---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR      Ref: DEW00024 Date: 10/26/96
From: DAN TRIPLETT                                          Time: 11:44am
\/To: ALL                                                 (Read 2 times)
Subj: References

References
Adams, M. J. (1990).
     Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, 
     MA: The MIT Press.
Alvermann, D. E. (1986).
     Discussion: The forgotten art: Becoming literate in the secondary 
     school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 
     Educational Association, San Francisco. (ERIC No.269 717).
Alvermann, D. E., and Guthrie, J. T. (1993).
     The National Reading Research Center. In A. P. Sweet and J. I. 
     Anderson (Eds.), Reading research into the year 2000 (p. 135).
     Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence E. Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Anderson, R. C., and Pearson, P. D. (1984).
     A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading 
     comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, and P. 
     Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading recearch, 1 (pp.
     255-291). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., and Wilkinson, I. A. G. 
     (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission 
     on Reading. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
Baker, L., and Brown, A. (1984).
     Cognitive monitoring in reading. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding 
     reading comprehension (pp. 21-44). Newark, DE: International 
     Reading Association.
Ball, E. W., and Blachman, B. A. (1991).
     Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference 
     in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading 
     Research Quarterly, 26(1), 49-66.
Baumann, J. F. (1984).
     The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching 
     main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 93-115.
Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., and McKeown, M. G. (1982).
     An instructional redesign of reading lessons: Effects on 
     comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(4), 462-481.
Berrill, D. P. (1988).
     Anecdote and the development of oral argument in sixteen-year-olds. 
     In M. MacLure, T. Phillips, and A. Wilkinson (Eds.), Oracy matters 
     (pp. 57-68). Milton Keynes; Philadelphia, PA, USA: Open University
     Press.
Cazden, C. (1988).
     Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. 
     Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cintorino, M. A. (1993).
     Getting together, getting along, getting to the business of  
    teaching and learning. English Journal, 82(1), 23-32.
Clarke, L. K. (1988).
     Invented versus traditional spelling in first graders' writings: 
     Effects on learning to spell and read. Research in the Teaching of 
     English, 22, 281-309.
Clifford, G. J. (1989).
     A sisyphean task: Historical perspectives on writing and reading 
     instruction. In A. H. Dyson (Ed.), Collaboration through writing
     and reading. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Cooper, J. D. (1993).
     Literacy: Helping children construct meaning. Boston, MA: Houghton 
     Mifflin Company.
Cox, B., and Sulzby, E. (1984).
     Children's use of reference in told, dictated, and handwritten  
     stories. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 345-365.
DeGroff, L., and Galda, L. (1992).
     Responding to literature: Activities for exploring books. In B. E.  
     Cullinan (Ed.), Invitation to read: More children's literature in 
     the reading program. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Dyson, A. H. (1987).
     The value of "time off task": Young children's spontaneous talk and   
     deliberate text. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 396-420.
Eeds, M., and Wells, D. (1989).
     Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning construction in 
     literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 
     4-29.
Galda, L. (1983).
     Research in response to literature. Journal of Research and 
     Development in Education, 16, 1-20.
Hansen, J. (1987).
     When writers read. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hansen, J., and Graves, D. H. (1991).
     The language arts interact. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, and 
     J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research in the English language arts 
     (pp. 805-819). New York: Macmillan.
Jett-Simpson, M. (1989).
     Creative drama and story comprehension. In J. W. Stewig and S.L. 
     Sebasta (Eds.), Using literature in the elementary classroom 
     (pp.  91-109). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Juel, C. (1988).
     Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children 
     from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational 
     Psychology, 78, 243-255.
Langer, J. A. (1986).
     Reading, writing, and understanding: An analysis of the 
     construction of meaning. Written Communication, 3(2), 219-267.
 ----------. (1991).
     Discussion as exploration: Literature and the horizon of 
     possibilities. In G. Newell and R. Durst (Eds.), The role of
     discussion and writing in the teaching and learning of
     literature. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
 ----------. (1992).
     Academic learning and critical reasoning: A study of knowing in 
     academic subjects. Final Report, Grant No. R117E0051. Washington,
     DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., and Petersen, O. (1988).
     Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological
     awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 
     263-284.
Martin, S. (1987).
     The meaning-making strategies reported by provident readers and 
