In a post to Sheila King you quoted and added:
-> SK>From the Nov. 13, 1996 Daily Report Card:
->
-> SK>-> *2   TEACHING ALGEBRA:  AMERICA MUST START FROM SCRATCH
-> SK>->    A group of researchers, led by James Kaput of the U of
->            ^^^^^^^^^^^
-> Hey....could this have been a qualitative study?  Sounds like a
-> comparative study...observational study....
and then to Ron McDermott you wrote:
-> So you are saying the the previous posts of Shelia's cannot be
-> trusted (they compared math instruction in the US to countries where
-> math education is apparently more successful).  Or is this where the
-> structured part comes in.  What of controls here?  There can be none
-> in a comparative study, right?  And isn't a study like the ones
-> described in Shelia's post qualitative in methodology?
Please don't call them MY methodology. I hope that you are not thinking
that somehow I selected those posts as something I felt strongly about
or believed in.
The studies may well be suspect. I posted them here because they were in
another echo that I read frequently, and the topic sounded like
something that may be interesting to others here. My cross-posting of
such articles in no way indicates an endorsement or belief in the
methods employed.
As a matter of fact, you probably recall that a couple of months ago I
posted one which I specifically commented on as suspect.
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
---------------