I don't quite follow what you are saying here: can you elaborate? What are you referring to as pseudoscience vs. science?
Conversation
1) successful #pkm course vendors are more marketing people than scientists. They take an insight and turn it into a keystone of science. No evidence, no research. We should stay very cirsconspect.
2) "metaresearch" is just another name for a patchwork of secondary research.
2
2
Understood re: (1), thanks! Though not-science != not valuable. I do like 's metric of believability for getting value: commoncog.com/blog/believabi
Don't follow (2): did you mean meta-analysis? OP was that, not meta-research, which is diff. but also valuable IMO!
1
3
My philosophy is more based on doubt than belief :)
Let's go for metaanalysis, did you read it? I scanned it.
We are going backward in Learning science if we follow this reasoning.
1
Doubt less, rather than believe more? :)
I didn't read it! Now that I have, I see I was mistaken: it wasn't a meta-analysis, but a narrative/critical review w/o specific methods for systematicity.
Separately, curious what new developments you find compelling?
2
3
Good god, are you telling me that it’s NOT a meta-analysis? This is the second time I’ve read something by Ethan where he gets the fundamental results wrong (the other one was his thread on coffee, which was horribly done)
I think I need to mute him.
3
3
Yeah... :/
The paper itself is actually quite good! Perhaps *because* it's not a meta-analysis, it does a better job of imparting a "map" you can work with! Noting key "seminal" studies, foci and open problems, theories, contextual variation and wrinkles, etc.
1
4
Fair, I’m just bothered that Mollick so confidently states it’s a meta-analysis.
A researcher that doesn’t care about the precise accuracy of terms rings alarm bells for me.
1
1
for my it's a meli melo and conclusions are debatable.
However it could be a good starting point of discussing self directed adult learning.
What rang a bell is the part on interleaving ...
1
Actually I don’t have problems with any of the results. They’re so well established at this point, so well known in education circles, and so well replicated that none of them are in any particular risk of being mistaken.
The problem is in application outside the classroom.
2
I’m just a little anal about Mollick calling a survey paper a ‘meta-analysis’ — either he doesn’t know what a meta-analysis looks like (doubtful!) or he does and he’s using the term because it’s the gold standard for science.
He seems to have made himself a speciality of sharing random papers on anything with clickbaity text.
I didn't know him since yesterday but Twitter pushed a few of his tweets this morning.
Muted him for my sanity.
1