It seems clear to me, based on this discussion, that there are serious issues not resolved in the field related to learning and media. I think the discussion has been very worthwhile--it has helped a lot of us refocus the questions and our thinking (and it's still early in the week!). I also find it most interesting how many other "cans of worms" Steve's paper has opened, such as the ongoing quantitative/qualitative debate and battle of the paradigms. These issues always seem simmering just below the surface, ready to boil over with the slightest prompting. Perhaps we should make some of these the focus of future ITForum discussions. At any rate, I'd like to add my two cents worth to some of the tangential issues.
Comments about quantum mechanics have particularly caught my attention. It's been fashionable for some time for educational researchers and educational philosophers to quote stuff like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as "proof" for their claims about the "correct" paradigm for education. Most interpretations I've seen by these people boil down to one idea: The act of measuring changes behavior resulting in inherent uncertainty about what is really going on. Sweeping applications of quantum mechanics to education, via metaphorical statements like these, are ludicrous, in my humble opinion. Not being able to know both the precise position and momentum of an electron somehow informs the educational community about the role of TV in a third grade classroom. Wow. I've spent the last couple of years trying to really understand both classical and quantum physics and let me tell you--it ain't easy. I'm not even close. To begin to understand these ideas requires the language of mathematics (which I don't have much of--I'm trying to relearn calculus; an interesting experience, but it hasn't helped me in learning quantum mechanics much). I've fumbled my way through fragments of the Feynman lectures and have read countless other popular accounts of the topic (some of the books I've read/consulted are below--I find reading these while sipping cheap wine makes them clearer). Quantum mechanics is just plain weird and it doesn't make sense at the everyday level. Some of the most famous and brightest physicists remained confused about its everyday implications throughout their lives (Einstein may have been the best example of someone who died feeling it was sorely incomplete; despite the fact that his ideas helped bring it forth). I think it was Niels Bohr who said that anyone who professes to "understand" quantum mechanics has proven just how little they understand it. Richard Feynman, my personal favorite physicist, warned to avoid asking questions like "How can it be like that?" because you'll find yourself "down the drain." Enrico Fermi for years wondered aloud that if quantum physics is correct, why isn't Mars just smeared about in its orbit. Hey, these are smart people who have deep understanding of the basic principles expressing confusion here. The shift in educational "paradigms" due to the work in physics becomes quite amusing to me. Geez, talk about paradigms--try to understand superstring theory sometime. A lot of physicists hold this up as a possible candidate for the unification of physics. Murray Gell-Mann thinks it's great, but there's hardly consensus among his peers. Unfortunately, it is not a testable theory (is it therefore still a science? Hmm). We've replaced Aristotle's "angels" keeping the planets in orbit with another idea requiring an equal leap of faith. Classical physics will continue forever to explain events at the everyday level perfectly well--these ideas are not replaced "wholesale" as some might think. There is also a great deal of antagonism between physicists and "real" philosophers (the latter drawing heavily on the former for their arguments). Again, there is hardly agreement between them, despite how influential you may think Popper (aka "Sir Karl") and Kuhn have been.
Somehow, all these references to physics mysteriously lead many in education to conclude that therefore, qualitative research methodologies are viewed as the only way to go to understanding complex entities such as human learning and behavior. My reading of physics is that solving a complex problem by simplifying aspects of it remains a powerful idea continuing to lead to insight and understanding (now that sounds relevant to educational research, in my opinion). Also, the scientific method, though held up as the dastardly tool of the "wrong" paradigm, remains an extraordinary process for solving problems in all sorts of complex domains, including human learning.
To me, declaring qualitative "correct" and quantitative "wrong" is akin to "officially" declaring that the hammer should be considered the best tool for the home. Yes, it's great for pounding things, but it's pretty lousy for cutting hair (try it sometime). It seems that nowadays if you dare to add up a list of numbers and divide to get an average you are considered "evil." Yes, it's politically correct nowadays to poke fun at quantitative researchers (along with white males and husbands--gee, I'm all three!!), but identifying the "correct" methodology, like any set of tools, only makes sense after you have identified a problem to work on. (I think Steve's design is a good example of this.) Much of the philosophical rhetoric between research approaches still boils down to me to the inherent conflict between internal and external validity--what you gain in one you lose in the other; you can never maximize both. The experimental approach has yielded much understanding and many great insights to human cognition--and I hope it continues to do so. However, I can also understand the value of well-conceived and well-executed qualitative methodologies and value this research approach as well. Hey, color me eclectic and pragmatic.
Feynman, R.P. (1965). The character of physical law. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Feynman, R.P., Leighton, R.B., & Sands, M. (1963-1965). The Feynman lectures on physics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Feynman, R.P. (1984). Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman: Adventures of a curious character. New York: W.W. Norton.
Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Gregory, B. (1988). Inventing reality: Physics as language. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Horgan, J. (1996). The end of science: Facing the limits of knowledge in the twilight of the scientific age. Reading, MA: Helix Books.
Krauss, L.M. (1993). Fear of physics: A guide for the perplexed. New York: BasicBooks.
Motz, L., & Weaver, J. H. (1989). The story of physics. New York: Plenum Press.
Pais, A. (1982). Subtle is the Lord: The science and the life of Albert Einstein. New York: Oxford University Press.