     writers. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading 
     Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.
Martinez, M. G., and Roser, N. L. (1991).
     Children's responses to literature. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. 
     Lapp, and J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research in the English 
     language arts (pp. 643-663). New York: Macmillan.
Marzano, R. J. (1991).
     Language, the language arts, and thinking. In J. Flood, J. M. 
     Jensen, D. Lapp, and J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research in the
     English language arts (pp. 559-586). New York: Macmillan.
McGinley, W., and Tierney, R. J. (1989).
     Traversing the topical landscape: Reading and writing as ways of 
     knowing. Written Communications, 6, 243-269.
Morrow, L. M. (1988).
     Young children's responses to one-to-one story readings in school 
     settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 89-107.
Morrow, L. M., O'Connor, E. M., and Smith, J. (1990).
     Effects of a storyreading program on the literacy development of 
     at-risk kindergarten children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20(2), 
     104-141.
Palincar, A. S., and Brown, A. (1984).
     Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension- 
     monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117-175.
 ----------. (1986).
     Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. 
     Reading Teacher, 39(8), 771-777.
Pappas, C. C., and Brown, E. (1987).
     Learning to read by reading: Learning how to extend the functional 
     potential of language. Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 
    160-184.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., and Turner, J. C. (1991).
     The development of reading strategies. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, 
     D. Lapp, and J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research in the English
     language arts(pp. 609-635). New York: Macmillan.
Pearson, P. D., and Tierney, R. J. (1984).
     On becoming a thoughtful reader: Learning to read like a writer. In 
     A. C. Purves and O. Niles (Eds.), Becoming readers in a complex
     society, [Eighty-third Yearbook of the National Society of the
     Study of Education] (pp. 144-173). Chicago: University of
     Chicago Press.
Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., and Duffy, G. G. (1990).
     Developing expertise in reading comprehension: What should be 
     taught? How should it be taught? Technical Report No. 512.
     Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. S., and Kurita, 
     J. A. (1989). Strategies that improve children's memory and
     comprehension of text. Elementary School Journal, 90, 3-32.
Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Wile, D., Cunicelli, E. A., and Sheridan,
     J. (1991). Teaching strategy instruction across the curriculum: A
     case study at Benchmark School. In S. McCormick and J. Zutell
     (Eds.), 40th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago:
     National Reading Conference.
Pressley, M., Schuder, T., and Bergman, J. (1992).
     A researcher-educator collaborative interview study of
     transactional comprehension strategies instruction. Journal of
     Educational Psychology, 84, 231-46.
Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., and Erickson, L. G. (1986).
     Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying.
     Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 422-438.
Robinson, H. A., Faraone, V., Hittleman, D. R., and Unruh, E. (1990).
     Reading comprehension instruction 1783-1987: A review of trends and 
     research. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Roehler, L. R., and Duffey, G. G. (1991).
     Teachers' instructional actions. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. 
     Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research,
     2 (pp. 861-883). New York: Longman.
Rosenblatt, L. (1938/1976).
     Literature as exploration. New York: Modern Language Association.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1991).
     Literary Theory. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, and J. Squire 
     (Eds.), Handbook of researcch in the English language arts (pp. 57-
     62). New York: Macmillan.
Routman, R. (1991).
     Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12. Portsmouth, 
     NH: Heinemann.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980).
     Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. 
     Bruce, and W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading 
     comprehension (pp. 35-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence E. Erlbaum
     Associates, Inc.
Stiggins, R. J., and Conklin, N. F. (1992).
     In teachers' hands: Investigating the practices of classroom 
     assessment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Teale, W. H., and Sulzby, E. (1987).
     Literacy acquisition in early childhood: The roles of access and 
     mediation in storybook reading. In D. A. Wagner (Ed.), The future
     of literacy in a changing world. New York: Pergamon Press.
Templeton, S. (1991).
     Teaching the integrated language arts. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin 
     Company.
Tierney, R. J., and Shannahan, T. (1991).
     Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, 
     transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal,
     and P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, 2 (pp. 246-
     280). New York: Longman.
--- GEcho 1.11+
 * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR      Ref: DEW00025 Date: 10/26/96
From: DAN TRIPLETT                                          Time: 11:45am
\/To: ALL                                                 (Read 2 times)
Subj: Suggested Readings

