---------------
FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEJ00003 Date: 10/14/96
From: RON MCDERMOTT Time: 10:22am
\/To: ROBERT CARNEAL (Rcvd) (Read 2 times)
Subj: DETERMINING FORMULA FOR D
RC>All I have to do is prove the rule does not exist,
This can't realistically be done; even if every authority
agreed there was no such rule, it wouldn't preclude that
such a rule, undetected, exists...
RC>or find the rule and present it.
There are a couple math people here, maybe one of them can
help with this....
___
* MR/2 2.26 * OS/2 WARP: Logic, not magic.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 2
* Origin: The Dolphin BBS Pleasant Valley NY 914-635-3303 (1:2624/302)
---------------
FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEJ00004 Date: 10/14/96
From: RON MCDERMOTT Time: 10:22am
\/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 1 times)
Subj: RESEARCH
DT>...but I also firmly believe that qualitative research practices
DT>do meet scientific qualifications.
CB>I don't. Such "observations" are too easily influenced by the
CB>enthusiasm of the observer or the participants.
DT>An easy out....but not if strict criteria is set up in the first place..
For example? I still haven't seen any delineation of what
is permissible to your way of thinking...
DT>Buy the way, how would you set up a qualified scientific study regarding
DT>spelling instruction?
Identify the various methodologies, try individual and/or
combinations over as wide a spectrum of abilities as
possible, evaluate GROWTH... Now design an EXPERIMENT
using what appears to be the most promising of the methods
from the previous STUDY, complete with controls, in a
variety of settings, with a variety of students, and see if
the inferences of the STUDY are bourne out in the EXPERIMENT.
Repeat to verify experimental results.
DT>Which group would you want your child to participate in??
Not the point... Subjects of an experiment don't get to vote!
One can argue that this is "unfair", or whatever, but this
is how it works...
DT>If we were to research a kindergarten dramatic play area to see
DT>what kinds of "natural" interactions take place there, we wouldn't
DT>need a control group for that.
And it wouldn't be "research", it would be a "survey"...
DT>Not everything in education lends itself to control group research.
But many things do...
CB>Ever hear of "open classrooms?" Original observations and
CB>qualitative research suggested that this was the wave of the
CB>future
More likely, some PEOPLE thought so; probably university
types...
DT>Not every Quantitative study proved to be useful or correct either.
DT>Doesn't mean Qualitative research is unreliable.
Doesn't mean it isn't, either... ;-)
___
* MR/2 2.26 * "OS/2 is THE operating system of the 90's" - Bill Gates
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 2
* Origin: The Dolphin BBS Pleasant Valley NY 914-635-3303 (1:2624/302)
---------------
FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEL00000 Date: 10/13/96
From: DONNA RANSDELL Time: 09:58pm
\/To: RUTH LEBLANC (Read 1 times)
Subj: Quote w/o comment
> DR>Each district in the US chooses its own salary schedule. For most, it's
>basically BA, BA+18, BA+30, MA, MA+18, MA+30, PHD for "across the scale",
an
> I understand what the BA and MA mean but what are the
> numbers attached?
Bach of Arts/Science/Music plus 18 sem. hours after that, plus 30 semester
hours after it.
Every state in the US has different requirements about what it takes to get a
credential. All states seem to require a bachelor's degree, but the courses
that must be included are different. Some states have "reciprocity" with
other states, so that if you have a credential from X state you can apply/pay
for a credential in Y state without taking any additional courses. But it
isn't a rule. I've been credentialed in Missouri, Arizona, and California. My
original state was Missouri. I have had to take more courses everytime I
change states.
> I always get confused when you talk about hours in
> reference to credit.Here we talk about credits. Most universities here
> give 5 credits/courses for a year of completed full time
A semester hour of credit is usually around 15 clock hours of class. One
course in "Teaching Reading in the Elementary School" might be a 3 or 4
semester hour class. A full-time student usually takes between 15 and 18
semester hours of credit per semester. A Bachelors degree is 120 semester
hours or more, I believe, in an approved program.
> New grads now have to complete a 2 year B.Ed. program
In California, you get your B/Arts/Science/Music degree first, then take one
more year (the "fifth year"). I can't describe it further since I'm a
"transplant". To get *my* California credential, I went thru these steps (I
had a Missouri and an Arizona credential at the time):
1. Applied for a Preliminary credential. Before this application was made I
had to take the CBEST.
2. Granted a one-year credential. I had one year to take the NTE.
3. After taking the NTE, I was granted a 5 year credential. I had to take
courses for a clear credential: mainstreaming, computers in ed, among others.
4. Took courses, applied for a Clear Credential. Granted.
5. Take 150 clock hours of seminars, workshops, and courses with
"professional growth" in mind. These must be done in 5 years, and the
professional growth goals must be signed by a professional growth senior
teacher or administrator.
