DT>...but I also firmly believe that qualitative research practices
DT>do meet scientific qualifications.  
 
CB>I don't.  Such "observations" are too easily influenced by the 
CB>enthusiasm of the observer or the participants. 
DT>An easy out....but not if strict criteria is set up in the first place.. 
For example?  I still haven't seen any delineation of what
is permissible to your way of thinking...
DT>Buy the way, how would you set up a qualified scientific study regarding
DT>spelling instruction?
Identify the various methodologies, try individual and/or
combinations over as wide a spectrum of abilities as
possible, evaluate GROWTH... Now design an EXPERIMENT
using what appears to be the most promising of the methods
from the previous STUDY, complete with controls, in a
variety of settings, with a variety of students, and see if
the inferences of the STUDY are bourne out in the EXPERIMENT.
Repeat to verify experimental results.
DT>Which group would you want your child to participate in??
Not the point... Subjects of an experiment don't get to vote!
One can argue that this is "unfair", or whatever, but this
is how it works...
DT>If we were to research a kindergarten dramatic play area to see 
DT>what kinds of "natural" interactions take place there, we wouldn't 
DT>need a control group for that.
And it wouldn't be "research", it would be a "survey"...
DT>Not everything in education lends itself to control group research.  
But many things do...
CB>Ever hear of "open classrooms?"  Original observations and 
CB>qualitative research suggested that this was the wave of the 
CB>future
More likely, some PEOPLE thought so; probably university
types...
DT>Not every Quantitative study proved to be useful or correct either.  
DT>Doesn't mean Qualitative research is unreliable.
Doesn't mean it isn't, either...    ;-)
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * OS/2 WARP: The choice of the next generation.
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.3M1f
---------------