Suggested Reading
These books, several of which appear under References, are particularly 
valuable sources on reading for teachers and other educators.
Adams, M. J. (1990).
     Beginning to read: Thinking and learning--A summary. (Prepared by 
     S. A. Stahl, J. Osborn, and F. Lehr). Urbana-Champaign: University
     of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
Allen, J. B., Michalove, B., and Shockley, B. (1993).
     Engaging children: Community and choas in the lives of young
     literacy learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Alvermann, D. E., and Guthrie, J. T. (1993).
     Themes and directions of the National Reading Research Center. 
     Perpectives in Reading Research, No. 1. Athens, GA: University of
     Georgia and University of Maryland at College Park.
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., and Wilkinson, I. A. G. 
     (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission
     on Reading. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.
Calkins, L. (1991).
     Living between the lines. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cooper, J. D. (1993).
     Literacy: Helping children construct meaning. Boston, MA: Houghton 
     Mifflin Company.
Cullinan, B. E. (Ed.) (1992).
     Invitation to read: More children's literature in the reading 
     program. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Routman, R. (1991).
     Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12. Portsmouth, 
     NH: Heinemann.
Stein, M., Hadreas, C., Olson, M. R., Parker, G., and Wayne, S. (1993).
     The Beginning Reading Instruction Study. GPO Stock No. 065-000- 
     00575-1.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Sweet, A. P., and Anderson, J. I. (Eds.) (1993).
     Reading research into year 2000. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence E. Erlbaum
     Associates, Inc.
Templeton, S. (1991).
     Teaching the integrated language arts. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
     Company.
Tierney, R. J., Carter, M. A., and Desai, L. E. (1991).
     Portfolio assesment in the reading-writing classroom. Norwood, MA:
     Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
--- GEcho 1.11+
 * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR      Ref: DEW00026 Date: 10/26/96
From: DAN TRIPLETT                                          Time: 11:46am
\/To: ALL                                                 (Read 2 times)
Subj: Assessment

State of the Art: Reading - November 1993
               10. The most valuable form of reading assessment reflects
our current understanding about the reading process and simulates 
authentic reading tasks.
The optimist says assessment will drive instruction in the future and 
new and better assessments are being developed to do this job. But the 
cautious optimist says this will only happen if educators at all levels 
understand the difference between sound and unsound assessment and can 
integrate sound assessments into the instruction process in effective
ways.
                                       (Stiggins and Conklin 1992, p. 3)
Until very recently reading assessment focused on measuring students' 
performance on a hierarchy of isolated skills that, when put together, 
were thought to compose "reading." Now it is known that the whole act of
reading is greater than the sum of its parts (i.e., isolated skills).
Moreover, these parts are interrelated within a literacy context and do 
not always develop in a hierarchical way. The discrete skills concept 
has been replaced with the current constructive, interactive view on 
literacy learning. This perspective grew out of recent research on 
cognition that revolutionized what we know about learning. However, by 
and large, practices in literacy assessment have not kept pace with what
is known about literacy learning, although they are beginning to change.
The role of standardized tests in the literacy program is likely to 
remain important. Because state and local school districts are likely to
continue using norm-referenced, standardized tests to evaluate literacy 
programs, state tests and the National Assessment of Educational 
Progress (NAEP) are undergoing substantial changes. The majority of 
these changes involve creating authentic assessments--appraisals that 
account for critical aspects of reading and that parallel everyday 
reading tasks. Changes that are moving assessment closer to simulating 
authentic reading tasks include: using unabridged text directly from the
original source for assessing meaning construction; accounting for 
students' prior knowledge before reading; incorporating samples 
(portfolios) of student work; and making student self-assessment part of
the standardized testing program.
Literacy assessments done in the classroom that involve performance 
tasks are beginning to provide valuable information needed to direct 
instructional decision making. Many teachers are turning to portfolio 
assessments that include multiple measures taken over time of individual
students' reading and writing. Well-constructed portfolios contain 
samples of student work, including representative pieces of work in 
progress and exceptional pieces, students' reflection about their work, 
and evaluation criteria. For example, pieces of students' writing in 
which they share their thinking and feeling about their reading--text 
analyses from their own point of view--may be included in portfolios. 
Creating and using performance assessments as alternatives and/or 
supplements to norm-referenced tests are helping to transform reading 
instruction and learning in today's state-of-the-art classroom.
 -###-
[Children's reading and writing abilities develop together.]   
--- GEcho 1.11+
 * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR      Ref: DEW00027 Date: 10/26/96
From: CARL BOGARDUS                                         Time: 06:19pm
\/To: RON MCDERMOTT                                       (Read 1 times)
Subj: MINIMUM COMPETENCY

