SHEILA KING spoke of Research to DAN TRIPLETT on 11-02-96
SK>DT>  Perhaps this is the rub for many of you here.  You can see
SK>DT>  validity only if data can be quantified.  For this to be so, you
SK>DT>  would only accept a researchers credentials if their
SK>DT>  mathematical/statistical training were substantial.  Must ALL
SK>DT>  research data be quantified for it to be acceptable?
SK> 
SK>For it to PROVE something, yes. You wrote in another message, that
SK>you don't believe you ever used the word PROVE in your messages.
SK>Perhaps not. I really don't recall, and don't intend to go back and
SK>search the messages to find out. However, you should have picked up
SK>on the fact that many of us taking, well...., at least a skeptical
SK>view of what you are defending, were looking for proof.
I think someone in this echo once said that it is often difficult to 
isolate factors in any given scientific study (especially educational 
studies).  I am of the opinion that very few, if any, scientific studies 
actually "prove" anything.
SK>DT>  For the record, I don't think any research data "proves"
SK>DT>  anything.  I am willing to accept research data from any "camp"
SK>DT>  if it proves to be reliable.  What makes it reliable?
SK>DT>  Acceptance by researchers in general and/or educational
SK>DT>  organizations, duplication or concurrence by other
SK>DT>  researchers/educators, and consistency with what is already
SK>DT>  acceptable knowledge. 
SK>  Data alone, as you say, does not prove anything. Ron McDermott also
SK>  wrote this in a previous post. In order to prove something, you
SK>  must use a well designed experiment, which begins with a
SK>  hypothesis, describes a procedure and method on how the hypothesis
SK>  will be tested, and contains a control group.
There is a difference between "proves something" and "proves reliable."  
Also, as I stated above, I don't think that scientific research actually 
"proves" anything.  Isn't it true that some scientific research that 
supposedly "proved" something was later found to be incorrect.  I 
believe that the idea of "proving to be reliable information" better 
describes all research including the quantitative kind.
SK>  Acceptance by other "researchers" who do not, themselves, subscribe
SK>  to such methods would not impress me. As others have pointed out
SK>  here, education seems to go through many fads and cycles. Why is
SK>  this? Perhaps because we base a lot of our new trends and methods
SK>  on poorly conducted research? I really can't substantiate that last
SK>  remark. I haven't looked into the methods used in a variety of
SK>  educational research projects. But I am at a loss to come up with
SK>  any other reasonable explanation. Why would research that is deemed
SK>  at one time valid, turn out a decade or two later to be widely
SK>  discounted? 
I wonder that myself.  I think the same can be said of scientific 
educational research.  Do those studies always hold true?
SK>Dan, while I appreciate your extensive experience with young
SK>children, as a parent and an educator in general, I like to think
SK>that I can at least follow a discussion on these topics. I think your
SK>dismissal of our different views as being based only on the age
SK>difference in our students is not treating my points as worthy of
SK>consideration that they deserve. 
It was not my intention to suggest you were unable to follow or 
understand the issues presented here.  The points you have made here do 
deserve consideration and I honestly have considered them.  I only 
suggest that to really appreciate what I have shared here one probably 
needs to be "in the (early childhood) trenches" as you put it earlier.
I do apologize though.  I don't like to offend others and I don't take 
it lightly when I unwilling offend.  I hope I don't willing offend 
other.....I teach my kindergartners never to do that.....
Dan         
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------