SCHOOL SCIENCEAND

MATHEMATICSVOL. LXXNOVEMBER, 1970WHOLE No. 622

C^dttoy^ f^c^ae

Uncle Charlie’s Cracked Crock

Almost fifty years ago, shortly after the advent of Prohibition, anevent transpired in the Editor’s neighborhood that had implicationsfor certain current phenomena. Three gentlemen of the communitywho were famous for imbibing spirits, illegal or otherwise, weresubjects of an incident that bears retelling. Pete Sliter, a short stockyman of about 200 Ibs. inveigled two friends, one commonly known asUncle George who was 6’4// and about 300 Ibs., and the other, UncleCharlie who was a wiry ^V and about 120 Ibs. to help him paint hishouse. Peters inducement for their arrival at 7:30 A.M. on a Saturdaymorning for work was a three-gallon crock of black raspberry wine.The three sat down for what was supposed to be one eye-opener toinspire the completion of the task.At about 1:00 P.M., the contents of the crock having been drained,

Pete grabbed a can of paint and a brush and haltingly went to thetop of the ladder. Once aloft, he made one unsteady swipe with abrushload of paint at a clapboard and promptly came hurtling to theground some 30 feet below, breaking both legs and his collarbone.With the unsympathetic assistance of his wife he was hauled to thehospital where he spent the next two months in traction.At approximately 4:00 P.M. Uncle George awoke on the gravel

driveway where he had collapsed and to his terror, discovered he wasblind. With the second episode of unsympathetic assistance fromPeters wife, Uncle George was hauled to the hospital, and after mini-strations of various types, was blindfolded. That evening my fatherwent to see him and Uncle George took the oath as he had on in-numerable occasions before. "Cy,^ he said to my father, "If I get mysight back Pll never touch a drop of alcohol again. I won^t even eatraspberry jam.^ Fortunately, his sight returned within two days andhe was released. However, as may be expected, the following Satur-

687

688 School Science and Mathematics

day night he was carried home by six friends in his usual weekendcondition.Uncle Charlie came through unscathed although he had imbibed as

vigorously as the others. He indicated that he had felt somewhatstrange and went behind the barn to empty his stomach. His com-ment was, "I knew the wine was no good. You can5! make wine in acracked crock!57 The episode was recalled after the Editor had readrecently a number of research studies that reminded him of UncleCharlie’s cracked crock.

It has been common, in many disciplines, for research studies tohave a section at the end called "Discussion." Traditionally, thesection has been designed to indicate the various implications thefindings had for action in areas to which the study was related. How-ever, the tradition seems to be waning and the section has now be-come, in many cases, a diatribe on the part of the investigator whoattempts to rationalize the reasons for the failure of his study toprove what apparently he had hoped to prove. For example, in onerecent study the purpose was to compare the levels of logical thinkingof elementary-school children who had used either SCIS or AAAS-Science-A Process Apporach material and the Greater ClevelandMathematics Program with those of students who had used tradi-tional materials. The findings, as is true with many studies, wereinconclusive and failed to show that the newer programs producedsignificant improvements in logical thinking. The "Discussion" dealtlengthily with the problems that were associated with isolating andcontrolling variables with the experimental groups. One could infer,with little difficulty, that the author suggested that if the variablescould have been controlled, the levels of achievement of experimentalgroups would have been superior. It is rather anomalous, however, tosuggest that these newer programs can function only in highly struc-tured situations in which all the variables are controlled.

Unfortunately, much of the current research in learning followsoutmoded methodologies that have elicited staggering numbers ofinsignificant results. But "progress" in research reporting has en-abled many current investigators to escape the onus of failing to pro-duce findings consistent with their biases. Their rationalizations, andin some cases, their intellects are no better than Uncle, Charlie’scracked crock.

GEORGE G. MALLINSON, Editor