CB>Deming management theory would say that testing 
CB>increases defects - 
 RM> This caught my eye... How can testing increase defects?
 RM> I can see where testing will discover more defects; I can
 RM> even see where, possibly, intervention in the process 
 RM> MIGHT affect product; but... I can't see how the act of
 RM> testing, which is an essential part of quality control,
 RM> can increase defects?
Actually, testing to improve quality is not a Deming management process - 
that is part of MBO or MBR (management by objective or management by 
results). That kind of testing is used when numerical goals to judge and 
direct performance.
 
However, Deming states that this leads to the following:
Short-term thinking
Misguided focus
Fudging the figures
Greater fear
Blindness to customer concerns
 
Currently, this is how the vast majority of schools are managed, (yes, even 
private schools).  "However, this method of management pays little, if any, 
attention to processes and systems: the real capabilities of the organization 
as a whole."  THE TEAM HANDBOOK FOR EDUCATORS, by Joiner 
 
I know where you are coming from, your statement was exactly mine when I 
first began studying Deming's management style about 12 years ago.  I have 
been trying to apply his theories to my classroom with, I think, moderate 
success. 
 
However, recently, I came across this book that relates Deming principles to 
education and has examples, worksheets, etc. all approved by Deming before he 
passed away. 
 
Have you read anything about Deming?
--- Maximus 2.02
 * Origin: VETLink #13 Las Cruces NM (505)523-2811 (1:305/105)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR      Ref: DEW00028 Date: 10/26/96
From: CARL BOGARDUS                                         Time: 06:41pm
\/To: RON MCDERMOTT                                       (Read 1 times)
Subj: SPELLING

DT>If kids cannot spell, as you and others here 
DT>say, and if they cannot 
DT>write or read at grade level, the bigger 
DT>question it seems to me is "How 
DT>were these kids taught?"
 RM> I think the bigger question is: Are these even the same kids
 RM> in terms of the population sample?  Certainly the attitudes
 RM> have changed... Maybe NOTHING is going to work well....
The environment has changed, education has to change, we as teachers have to 
change, if we don't someone will do it for us.
--- Maximus 2.02
 * Origin: VETLink #13 Las Cruces NM (505)523-2811 (1:305/105)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR      Ref: DEX00000 Date: 10/27/96
From: RON MCDERMOTT                                         Time: 01:25pm
\/To: CARL BOGARDUS                                       (Read 1 times)
Subj: MINIMUM COMPETENCY

CB>Deming management theory would say that testing 
CB>increases defects - 
 RM> This caught my eye... How can testing increase defects?
 RM> I can see where testing will discover more defects; I can
 RM> even see where, possibly, intervention in the process 
 RM> MIGHT affect product; but... I can't see how the act of
 RM> testing, which is an essential part of quality control,
 RM> can increase defects?
CB>Actually, testing to improve quality is not a Deming management process -
CB>that is part of MBO or MBR (management by objective or management by
CB>results). That kind of testing is used when numerical goals to judge and
CB>direct performance.
CB> 
CB>However, Deming states that this leads to the following:
CB>Short-term thinking
CB>Misguided focus
CB>Fudging the figures
CB>Greater fear
CB>Blindness to customer concerns
Ok.. These are human failings which are not directly related
to the testing itself, but may be triggered by test results.
CB>However, recently, I came across this book that relates Deming principles
CB>to education and has examples, worksheets, etc. all approved by Deming
CB>before he passed away. 
CB> 
CB>Have you read anything about Deming?
A little; some of my time working in industry involved an
overview of prevailing thought on process control, etc...
___
 * 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: DEX00001 Date: 10/27/96
From: RON MCDERMOTT                                         Time: 01:25pm
\/To: DAN TRIPLETT                                        (Read 1 times)
Subj: SPELLING BY ROUTMAN

DT>High scores on tests of word lists do not necessarily transfer to 
DT>writing in context.
 
RM>Which, of course, has nothing to do with spelling itself...
RM>I'd be willing to bet that high scores on word list tests
RM>translates into an ability to spell!
 
