RON MCDERMOTT spoke of RESEARCH to DAN TRIPLETT on 11-10-96
RM>It may, in fact, be difficult to isolate variables, and
RM>educational studies (or almost ANY sociological study) will
RM>be ESPECIALLY difficult.  The attempt is VERY important if
RM>one wishes to understand the connections between the various
RM>parameters involved.
Could you elaborate on the attempt and what it is you mean by that?  And 
do you see educational studies different from sociological studies or do 
they interconnect?  And do you see any validity in qualitative studies 
(ones where a great deal of observing and comparing is done)?
RM>DT>I am of the opinion that very few, if any, scientific studies 
RM>DT>actually "prove" anything.
RM> 
RM>Depends on your definition of "prove"... 
Webster says "...to establish truth or validity of by demonstration; to 
ascertain the correctness."  It seems to me when we say proof we mean 
that something has been shown to be true or correct.  I think that at 
best we can say that research can "prove" reliable and has shown 
something to probably be true.  What are your thoughts on this idea?
  
RM>DT>I am willing to accept research data from any "camp"
RM>SK>if it proves to be reliable.  What makes it reliable?
RM> 
RM>Reliable, in a scientific sense, is synonymous with being
RM>repeatable....
If the same phenomena is observed in similar situations over and over 
again by several researchers, I would think that this qualifies as 
repeatable.  For example (and I am simplifying here) when Brian 
Cambourne wanted to study the conditions present in language learning he 
observed over time certain conditions that were present no matter where 
or whom he observed.  From his observations and studies of those 
conditions, he developed what he calls the "seven conditions" which must 
operate for language learning to occur.  Similar studies have yielded 
similar conclusions.  I am of the opinion that Cambourne's ideas are an 
important contribution to early childhood teaching practices with 
implications that stretch beyond early childhood.  (it is perhaps the 
interpretations of his studies and not his personal conclusions that 
most educators find themselves at odds with). Although his research was 
not study group a vrs study group b, his observations were of many 
groups and he saw many patterns of consistency from group to group.  I 
am not aware of any "scientific" studies that may have influenced his 
work but there may be some.  I have had difficulty finding what his 
exact methodology was....I suppose if I knew where to look......
  
RM>DT>I believe that the idea of "proving to be reliable information"
RM>DT>better  describes all research including the quantitative kind.
RM> 
RM>Again, something may be reliable without being understood;
RM>that may be sufficient, but may also entail some risk (It's
RM>always a risk to use something you don't understand)....
Ahhh...you speak of faith here....
 
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------