Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
DT>...but I also firmly believe that qualitative research practices do 
DT>meet scientific qualifications.  
I don't.  Such "observations" are too easily influenced by the 
enthusiasm of the observer or the participants.  Without control 
groups and without keeping the actual participants in the dark as 
much as possible so that attitude does not influence outcome, I 
can't put much stock into the results.  Ever hear of "open 
classrooms?"  Original observations and qualitative research 
suggested that this was the wave of the future - now a district in 
our area is crying over their lack of enclosed space for the 
traditional classrooms.  Fifteen years ago they built a new high 
school, 75% of it open space, so that they could have open 
classrooms.  Results were terrible and so are the portable walls 
they've tried to construct.
DT>Yes.....but you don't believe that such a "placebo effect" can account 
DT>for _all_ research?  (Qualitative kind)
I think it can have a MUCH greater effect on the results of the 
study than you'd think.  Look at how some people even seem to be 
able to cure themselves of horrible diseases through the power of 
positive thinking.
DT>Also, when you say casual you almost suggest that such research 
DT>is purposeless.  What about Margaret Mead?
I'm not aware of our development of nation-wide instructional 
programs based on the observations of Margaret Mead.  Am I missing 
something?
DT>Piaget?
You've mentioned him a few times before, but I am only generically 
familiar with his writings and even less-so with the impact his work 
has had on education.  Do you wish to elaborate?
DT>I don't see how you would "rigorously" test under strict scientific 
DT>rules the things of education.  Are you suggesting a school for guinea 
DT>pigs where we try out learning formula "A" and another school for 
DT>formula "B" ?  
You got it!  I suggest that it work like this - when we suspect that 
some new trend is actually going to make a difference, we try it out 
in a few classrooms.  We compare the results with traditional 
classrooms with similar types of students by testing for the results 
we want (pre-defined).  If we are satisfied that the students are 
performing better, I propose that we expand the study to several 
schools to try to eliminate other variables, such as stronger 
teachers, better school environment, etc.  If we are again 
satisfied, we try the changes on a broader scale - perhaps across 
several districts or even several states.
Even things which SHOULD work to make schools better might not 
actually work when put in place on a large scale.  I contend that 
we've never really defined and tested whole language in such a 
manner so as to determine that it actually produces better readers 
than does traditional instruction.  Talk about guinea pigs!  How 
about all of those kids in whole language programs in California who 
are among the worst readers in the nation?
DT>Besides Charles, if you would read any of the material I have cited, you 
DT>would find ample studies that support the claims of researchers.  Why 
DT>bother with more studies when we have the data now?
I contend that it is unreliable research - not done with adequate 
comparisons between experimental and control groups.
DT>One last thing...have you read or heard about the book _The_ 
DT>_Manufactured_ _Crisis_ by David Berliner and Bruce Briddle?  We could 
DT>have fun with it for hours .  
I have heard of it and agree that we educate well as many children - 
maybe more - today as we did 50 or 100 years ago.  Are you 
suggesting that we can't do better?
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* Old MacDonald had a computer with an EIA I/O...
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------