RON MCDERMOTT spoke of U.S. ALGEBRA CURRICULUM to DAN TRIPLETT on 12-04-
96
RM>SK> *2   TEACHING ALGEBRA:  AMERICA MUST START FROM SCRATCH
RM>SK>    A group of researchers, led by James Kaput of the U of
RM>DT>               ^^^^^^^^^^^
RM>DT>Hey....could this have been a qualitative study?  Sounds like a 
RM>DT>comparative study...observational study....
RM>Observational does not mean qualitative... I would venture 
RM>to say that much of the data was numerical, thus the study
RM>was quantitative...
If someone merely compares numerical data that makes it quantitative?  
Would that also make it scientifically acceptable?  It wouldn't fall 
under the heading of "experimental design" so my question is : Does the 
simple fact that a study looks at data from a numerical point of view 
make it quantitative?  If so, how must the data be interpreted (what 
methods used?) to qualify as a scientific study?
RM>SK>-> conclusion:  " . . . despite its almost universal acceptance in
RM>DT>   ^^^^^^^^^^
RM>SK>-> the U.S., our algebra curriculum -- late, abruptly introduced
RM>SK>-> and isolated -- is simply beyond repair," writes WCER.  WCER is
RM>SK>-> located at the school of education, U of Wisconsin-Madison.
RM>And once again, despite the numerical data, the conclusion
RM>is pure supposition since it totally ignores any number of
RM>socioeconomic and cultural considerations....
Ratty...I think you answered my above question here...but......
RM>DT>Ok....I suppose I'm just setting myself up here for Ron's
RM>DT>comments.   But then that's what I hope will happen.
RM>You've got them.....
I think I've gotten confused a bit here.  But no worries, I found this 
great book on qualitative and quantitative research in early childhood 
education.  A few chapters into the book should provide me with enough 
information to make me an instant expert (grin).....and then you better 
be prepared for some tough questions.
Hey.....Merry Christmas if I don't hear from you sooner.  
Dan
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------