DT>Hold on Ron,,,,high scores on tests of word lists do NOT transfer
DT>to  correct spelling in the context of writing.
 
RM>Hold on yourself... The top statement does not say what you
RM>are saying in the statement above...  "Do not necessarily"
RM>means, to me, that we really don't know...
DT>When I reread this it didn't make any sense and now I'm not even sure 
DT>what I was thinking.
I have those days occasionally....    ;-)
DT>One can never say tests on word lists DO NOT transfer to writing in 
DT>context because there will be exceptions.
Yes... Hard to deal in absolutes and remain valid...
DT>I was taking exception with your statement that "high scores on word 
DT>lists translates into an ability to spell."  I do not believe this is 
DT>true.  Students study and do well on these list but forget the correct 
DT>spellings soon after.  They are now concentrating on a new list.  
DT>Don't you find this to be true?  (generally)
Only if the words are isolated... If the words are actually 
USED, then spelling is retained.  It's like most other 
things; use it or lose it!
DT>If a new teacher is relying on information posted here only for
DT>guidance  then they are not using well what they were taught in
DT>college. 
RM>Agreed, but they're new, inexperienced; they will tend to
RM>accept what appears to be "expert" opinion...
DT>Well, they have then come to the right place....<g>
It's certain that there are only a few people here unwilling 
to climb out on a limb (and then, often, saw it off)!  ;-)
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981
--- 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: DEX00002 Date: 10/27/96
From: DAN TRIPLETT                                          Time: 07:36pm
\/To: SHEILA KING                                         (Read 3 times)
Subj: An Explanation

