RM>You're hung up on this "qualitative" issue... The issue is
RM>not qualitative vs. quantitative, it's one of methodology..
DT>Perhaps you are right.  Maybe we can change the thread to methodology.  
DT>I was under the impression that you considered qualitative methods (any 
DT>and all) as unscientific.  Am I mistaken?
You are...  It's simply that a scientific method yields 
results that can often be quantified.  Many studies are ALSO
quantified, although NOT scientific...
RM>Again, it isn't "qualitative" that's the problem, it's the
RM>unstructured nature of many of these studies, combined with
RM>conclusions drawn on nothing more than statistical or 
RM>inferred (speculative) correlations....  Kind of like those
RM>line drawings that form images visible from the air which
RM>some infer to mean there were interplanetary visitors to
RM>Earth...
DT>So you are saying the the previous posts of Shelia's cannot be trusted 
DT>(they compared math instruction in the US to countries where math 
DT>education is apparently more successful).  Or is this where the 
DT>structured part comes in.  
The conclusions are suspect, as this is simply a collection 
of statistics.
DT>What of controls here?
Don't know....
DT>There can be none in a comparative study, right?
Not true; it could be done...
DT>And isn't a study like the ones described in Shelia's post 
DT>qualitative in methodology?
I can't remember what her post was about, but if it included
numbers, then it was quantitative.  Many studies are
quantitative.  What you mean by "qualitative methodology"
escapes me.  The methodology can be neither qualitative nor
quantitative, only the data and conclusions can be...
RM>DT>Generally speaking the seven conditions that Cambourne identified 
RM>DT>are all important and necessary.
RM>Based upon what test?  Simply because they show up over and
RM>over? 
DT>Are you saying you know more than a whole host of 
DT>early childhood educators?  (hehehe)  
It sometimes seems like it....     ;-)
DT>On this basis, one might conclude that the 
RM>development of civilization requires the wholesale slaughter
RM>of large numbers of people periodically.  Now I don't happen
RM>to believe that, and I don't suggest we try an experiment
RM>with controls, but the inference is "reasonable" based on
RM>multiple observations over long time intervals.  It's also
RM>"reliable"...  Is it valid?
DT>This is a silly comparison Ron.
It certainly is not... This is exactly the process about 
which we are talking: Observations of data and inferential
conclusion.  That this particular conclusion is unacceptable
to you does not alter the fact that the process is exactly
that which you wish to consider "equal" to the scientific
process - It isn't and never will be....
RM>WHAT they are doesn't matter; what I THINK of them, also
RM>doesn't matter; and whether I BELIEVE them doesn't matter.
RM>All that matters is HOW he arrived at them....
DT>Yes...and if his conclusions are valid and you get hung up on his 
DT>methodology of which you aren't sure of exactly (neither am I 
DT>*exactly* ) then where does that put you?
It makes me a skeptic; which is a very healthy thing to be,
in general.  I try not to get "wed" to the rantings of 
others......    ;-)
DT>Upon what are you basing your pedagogical beliefs?  
Ah... My ACTIONS are based upon the collection of data; 
which includes educational literature, personal observation,
commonsense, logical deduction.  As a human, I am forced to
ACT in this fashion.  As a scientist, I weigh the import of
the data, and that factors into my decisionmaking process.
The necessity that I act forces me to consider even suspect
conclusions when determining my course of action, but I 
would never give them the weight I do to scientifically
derived conclusions.... 
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * When DOS grows up it wants to be OS/2!
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.3M1f
---------------