RON MCDERMOTT spoke of SPELLING... to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-14-96
RM>DT>Some people have an extremely narrow definition of science,
RM>DT>calling only research which is deductive and hypothesis-testing
RM>DT>scientific. 
RM>Inductive... Specific to general....
Deductive... inference by reason from general to specific....
RM> 
RM>DT>But part of a scientific attitude is to keep open-minded about
RM>DT>method and  evidence.
RM> 
RM>Not method... If by open-minded you mean anything goes, then
RM>you misunderstand the scientific approach.  
I never said anything goes.  It must be reasonable.  But to view 
research methods with blinders on is being narrow in one's thinking and 
is unscientific.  
RM>DT>Qualitative research meets the scientific research 
RM>DT>requirements of rigorous and systematic investigation.
RM> 
RM>SOME qualitative "research" may meet SOME scientific
RM>criteria.  A few may even constitute experiment.  A great
RM>deal of qualitative "research" is meaningless because of
RM>the methods used. 
There are many researcher who would disagree.  I think the opposite of 
what you have stated is true.  Qualitative methods have been resisted 
for many years by some.  However the pendulum is swinging.  Watch out!  
 Much of it is simple polling, and the
RM>validity of polling is based upon the supposition that with 
RM>a large enough sample you eliminate unwanted variables
RM>(reference here previous discussions with Chuck and Paul).
RM>THAT supposition depends greatly on methods...  I'm not
RM>trying to be argumentative with you, I just think you are
RM>misusing terminology, and misstating the nature of science.
I don't think I am misstating it at all.  I think you have too narrow a 
view.  I believe that there are many uses for qualitative research 
techniques in education.  The techniques are respected and used 
regularly in the social sciences, particularly in sociology and 
anthropology. 
   
RM> 
RM>All that aside, I agree with you that children will go
RM>through periods during which they will spell "creatively".
RM>What concerns me, and the others complaining about it, is
RM>that in too many classrooms little or no correction seems
RM>to occur.  Perhaps this is an offshoot of the self-esteem
RM>issue?  Anyway, children learn to speak well by hearing
RM>(and practicing) CORRECT speech; I suspect they learn to 
RM>spell well by observing (and practicing) correct spelling.
RM>It doesn't have to be correct from the "gitgo", but error
RM>has to be corrected at some EARLY point.  Frankly, that is
RM>exactly what happened in the traditional approach which
RM>most of us old folks remember.
I actually agree with you that children need to learn to spell correctly 
and that this should begin early.  But the traditional drill, test, 
drill is ineffective.  
RM>It's unfortunate that this type of thing occurs.  Your
RM>position on this issue is a lot like mine with Outcome
RM>Based Education.  I'm in here arguing that OBE is nothing
RM>more than testing for specific RESULTS of teaching, but
RM>all around the country, OBE is political correctness and
RM>touchy-feeley fluff instead of instruction - Good ideas
RM>gone bad to the point of being ludicrous.  You find
RM>yourself in much the same predicament...
I agree with you here.  OBE was in my view a good idea gone bad.  
Perhaps you are right that WL is suffering from the same disease.  
What's the answer then?  I honestly don't think the traditional approach 
(what do we mean when we say that anyway?) will do the job.  I think we 
are on the right track with WL but that too many people may have their 
own ideas and some of these ideas are just foolishness.
Dan
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
Windows Error #56:  Operator fell asleep while waiting.
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------