CHARLES BEAMS spoke of Whole Language 2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-10-96
CB>Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
CB> 
CB>DT>...but I also firmly believe that qualitative research practices
CB>DT>do  meet scientific qualifications.  
CB> 
CB>I don't.  Such "observations" are too easily influenced by the 
CB>enthusiasm of the observer or the participants. 
An easy out....but not if strict criteria is set up in the first place..  
Buy the way, how would you set up a qualified scientific study regarding 
spelling instruction?  Which group would you want your child to 
participate in??
 Without control 
CB>groups and without keeping the actual participants in the dark as 
CB>much as possible so that attitude does not influence outcome, I 
CB>can't put much stock into the results. 
That fully depends on what we are looking at.  If we were to research a 
kindergarten dramatic play area to see what kinds of "natural" 
interactions take place there, we wouldn't need a control group for 
that. We would need to do a lot of "watching" and "listening" and 
probably visit a cross-sampling of many kindergarten classrooms.  What 
would a study like this tell us?  Don't know...don't know that I'd even 
do one like this.  But observations do give us some data that we can 
generalize from.  It is not entirely useless.  Not everything in 
education lends itself to control group research.  
 Ever hear of "open 
CB>classrooms?"  Original observations and qualitative research 
CB>suggested that this was the wave of the future - now a district in 
CB>our area is crying over their lack of enclosed space for the 
CB>traditional classrooms.  Fifteen years ago they built a new high 
CB>school, 75% of it open space, so that they could have open 
CB>classrooms.  Results were terrible and so are the portable walls 
CB>they've tried to construct.
Not every Quantitative study proved to be useful or correct either.  
Doesn't mean Qualitative research is unreliable.  Just means this 
particular study was very wrong.
CB>DT>Piaget?
CB> 
CB>You've mentioned him a few times before, but I am only generically 
CB>familiar with his writings and even less-so with the impact his work 
CB>has had on education.  Do you wish to elaborate?
His work has influenced early childhood educational practices and others 
have conducted "studies" that have supported Piaget's findings.  His 
work was mostly observations was it not?   
CB> 
CB>DT>I don't see how you would "rigorously" test under strict
CB>DT>scientific  rules the things of education.  Are you suggesting a
CB>DT>school for guinea  pigs where we try out learning formula "A" and
CB>DT>another school for  formula "B" ?  
CB> 
CB>You got it!  I suggest that it work like this - when we suspect that 
CB>some new trend is actually going to make a difference, we try it out 
CB>in a few classrooms.  We compare the results with traditional 
CB>classrooms with similar types of students by testing for the results 
CB>we want (pre-defined).  
Now I get it....you actually believe this is good in every situation??  
CB> 
CB>Even things which SHOULD work to make schools better might not 
CB>actually work when put in place on a large scale.  I contend that 
CB>we've never really defined and tested whole language in such a 
CB>manner so as to determine that it actually produces better readers 
CB>than does traditional instruction. 
Whole language developed as we came to realize the utter failure of the 
traditional approach for many kids. 
 Talk about guinea pigs!  How 
CB>about all of those kids in whole language programs in California who 
CB>are among the worst readers in the nation?
Many many many factors are present here and you isolate only one??  
Interesting.... Cause and effect fallacy...
CB> 
CB>DT>Besides Charles, if you would read any of the material I have
CB>DT>cited, you  would find ample studies that support the claims of
CB>DT>researchers.  Why  bother with more studies when we have the data
CB>DT>now? 
CB>I contend that it is unreliable research - not done with adequate 
CB>comparisons between experimental and control groups.
You contend?...you haven't even examined anything....I even sent you 
something from the AFT files I found on America Online...you simply 
write off anything which you don't consider "reliable" research yet you 
embrace a government sponsored report such as Nation at Risk without so 
much as a twinkle of doubt?  The Nation at Risk report is very 
slanted....Read it for yourself and compare its finding with the 
evidence of the actual reports.  Very misleading information....
CB>DT>One last thing...have you read or heard about the book _The_ 
CB>DT>_Manufactured_ _Crisis_ by David Berliner and Bruce Briddle?  We
CB>DT>could  have fun with it for hours .  
CB> 
CB>I have heard of it and agree that we educate well as many children - 
CB>maybe more - today as we did 50 or 100 years ago.  Are you 
CB>suggesting that we can't do better?
Don't just hear of it....read it.....judge its contents with first hand 
knowledge...
We can always do better but you seem to be arguing that we are doing 
very poorly indeed?  What is you position regarding American education 
and it's performance??
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------