Return-Path: <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id hBJGl7m06071; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:47:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:47:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <000b01c3c64d$167d55c0$130101c8@workstation1> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion@lvgh.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:909] Re: Interview questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 1007 Lines: 34 Thanks Andrea, Nice observation. I'll make that change. Need I say that it is now more important than ever for the field to do everything it can to assure its own qualitative data base? If not, the insights gleaned on site by so many of us will surely be lost, perhaps relegated to the insignificant category of the "anecdotal." George ----- Original Message ----- From: <AWilder106@aol.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:31 AM Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:908] Re: Interview questions > George, > > You posted your interview questions, so I am butting in, to good effect I hope. In order to up the validity of the interview, I would redo at least one of the questions, I am focusing on #2. I would ask it somewhat as follows: > > 2) What was it like? > Was there a difference between what you thought at first and what you experienced? > If there was a difference, how do you account for it? > > Regards,Andrea > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:01 EST