DT>  You would have no idea the authors understanding of the mathematics of
DT>  statics.  Perhaps their understanding exceeds your own.  Who is to say?
DT>  Part of their text book deals with statistical analysis of quanatative
DT>  data and describes how this data can have conventional uses in
DT>  qualitative research.
I would be interested to read that description, however I won't prevail
upon you to type it up. I am so swamped right now, I shouldn't even be
spending time typing replies in here, really.
DT>  Programs that give degrees such as the
DT>  SK>ones you cite above do require some training in statistical methods,
DT>  SK>but it is not that substantial. It would be more meaningful to many
DT>  SK>of us here if the methods used by these Ed. degree researchers were
DT>  SK>analyzed by some mathematicians or statisticians and proclaimed as
DT>  SK>valid research methods.
DT>  Perhaps this is the rub for many of you here.  You can see validity only
DT>  if data can be quantified.  For this to be so, you would only accept a
DT>  researchers credentials if their mathematical/statistical training were
DT>  substantial.  Must ALL research data be quantified for it to be
DT>  acceptable?
For it to PROVE something, yes. You wrote in another message, that you
don't believe you ever used the word PROVE in your messages. Perhaps not.
I really don't recall, and don't intend to go back and search the messages
to find out. However, you should have picked up on the fact that many of
us taking, well...., at least a skeptical view of what you are defending,
were looking for proof.
DT>  For the record, I don't think any research data "proves" anything.  I am
DT>  willing to accept research data from any "camp" if it proves to be
DT>  reliable.  What makes it reliable?  Acceptance by researchers in general
DT>  and/or educational organizations, duplication or concurrence by other
DT>  researchers/educators, and consistency with what is already acceptable
DT>  knowledge.
  Data alone, as you say, does not prove anything. Ron McDermott also wrote
  this in a previous post. In order to prove something, you must use a
  well designed experiment, which begins with a hypothesis, describes a
  procedure and method on how the hypothesis will be tested, and contains
  a control group.
  Acceptance by other "researchers" who do not, themselves, subscribe to
  such methods would not impress me. As others have pointed out here,
  education seems to go through many fads and cycles. Why is this? Perhaps
  because we base a lot of our new trends and methods on poorly conducted
  research? I really can't substantiate that last remark. I haven't looked
  into the methods used in a variety of educational research projects. But
  I am at a loss to come up with any other reasonable explanation. Why
  would research that is deemed at one time valid, turn out a decade or two
  later to be widely discounted?
  (I'm sure others can add here.....just wanted to clarify
DT>  that isolated studies do not impress me....they may interest me....but
DT>  unless studies have support of the educational community I could not
DT>  place much confidence in them.
I would think that any validly conducted, scientific study with
reproducible results would eventually gain the acceptance of the educational
community.
DT>  Last thought here:
DT>  You're a math educator.  I am an early childhood educator.  You probably
DT>  see things more logically/sequentially than I do (I'm guessing).  When
DT>  someone speaks authoritatively regarding Math education, they must have
DT>  significant mathematical expertise and educational experience if their
DT>  ideas are to be considered.  The same is true for early childhood
DT>  education.
DT>  The people whose works I cite, whose ideas I believe in, are considered
DT>  to have significant early childhood educational expertise by the
DT>  majority of early childhood - educators/professional organizations.
DT>  Perhaps we just don't understand each others area of expertise.  Perhaps
DT>  the gap between upper-grade educators and early childhood educators is
DT>  too wide a gap to bridge.
Dan, while I appreciate your extensive experience with young children, as
a parent and an educator in general, I like to think that I can at least
follow a discussion on these topics. I think your dismissal of our
different views as being based only on the age difference in our students
is not treating my points as worthy of consideration that they deserve.
Sheila
 * SLMR 2.1a *
--- DB 1.39/004485
---------------