page 206 and 207:
196 R. Smith between admitting that
Page 208 and 209:
198 R. Smith 7 www.equalitytrust.or
Page 210 and 211:
200 R. Smith It is an interesting q
Page 212 and 213:
202 R. Smith self-esteem, happiness
Page 214 and 215:
204 R. Smith Reeves, R. (2009, Apri
Page 216 and 217:
206 P. Standish Some students’ no
Page 218 and 219:
208 P. Standish abstract ratio, wit
Page 220 and 221:
210 P. Standish Rice $1.73 1 / 2 Mo
Page 222 and 223:
212 P. Standish research none of us
Page 224 and 225:
214 P. Standish of the products but
Page 226 and 227:
216 About the Authors co-editor-in-
Page 228 and 229:
218 About the Authors voor Wetensch
Page 230 and 231:
220 Author Index Elkins, G. R., 190
Page 232 and 233:
222 Author Index Silverman, J. G.,
Page 234:
224 Subject Index I Inequality, 29-
show all

Educational Research - the Ethics and Aesthetics of Statistics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?