SCIENTIFIC VERSUS “QUALITATIVE” RESEARCH
UNSCIENTIFIC STUDIES:
- “Whole language” is typically endorsed by faulty research termed “qualitative research” by its proponents
- The results are “descriptive” – for example: “teachers use phonics in whole language” is a “research finding”
- There is no separation of groups that receive the experimental treatment from “control” groups not receiving treatment that can be used to compare outcomes
- There are no definitive conclusions because there is nothing to compare with
- There does not appear to be any random assignment of subjects (teachers/ schools/ students/ or programs) in such studies
- Recent teacher training programs employ these “results” to document effectiveness of whole language programs and to disparage phonics
- School administrators seem unaware of the unscientific nature of the studies
- Many reading curricula are chosen by educators using outcomes of this kind of “research”
- Current teachers are frequently not trained to teach reading effectively
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES:
- Typically more balanced view of programs
- The studies have long duration and are carefully designed so that only one component of the reading program is changed at a single time
- There are always “control” groups that do not receive the expermental treatment for the duration of the study, so that results with and without treatment can be compared
- Groups are carefully matched and the subjects of the study (teachers/ schools/ students/ or programs) are randomly assigned
- Study outcomes can be replicated if conditions are duplicated.