@DanielBorowsk13@pgliljedahl@mpershan Again, it's not about a single paper
You're looking for a Nature publication and missing the forest for the trees ๐
@DanielBorowsk13@pgliljedahl@mpershan You can read through all of his papers ๐
BTC is about the accumulated insights rather than one or few definitive papers
Peter's work spans years, and BTC distills key findings into actionable steps for teachers
The aim of Building Thinking Classrooms is not to answer every research question
Of course, you could do more research
It's *based on research,* but it's not a PhD thesis that cites references for every statement and every number
Because here's the problem: no one other than academics reads them
If you write a popular book, you need to make it generally accessible
@DanielBorowsk13@pgliljedahl@mpershan "I've probably known Peter for 20 years...about as long as I've been in Canada. A simple google scholar search (https://t.co/WyTAGZQdp2) will turn up lots of the research evidence which is 'distilled' in the BTC book."
https://t.co/PelogPJqjH
@DanielBorowsk13@pgliljedahl For what itโs worth it, other scientific fields, such as computer science and deep learning, publish predominantly at conferences
@DanielBorowsk13@pgliljedahl It's a different kind of research
And yes, it is documented in peer-reviewed (book and conference) publications
https://t.co/DaLDoD8Kpm
@DanielBorowsk13@pgliljedahl You're looking for a different kind of research
Peter isn't doing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies ๐
As described in the introduction of the book, his approach is more like field research, going into classrooms, observing students
@DanielBorowsk13@pgliljedahl You're looking for a different kind of research
Peter isn't doing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies ๐
As described in the introduction of the book, his approach is more like field research, going into classrooms, observing students
Yes, it's a great article because it analyzes the sources of the book objectively
โ it doesn't say there's no evidence
It spurs a debate about how much evidence there is (which is a fair debate to have!)
Did you read the comments by SK?
Too long; didn't read:
"BTC is not a research text. It is a popular text, meant for a popular audience."
It's based on research by Peter, but it doesn't claim to be a scientific publication
โ it's not a PhD thesis ๐
@DanielBorowsk13@pgliljedahl No, that's not a bijective relation
Solid research should be published in journals โ agree
But that doesn't imply research published outside of journals isn't solid
That is a false logical conclusion
@DanielBorowsk13@pgliljedahl "no paper => no research" as a claim is wrong
Just because your research ain't published in an academic paper doesn't mean it ain't research ๐
And, by the way, book and conference publications are peer-reviewed too