DT>  SK>Dan,
DT>  SK>
DT>  SK>You yourself have down played the importance of the scientific method
DT>  First of all, my argument above has to do with comments made about
DT>  research I have cited here as being "worthless" and "existent."  It has
DT>  also been said that this research doesn't measure up to scientific
DT>  criteria.  I am simply saying that one cannot call research worthless
DT>  simply because it doesn't happen to fit into one's pedagogical beliefs.
No, but one CAN call research worthless if it does not employ
correct statistical procedures and correct scientific controls.
I would.
DT>  I do not know the precise methodology of all the studies I have quoted.
Fair enough. I would be surprised if you did.
DT>  Some certainly were done using qualitative methods.  Some may very well
DT>  have been done using a quantitative method.
Perhaps. But I would think that if there were such studies, you would be
aware of at least a couple (since you are so immersed in this topic), and
certainly such studies would have been more likely to impress the AFT in
their analysis of Whole Language research. If there were such scientifically
conducted research on Whole Language, one would think the Whole Language
advocates would trot it right out, since Whole Language is taking such a
beating from some. Such scientifically performed research to back their
POV would end the debate, no? But I've not heard of such (admittedly, I'm
more likely to spend my time reading professional journals about math
education than about reading instruction).
DT>  I don't think I have tried to down play the importance of quantitative
DT>  research as much as "up play" qualitative research.  I have stated that
DT>  qualitative methods, like quantitative methods, do meet scientific
DT>  standards.
What you have explained here of qualitative methods does not lead me to
believe that it meets scientific standards. Furthermore, Ron McDermott, who
is much better trained in scientific method than I, is also unconvinced.
  I don't remember saying that quanatative research (this is
DT>  the same as scientific method -- right?) is unimportant.  I have tried
DT>  to say that qualitative methods can stand on equal footing with that of
DT>  the quanatative (scientific) method.  I have also said that in many
DT>  cases, a qualitative approach to a particular educational inquiry would
DT>  be more appropriate.
DT>  SK> in research and even wrote in some message
DT>  SK>that you weren't personally aware that studies of that type had been
DT>  SK>conducted on the subjects that we were discussing, and that you felt
DT>  SK>they probably weren't necessary.
DT>  You are right that I did say this.  The fact that I am not aware of the
DT>  exact methodology doesn't mean that the more acceptable (to some)
DT>  "scientific" approach wasn't used.  I don't think we need to conduct
DT>  quanatative studies to examine a traditional classroom vrs a whole
DT>  language approach.  I have stated that I believe many studies have been
DT>  done and from those studies we already have a wealth of information
We do not have a wealth of information designed to convince the skeptics
and nay-sayers of Whole Language. We only have convinced the advocates,
such as yourself. As a believer in Whole Language, I would think you would
want to convince those who doubt the method, and the only way you will ever
do this is through scientifically conducted, controlled studies which
employ the quantitative methods and control groups. Without this it will
remain on the level of an emotional, heated, debate with few facts entering
in, but only much opinion.
.
DT>  If someone wanted to conduct such a study, I would welcome it however.
DT>  Without such a study, this debate will never get resolved.
 Exactly.
DT>  SK>I don't know about Charles, but my skepticism with the references you
DT>  SK>have presented does not come from what I have heard and read from
DT>  SK>others, but from your own admission a few weeks back in this echo
DT>  SK>that you are not aware of any scientifically conducted studies on
DT>  SK>these topics.
DT>  Why would this make you skeptical?  My admission that I don't know of
DT>  any "scientifically" conducted studies doesn't mean studies weren't done
DT>  this way.  I just don't personally know.
  But you have done much reading and studying of this topic. I would expect,
  given your broad and deep exposure, that if there were significant
  studies of that type, you would have been made aware of them.
  (By the way, when I read the
DT>  word scientific study I get the feeling that you and others may equate
DT>  that with quanatative research - leaving qualitative research to be
DT>  "unscientific."  Is this your view?)
Based on what you have described of the "qualitative method", yes, that
is my view.
I do agree that qualitative studies can be, as you say, "useful". I've
written that several times in this conference before and received no such
response from you on that. But, they only serve to show correlation between
quantities, as I pointed out in another message to you a few days back.
They cannot possibly show cause and effect. As you described qualitative
studies, they are purely observational, right?
DT>   I guess that AFT's report that they could find no
DT>  SK>'well-conducted' research also adds to my skepticism.
DT>  Im not sure what you are saying here.  I am very familiar with the
DT>  references I have cited here.  I don't know their precise methodology
DT>  for every study they conducted.  (Should I?)
  I'm not sure. If you are personally satisfied that the results and
  conclusions of the studies are correct, because it corroborates your
  own personal experience, then I guess it is not that important. But
  if you are trying to use the studies to convince others that the results
  are valid and correct, then perhaps it IS necessary.
  I am most familiar with
DT>  the conclusions they have drawn and have been impressed at how other
DT>  researchers came to similar conclusions.
 Look, many published authors have corroborated that the NCTM standards
 are the best way to teach math. And yet MANY teachers in the trenches,
 not only those I work with, but those I meet at conferences and correspond
 with in e-mail and newsgroups, say that we can't expect remedial math
 students to do the type of stuff in the Standards and cope with texts
 like the UCMSP math texts. They need more drill and practice. The fact that
 there are many published authors who support each other in the idea that
 even these math students can succeed at math with little drill, and that
 they can learn algebra manipulation completely in the context of solving
 applied math problems does not for one second impress me.
 So, would I be impressed that a number of persons has all come to the
 same conclusions in the field of reading instruction? Not necessarily.
>>> Continued to next message
 * SLMR 2.1a *
--- DB 1.39/004485
---------------