SHEILA KING spoke of An explanation        1/2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 11-02-
96
Shelia
  I am simply saying that one
SK>DT>  cannot call research worthless simply because it doesn't happen
SK>DT>  to fit into one's pedagogical beliefs. 
SK>No, but one CAN call research worthless if it does not employ
SK>correct statistical procedures and correct scientific controls.
SK>I would.
Not if they are unfamiliar with how the research was conducted and how 
conclusions are drawn.  One of the problems I see here is you have one 
group of educators validating research and another group calling it 
worthless.  It can't be both...and since you havent seen the specific 
studies and others have......well..
have you never attending a workshop or taken a college course that spoke 
of research information and shared some general conclusions?  What, 
besides experience, drives your teaching beliefs?  What formed your 
approach to teaching?  Have you never been influenced by things you have 
read?
SK>DT>  I do not know the precise methodology of all the studies I have
SK>quoted.  
SK>Fair enough. I would be surprised if you did.
And I would be surprised if you new the precise methodology of studies 
that have influenced your view toward teaching.  If someone shovels a 
path and people begin to use that path and recommend that path, I won't 
spend time first finding out what kind of shovel was used and what the 
exact method of shoveling was employed.  I will try the path out for 
myself.
SK>DT>  Why would this make you skeptical?  My admission that I don't
SK>DT>  know of any "scientifically" conducted studies doesn't mean
SK>DT>  studies weren't done this way.  I just don't personally know.
SK> 
SK>  But you have done much reading and studying of this topic. I would
SK>  expect, given your broad and deep exposure, that if there were
SK>  significant studies of that type, you would have been made aware of
SK>  them. 
The studies and the researchers (which I have mentioned by name) 
apparently do not impress anyone here (which I find amazing since there 
work is so well know in early childhood).  Anyone who is interested 
could investigate it him/her self.  Check out Brian Cambourne.  
SK>  (By the way, when I read the
SK>DT>  word scientific study I get the feeling that you and others may
SK>DT>  equate that with quanatative research - leaving qualitative
SK>DT>  research to be "unscientific."  Is this your view?)
SK> 
SK>Based on what you have described of the "qualitative method", yes,
SK>that is my view.
Then it is pointless to refer to studies that employed qualitative 
methods.  No matter what, you will not be swayed either way.
SK>I do agree that qualitative studies can be, as you say, "useful".
SK>I've written that several times in this conference before and
SK>received no such response from you on that. But, they only serve to
SK>show correlation between quantities, as I pointed out in another
SK>message to you a few days back. They cannot possibly show cause and
SK>effect. As you described qualitative studies, they are purely
SK>observational, right?  
That would be over-simplistic.  
SK>DT>  Im not sure what you are saying here.  I am very familiar with
SK>DT>  the references I have cited here.  I don't know their precise
SK>DT>  methodology for every study they conducted.  (Should I?)
SK> 
SK>  I'm not sure. If you are personally satisfied that the results and
SK>  conclusions of the studies are correct, because it corroborates
SK>  your own personal experience, then I guess it is not that
SK>  important. But if you are trying to use the studies to convince
SK>  others that the results are valid and correct, then perhaps it IS
SK>  necessary. 
Good point..perhaps I need to be satisfied for myself and leave well-
enough alone.
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------