Research Commentary: A Rejoinder: Reframing Replication Studies as Studies of Generalizability: A Response to Critiques of the Nature and Necessity of Replication

View More View Less
  • 1 Texas State University
  • 2 Portland State University

As mathematics education researchers, our goal in publishing papers is to advance the field. To contribute in this manner, we must value not just novelty but also rigorous science that tests the generalizability of work in our field. This is especially important in education research, where it is impossible to have the clear, delineated, randomized studies that may exist in the hard sciences. Each study is situated in any number of contextual variables, from the particular group of students and teachers to the nature of any particular school setting. In this issue, we present two sets of replication studies (Melhuish, 2018, and Thanheiser, 2018) aiming to confirm, refute, and expand prior work. In the same issue, Schoenfeld (2018) and Star (2018) comment on these studies by raising greater questions about when replication studies are warranted in mathematics education, which studies should be published, and what exactly is meant by replication studies. We respond to the challenges posed by Schoenfeld and Star by making two points. To meet generalization goals,

Contributor Notes

Kathleen Melhuish, Mathematics Department, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666; melhuish@txstate.edu

Eva Thanheiser, Fariborz Maseeh Department of Mathematics and Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Portland State University, Neuberger Hall, Room 323, 724 SW Harrison Street, Portland, OR 97201; evat@pdx.edu

(Corresponding author is Melhuish melhuish@txstate.edu)(Corresponding author is Thanheiser evat@pdx.edu)
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 5 5 1
Full Text Views 14 14 3
PDF Downloads 25 25 6
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0