6. Apply for 2nd clear credential. Repeat #5 every 5 years.
-donna
--- GEcho 1.00
* Origin: I touch the future; I teach. (1:202/211)
---------------
FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEL00001 Date: 10/15/96
From: EVERETT HOUCK Time: 09:09pm
\/To: BOB MOYLAN (Read 1 times)
Subj: Where We Stand
In answer to your statement that I need to take the courses and pass the
tests, I have. As to which colleges have easy programs, there are several in
almost every state. When you see teachers who misprounounce words, make
errors in Science lessons, and who cannot read books over a sixth grade
level, you know there is something wrong. As to the union representing the
membership, there is nothing really wrong with that, what makes me mad is
they try to get everyone to think they are representing the kids, which they
are not.
--- Maximus 2.02
* Origin: THE FAMILy TREE BBS (1:147/32)
---------------
FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEL00002 Date: 10/15/96
From: SHEILA KING Time: 07:48pm
\/To: RON MCDERMOTT (Read 3 times)
Subj: Determining formula for d
-> RC>All I have to do is prove the rule does not exist,
->
-> This can't realistically be done; even if every authority
-> agreed there was no such rule, it wouldn't preclude that
-> such a rule, undetected, exists...
Not so, Ron.
It has been conclusively proved, for instance, that while general
solutions exist for polynomials of second degree (i.e. the Quadratic
Formula) and also general solutions exist for 3rd and 4th degree
polynomials (quite ugly formulas, though)....
That there exists NO general polynomial solution for fifth degree and
greater. It IS possible to that a formula for a certain type of problem
does not exist, in some cases.
-> RC>or find the rule and present it.
->
-> There are a couple math people here, maybe one of them can
-> help with this....
Had I the time, I'd try to be of assistance. However, while I recall
seeing some types of problems similar to that in past courses, it's
something I'd have to dig for and refresh my memory on. Too time
consuming. I'm going to go grade papers now.
;-)
Sheila
--- DB 1.39/004485
* Origin: The Diamond Bar BBS, San Dimas CA, 909-599-2088 (1:218/1001)
---------------
FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEL00003 Date: 10/15/96
From: BOB MOYLAN Time: 10:44pm
\/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 2 times)
Subj: Spelling And Stuff
Dan Triplett On (14 Oct 96) was overheard to say to Bob Moylan
BM> DT> It's very easy to validate since I have provided many sources
BM> DT> which are easily verifiable.
BM> Cited sources are VERY easy to verify; content of those sources is
BM> much less easy, if not impossible to validate.
DT> Impossible? From the sources I have quoted the authors have either
DT> listed all referenced research information in the bibliography at the
DT> end of the book or listed it under "References" at the end of every
DT> chapter.
What they have done is no more or no less than quote "research"
information/studies that tend to support what they are writing on.
DT> Do you question the existence of the research or just its validity?
I accept that there has been a number of studies, referred to as
research, conducted and written on.
When I said impossible to validate perhaps validate was a less than
appropriate choice of words...would "replicate" have changed the
meaning of my note? That is what I meant. I didn't read anything,
in all that you posted, about controls of any kind. I don't recall
now that there was even any mention of inter-observer reliability
checks. If someone is going to do a study or observations of
anything and that is ALL there is to it _observations_ they'd better
have a pretty damn good inter-observer reliability control check in
place or even the observations are totally unreliable due to
preconceptions and bias of a single observer.
DT> supported by a _large_ _body_ _of_ _research._
DT> I have tried to provide sampling of this research to support my
DT> statements.
Yes.. yes.. but what you are calling research doesn't measure up to
empirical research standards
DT> The material I have presented has been called "non-existant" and
DT> "impossible to validate."
DT> I have used more than one source to show support for statements I
DT> have made and I could provide many more.
I can similarly post many sources that "prove" facilitated
communication and gentle teaching are the absolute best ways to teach
special needs learners. Both have since been totally debunked but many
of us in special ed were stuck with both for years because they were
both hot off the academia idea burner.
DT> It does seem a bit intellectually dishonest to ignore valid research
DT> that has been widely accepted by a large body of early childhood
DT> experts.
You don't want to concede that some of us don't accept as "research"
what you have posted. As far as being widely accepted by ... etc etc
"experts" goes... have you ever looked to see who is using who as a
reference or source in all these published studies? Would it
surprise you to see the same names over and over; A cites B, B cites
C, C cites A, B then cites A and C, then along comes D who cites A, B
and C...
DT> I have quoted from some of the greatest contributors in early
DT> childhood education research. What does it take?
An exactly replicated controlled project.
Re: Writing to read
DT> I am wondering now if people are thinking of these programs when
DT> they hear the term "invented spelling?"
