#7 , I think. I lost track.

I could cry. This is my second post because the first one apparently wasn't good enough for the blog site to save. Oh my gosh I am so mad right now.

Anyway...I guess I can remember a little...LA reading...I was wondering if there was a connection between the idea of experimental research and Pavlov's dog? Cause-effect, right? The idea that the researcher is actively involved in manipulating treatments? I also had a question about null hypotheses...it means that there will be no difference between the treated and controlled group, and the researcher has to either reject or accept it...is this before or after the research? And to prove the research could produce a desired result, they have to reject it...meaning...they believe there will be a difference. (?? 155)

Pretests...randomization means one is not needed and therefore controls threats to internal validity. Then why would it be helpful? (157) Wouldn't it give participants an idea as to what the research is about? Isn't the idea to keep them from knowing? Or at least try?

And as far as statistical significance (162)...is seems so ambiguous...results could be statistically significant, but maybe not because they were interpreted wrong. It seems almost better to research what isn't as opposed to what is.

As far as p values...I learned in the research design class about the significance of .o5, and the book talks about setting p values for composition research at .10 or .20, is that because there needs to be more room for error? Why?

Internal validity...I feel a little ahead of the game here having learned some of this...but in looking at all the threats to keeping research and its participants valid, there's a lot to cover. I've seen articles that do not address all threats to internal validity based on how they conducted their research. If it wasn't random, there is much to be addressed. Are these articles written by people who just don't know, think the reader doesn't know, or knows better but purposely leaves it out to make the research appear valid? Don't editors catch this stuff?

KS-good. A much lighter reading. Isn't this the psychology of conversation? Analyzing utterances and talk and responses? And then the whole idea of Grice's principle (112) would be hard for a lot of people to do without much practice. Taking turns? Sounding sincere when taking and listening? I know people that lose interest in a conversation literally 10 seconds in if you are not talking about something that pertains to them. They will, without shame, turns their head and start looking around. Last I checked, I'm not that boring. I've taking to half-jokingly (only half, whch I'm sure they know what the other half is) saying...what, my 8 seconds is up?

Anyway...talk about writing (115)...I was trying to figure out the connection between that and the LA reading...now I see it...the effect(s) of talk in one-one one and group writing instruction. That's a huge task to take on. Now researchers are making assumptions based on their own discourse when they try to interpret talk about writing. Isn't that alone a threat to internal validity? I don't even know if that question makes sense...I am assuming I understand all this. What nerve. Anyway, doesn't talk in general negotiate in terms of the social and educational? Between two equals and then those who are in educational situations...one asking or trying to understad and the other trying to help them define it? The give and take? On 121, they talk about the influence of talk on a piece of writing...does this mean that the writer chooses to change or not change it based on peopl'es opinions? Don't we talk about peer review but that ultimately it's the writer's choce to make changes? Then it isn't the writer's thought anymore...it's a combination of everyone else's who thought the writing wasnt' good enough.

I think I'm done. Feels like I am dropping off at an odd spot, but although this was a lighter reading than LA, its was still filled with a lot.