-> I think you mistakenly believe that for research to be credible it
-> must follow strict criteria in order to be valid.
Yes, I do. I do not believe that is a mistake, either.
-> Control groups are not used in every research study conducted nor is
-> such an approach always appropriate.  Conducting observations over
-> time will yield a great deal of data and such an approach to research
-> is both necessary and
-> acceptable.  If I want to see how children use language in the
-> classroom to communicate I could simply observe them and over time I
-> can make some generalizations regarding what I have observed.  Such
-> an approach would not be hap-hazard but rather a systematic
-> collection of information.
I do think you make a valid point about observations being useful for
drawing conclusions about development. However, in order to determine
which of two teaching philosophies is better (i.e. Whole Language or
Traditional) one would need to conduct studies which compare them
against each other and obtain quantitative data. Otherwise it is mere
unsupported conjecture.
-> Your own observations of children are research to a degree in-and-of
-> -themselves and through these observations you have learned a great
-> deal about your area of teaching.  You do not believe that your
-> experience in education has taught you anything about children?
I do believe that I have learned a great deal about teaching and
children through my career as a teacher, but I would never venture to
call it research. It is experience, and nothing more.
-> I have noticed for example, that 5 year old children who enter
-> kindergarten able to write their names correctly, will nearly always
-> go through a period where they write their names _backwards._
That is odd. I have never heard of that before. I neither of my two
children did that, and I don't recall myself or any of my siblings doing
it either, although those memories are certainly less reliable than the
ones of my own two children.
-> I have drawn some conclusions regarding this backward writing and
-> believe it has to do with perceptual development.  If I wanted to
-> conduct a study I would systematically collect information that would
-> tell me how common this backward phase is.  I hypothesize that it is
-> as high as 90%.  I have never conducted a study but if I did, I would
-> not need a control group here (who can really control 5-year-olds
-> anyway?  ).
This is an interesting idea. I don't know enough about studies and
proper procedures to gainsay what you write here. It sounds reasonable.
But what you are suggesting is mere observation to find the frequency of
a certain occurance. That is simply collecting data. I don't know that
you prove anything by that other than that this phenomenon occurs a
certain percentage of the time.
What we were discussing before, is the relative merits of certain types
of instruction, and how to determine which is the best teaching
methodology, or combination thereof. This can not be done by mere data
collecting and observation of a qualitative measure as you suggest
above. If you want to compare the relative merits of two different
strategies, you must pit them one against the other in a quantitative
study. Your hypothesis would be something like "whole language teaching
methodologies result in better reading comprehension" or something along
those lines. This statement is much too vague, of course. But then the
traditional method would be used on your control group and you would try
to prove that you got better results by evaluating students on the same
type of instrument. This is the only way to draw a valid conclusion
about which method is better.
Of course, as you have suggested elsewhere, it is also important that
the study results be repeatable as well.
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------