I am not. I had a DOS demo version of the IBM product a good while
back and didn't think too much of it.
... Oh no! Not *ANOTHER* learning experience.
--- PPoint 2.02
* Origin: What's The Point? Virginia Beach, VA USA (1:275/429.5)
---------------
FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEL00004 Date: 10/15/96
From: BOB MOYLAN Time: 11:25pm
\/To: DONNA RANSDELL (Read 2 times)
Subj: Quote w/o comment
Donna Ransdell On (13 Oct 96) was overheard to say to Ruth Leblanc
Hi Donna:
DR> 1. Applied for a Preliminary credential. Before this application was
DR> made I had to take the CBEST.
DR> 2. Granted a one-year credential. I had one year to take the NTE.
In Virginia there is nothing comparable to CBEST. To be granted an
initial one year "provisional" license a BS/BA in a specific area is
required plus acceptable NTE scores. I don't recall just off hand
what "acceptable" is but they are way up there with a 90+ required in
specialty area.
DR> 3. After taking the NTE, I was granted a 5 year credential. I had to
To be granted a 5 year renewable license the wanna be teacher must
satisfactorily complete one full school year of teaching. School
division employer determines what is satisfactory and must attest to
this in writing.
DR> take courses for a clear credential: mainstreaming, computers in ed,
DR> among others.
DR> 4. Took courses, applied for a Clear Credential. Granted.
Nothing comparable unless one was hired for an "out of area" position
then must be taking at least 1/2 time course load leading to
credential in current position.
DR> 5. Take 150 clock hours of seminars, workshops, and courses with
DR> "professional growth" in mind. These must be done in 5 years, and the
DR> professional growth goals must be signed by a professional growth
DR> senior teacher or administrator.
Only 150...we do 180 and only 2 3 credit courses may be used..the rest has
to be workshops, seminars, in services, leadership position(s) - dept
chair, PTA, faculty council, PAC, plan/run a school wide function such as
math/science night, art, language, music..there is _something_ for
everyone. Someone in Richmond sat up very late many nights figuring out
the value for these things...
DR> 6. Apply for 2nd clear credential. Repeat #5 every 5 years.
Yep...renew every 5 years... PhD on the installment plan... \-|
Bob
... Special education is a process not a place!
--- PPoint 2.02
* Origin: What's The Point? Virginia Beach, VA USA (1:275/429.5)
---------------
FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEL00005 Date: 10/15/96
From: RON MCDERMOTT Time: 09:11pm
\/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 1 times)
Subj: RESEARCH
DT>...but I also firmly believe that qualitative research practices
DT>do meet scientific qualifications.
CB>I don't. Such "observations" are too easily influenced by the
CB>enthusiasm of the observer or the participants.
DT>An easy out....but not if strict criteria is set up in the first place..
For example? I still haven't seen any delineation of what
is permissible to your way of thinking...
DT>Buy the way, how would you set up a qualified scientific study regarding
DT>spelling instruction?
Identify the various methodologies, try individual and/or
combinations over as wide a spectrum of abilities as
possible, evaluate GROWTH... Now design an EXPERIMENT
using what appears to be the most promising of the methods
from the previous STUDY, complete with controls, in a
variety of settings, with a variety of students, and see if
the inferences of the STUDY are bourne out in the EXPERIMENT.
Repeat to verify experimental results.
DT>Which group would you want your child to participate in??
Not the point... Subjects of an experiment don't get to vote!
One can argue that this is "unfair", or whatever, but this
is how it works...
DT>If we were to research a kindergarten dramatic play area to see
DT>what kinds of "natural" interactions take place there, we wouldn't
DT>need a control group for that.
And it wouldn't be "research", it would be a "survey"...
DT>Not everything in education lends itself to control group research.
But many things do...
CB>Ever hear of "open classrooms?" Original observations and
CB>qualitative research suggested that this was the wave of the
CB>future
More likely, some PEOPLE thought so; probably university
types...
DT>Not every Quantitative study proved to be useful or correct either.
DT>Doesn't mean Qualitative research is unreliable.
Doesn't mean it isn't, either... ;-)
___
* MR/2 2.26 * OS/2 WARP: The choice of the next generation.
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.3M1f
* Origin: The Union Jack BBS, Phoenix, AZ, USA. (602) 274-9921 (1:114/260)
---------------
FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEL00006 Date: 10/15/96
From: RON MCDERMOTT Time: 09:13pm
\/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 1 times)
Subj: SPELLING BY ROUTMAN
DT>"While we do need to continue to teach spelling, current research in
DT>spelling does not support the heavy emphasis on drill and weekly
DT>spelling tests, which are prevalent in most classrooms.
The question is, of course, what research?
