Methodology and Mathematics

Methodology (K&S)
I'm all for methodological pluralism. Isn't more and varied information a good thing? I agree too that each of us brings her own biases to research, but as long as that information is part of the reporting, then that will lead to more honesty in research and that's a plus too.

I appreciate the explanation of the six levels of inquiry. This, like other pieces we've read gives me some insight into my own possible research topics.

I experienced deja vu when I read on page 250 that 'Bereiter and Scardamalia...show a preference for experimental research, stating that "a holistic ideology...poses an actual threat to writing research..." ' (250). Here we go again with the preference for quantitative research. I see its value, but I also see value in adding qualitative components to a research methodology. I don't want to try something new in my classroom that has little or no basis in natural conditions.

I found the discussion on page 250 0f "universal models" interesting and troubling. I have found over the years that there are few universal models that work for a large population, hence my preference for a pluralistic approach to research.

The discussion of case studies also raised some questions for me. K&S contend that, "Many case studies focus on unusual patterns of development or idiosyncrasies of writers, not on patterns common to a large number of writers" (251). This is not a problem, then, with the case study as a method, but a problem with the researcher's choice of subjects.

Isn't this similar to the discussion of Newkirk's study from last week's chapter in K&S? The woman from Wyoming was not "typical" so they took her out of the study. I would guess that a case study would focus on a subject who is "typical" of the group being studied under a theory or hypothesis.

My favorite line from this chapter was on page 253. Karen Shriver contends that, "Because any one window can provide only a partial view on what we want to know, an empirical inquiry into rhetoric and composition must be pluralistic..." (253). Isn't this like a crime scene? One witness may give you facts A, B and C. Other witnesses, however, can give you different perspectives from different points of view. DNA evidence is the quantitative evidence, and that evidence can be used to point the finger in the right direction, but eyewitnesses can tell you what they heard, and the order of events. They can offer the how and the why. Quantitative evidence can't do that. I think if you really want to get at the root of the problem, you need they how and the why.

For example, I've noticed the disappearance from student writing of the apostrophe in the last two years. Quantitative research could be conducted on student writing to tell a researcher how many times an apostrophe is missing, but a case study or ethnography (qualitative research) would provide the reasons why this is happening. Perhaps the emergence of texting in students' lives is the reason, but how are you going to find that out without qualitative research? Doesn't this constitute an argument for pluralism in research?

My last comment on the K&S chapter comes from page 259 where North and Sullivan offer different interpretations of a graduate student who failed her comprehensive exams. K&S contend, "...these readings [their differing interpretations] can create layers of narrative and interpretation that point to the complexity of human interaction without resolving or oversimplifying diverse issues or reducing them to a single truth" (259). The human being is complex. It is not a machine. There are so many facets of human behavior that a pluralistic approach to research seems to make the most sense.

Math (L&A)
Lauer and Asher presented problems for me this week. I was hanging in there for a while, but I got so confused that I had to go talk to my friend who teaches probability and statistics. I understood sample selections and confidence intervals, but I lost it with correction factors and rank order data. I'm hoping that the class discussion will help me understand these terms.

I read the section on survey and questionnaire construction before I wrote my questions for my interview, but I still had problems. I ended up editing questions for "directness, simplicity, and clarity...(65) while I was actually interviewing. This was really awkward, but I'm guessing that the question-writing quality improves with experience.