DT>High scores on tests of word lists do not necessarily transfer to
DT>writing in context.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with spelling itself...
I'd be willing to bet that high scores on word list tests
translates into an ability to spell!
DT>What is recommended by research is lots of purposeful reading and
DT>writing in literate environments where children are encouraged to
DT>invent and try out as best as they can.
I can see this as a means of encouraging writing, and also
of fostering a willingness to TRY to spell, but I don't see
this as a "strategy" for learning to spell properly?
DT>Like the language processes, spelling is developmental,
EVERYTHING is developmental, but writing is NOT the same
as language (natural development); if it were, there would
have been writing societies throughout history. Writing
did develop early on, but not so early as language....
DT>.. and the child needs support for his approximations and
DT>risk taking.
It's certainly worthwhile to foster these things or risk
passivity...
DT>Through daily practice and teacher guidance, the child
DT>gradually moves towards conventional spelling.
And here's where the potential problems develop! WHAT type
of "practice"; more reading and writing only? WHAT teacher
"guidance"? A new teacher, reading this, would be left to
assume that spelling lists are a bad thing, and that the
students are better served doing a lot of reading, writing,
and "risk taking", yet there is nothing in the above which
supports the notion that for SPELLING there is anything
better than word lists. To promote WRITING in context, or
to develop a love of reading, a spelling list is of little
good, otoh... One needs BOTH... Imo, of course....
___
* MR/2 2.26 * OS/2 WARP in '96!
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.3M1f
* Origin: The Union Jack BBS, Phoenix, AZ, USA. (602) 274-9921 (1:114/260)
---------------
FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR Ref: DEL00007 Date: 10/15/96
From: RON MCDERMOTT Time: 09:25pm
\/To: DAN TRIPLETT (Read 1 times)
Subj: SPELLING "RESEARCH"
DT>The purpose of this study was to document the development of spelling
DT>knowledge in a class of first grade students over an eight month period.
Ok...
DT>Of special interest was to determine if spelling, particularly invented
DT>spelling, was predictive of word recognition at the end of the year.
So the goal was not proper spelling, apparently?
DT>In September students were assessed with a Letter Identification Test
DT>(Clay, 1985, 1993) which measured knowledge of 54 letters.
Huh? 26 in the alphabet, 52 if we count capitalization...
Or is this "letters" as in letters written TO someone?
DT>Measures of conventional spelling and invented spelling were obtained
DT>in September, November and January.
So far so good...
DT>Conventional spelling was measured with the Writing Vocabulary Test
DT>(Clay, 1985, 1993); the score was the number of self-generated
DT>conventionally spelled words in list format. An analysis form and
DT>scoring system, based on Gentry's stages of invented spelling,
DT>was devised to analyze the invented spelling which was obtained from
DT>naturalistic writing samples.
Whoa... Two different measuring "devices" to COMPARE the
results?! Or did both groups take both devices? What,
exactly, does the Gentry scoring system "measure"?
DT>In May two subtests (Word Identification and Word Attack)
Note: Not spelling....
DT>from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised (1987) were
DT>administered; these were the criterion variables in the multiple
DT>regression analyses.
Both groups took the same test?
DT>A descriptive account of four spellers in the class, two girls and two
DT>boys, is also included. Their spelling growth is documented from the
DT>beginning of the year to the end of the year.
Too small a sample to be of value...
DT>(3) invented spelling can be reliably assessed using naturalistic writing
DT>samples;
How do they arrive at THIS conclusion when their study had
nothing whatever to do with testing for this?
DT>(5) children's spelling changed qualitatively and at different rates;
No details? This could mean ANYTHING?!
DT>(6) children did learn to spell in the absence of a traditional
DT>spelling program, as shown by the Writing Vocabulary Test results
DT>and naturalistic writing samples.
But are we comparing a "traditional" approach to a
literature-based approach, and are we assessing SPELLING?
It doesn't appear that this study is doing that, and we are
left with no clear indication of relative merit....
DT>Invented spelling reflects knowledge of alphabet letter identities
Etc... I'm not disputing that kids have to attempt to spell,
and in so doing, they will, initially, make mistakes... It
is this that you are calling invented spelling, and it is a
natural occurance.
I'm also not disputing that there are things which can be
learned from such invented spelling; benefits that may
accrue. What I DO dispute is that SPELLING is taught as
well through invented spelling in a literature-based program
as it is in the conventional methodology. There is nothing
in this study which alters that point of view, or even
TOUCHES on the topic. This is about "word recognition", not
spelling, and there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to
compare results of differing methodologies.. What, exactly,
has been proven here?
___
* MR/2 2.26 * When DOS grows up it wants to be OS/2!
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.3M1f
* Origin: The Union Jack BBS, Phoenix, AZ, USA. (602) 274-9921 (1:114/260)