SHEILA KING spoke of Approximated Spelling/No to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-26-
96
SK>-> You have no idea what methods were used in any of the studies
SK>-> since you did no investigating.  It is unreasonable for you to say
SK>-> that the arguments I have put forth here are unconvincing because
SK>-> the research I cite is worthless.  
SK>Dan,
SK> 
SK>You yourself have down played the importance of the scientific method
First of all, my argument above has to do with comments made about 
research I have cited here as being "worthless" and "existent."  It has 
also been said that this research doesn't measure up to scientific 
criteria.  I am simply saying that one cannot call research worthless 
simply because it doesn't happen to fit into one's pedagogical beliefs. 
I do not know the precise methodology of all the studies I have quoted. 
Some certainly were done using qualitative methods.  Some may very well 
have been done using a quantitative method. 
 Usually the material I read presents an argument (idea) and then cites 
studies to support the argument.  (Isn't that the way it is in 
educational material?)  Contributors names are mentioned and in many 
cases a brief description of the research methods are explained.  These 
researchers are the same ones whose names appeared in my undergraduate 
studies.  We examined their findings more than their methodology.  As a 
graduate student, I studied Early Childhood Education and again studied 
ideas that were consistent with ECE's philosophy.  I have put into 
practice teaching methods consistent with what I have learned in college
(and beyond).  My teaching experience has validated to a very large 
degree what I have studied regarding early childhood education.  So now 
when I read something By Donald Graves or Lucy Calkins or my new 
favorite, Regie Routman, I am ready to listen (with confidence).  
Perhaps I have too much confidence with these ideas.     
I don't think I have tried to down play the importance of quantitative 
research as much as "up play" qualitative research.  I have stated that 
qualitative methods, like quantitative methods, do meet scientific 
standards.  I don't remember saying that quanatative research (this is 
the same as scientific method -- right?) is unimportant.  I have tried 
to say that qualitative methods can stand on equal footing with that of 
the quanatative (scientific) method.  I have also said that in many 
cases, a qualitative approach to a particular educational inquiry would 
be more appropriate.  
SK> in research and even wrote in some message
SK>that you weren't personally aware that studies of that type had been
SK>conducted on the subjects that we were discussing, and that you felt
SK>they probably weren't necessary. 
You are right that I did say this.  The fact that I am not aware of the 
exact methodology doesn't mean that the more acceptable (to some) 
"scientific" approach wasn't used.  I don't think we need to conduct 
quanatative studies to examine a traditional classroom vrs a whole 
language approach.  I have stated that I believe many studies have been 
done and from those studies we already have a wealth of information.  
If someone wanted to conduct such a study, I would welcome it however.  
Without such a study, this debate will never get resolved.  I am 
personally satisfied, based on my Early Childhood formal education and 8
years experience (which is where the real learning takes place in my 
view) that the philosophy of WL is the most effective way to teach.
 SK>You suggested that the wealth of
SK>qualitative studies was sufficient to, I guess, convince anyone of
SK>these positions?
I do not know that all these studies were qualitative thought many were.
Until someone personally examines what has been written one cannot be 
convinced or unconvinced.  But, for me the answer is yes.  The wealth of
studies is sufficient for me.  Perhaps that is because I also live out 
every day the implications of the studies and find them to be reliable. 
SK>I don't know about Charles, but my skepticism with the references you
SK>have presented does not come from what I have heard and read from
SK>others, but from your own admission a few weeks back in this echo
SK>that you are not aware of any scientifically conducted studies on
SK>these topics.
Why would this make you skeptical?  My admission that I don't know of 
any "scientifically" conducted studies doesn't mean studies weren't done
this way.  I just don't personally know.  (By the way, when I read the 
word scientific study I get the feeling that you and others may equate 
that with quanatative research - leaving qualitative research to be 
"unscientific."  Is this your view?)
 I guess that AFT's report that they could find no
SK>'well-conducted' research also adds to my skepticism.
I believe Charles said that the AFT's "distinguished" experts examined 
much of the research material I personally presented.  I want to know 
what research they actually looked at. I think this is an important 
question, don't you?  Interesting, I have quoted Marie, Clay's research 
here (which these distinguished experts must have examined) and yet, I 
found some of here work quoted in AFT's educational database located on 
the web and AOL.  
 Admittedly, I
SK>haven not looked into the research you presented myself. But there is
SK>no way that I have time to do so, and I assumed that you were at
SK>least somewhat familiar with the references you were citing, and your
SK>own admission that you were unaware of quantitatively conducted
SK>studies seemed sufficient reason to me to doubt the veracity of the
SK>references.  
Im not sure what you are saying here.  I am very familiar with the 
references I have cited here.  I don't know their precise methodology 
for every study they conducted.  (Should I?)  I am most familiar with 
the conclusions they have drawn and have been impressed at how other 
researchers came to similar conclusions. I am also impressed that this 
research appears in college text books and that many early childhood 
organizations recognize and accept these studies.  I have read many 
books on early childhood education, some written by the researchers and 
others simply citing the research work.  I am not immediately familiar 
with the methodology of the researchers as I am with their educational 
philosophy.  
Sorry this is so long..
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
 * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR      Ref: DEX00003 Date: 10/27/96
From: DAN TRIPLETT                                          Time: 08:37pm
\/To: SHEILA KING                                         (Read 3 times)
Subj: Research

SHEILA KING spoke of Research to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-26-96
SK>Ed.D in Education? Masters Degree in Education and Ph.D. in
SK>Sociology? 
 
SK>Such credentials do not convince me that they really understand that
SK>mathematics of statistics. 
I offered to you and others here many credentials of which the author's 
degrees are but a part.  Remember, I am trying here to show the 
acceptance of qualitative research techniques in educational research.  
Since I was quoted from the authors textbook, I thought it important to 
list their qualifications.  
You would have no idea the authors understanding of the mathematics of 
statics.  Perhaps their understanding exceeds your own.  Who is to say?  
Part of their text book deals with statistical analysis of quanatative 
data and describes how this data can have conventional uses in 
qualitative research.  
 
Programs that give degrees such as the
SK>ones you cite above do require some training in statistical methods,
SK>but it is not that substantial. It would be more meaningful to many
SK>of us here if the methods used by these Ed. degree researchers were
SK>analyzed by some mathematicians or statisticians and proclaimed as
SK>valid research methods.
Perhaps this is the rub for many of you here.  You can see validity only 
if data can be quantified.  For this to be so, you would only accept a 
researchers credentials if their mathematical/statistical training were 
substantial.  Must ALL research data be quantified for it to be 
acceptable?  
For the record, I don't think any research data "proves" anything.  I am 
willing to accept research data from any "camp" if it proves to be 
reliable.  What makes it reliable?  Acceptance by researchers in general 
and/or educational organizations, duplication or concurrence by other 
researchers/educators, and consistency with what is already acceptable 
knowledge.  (I'm sure others can add here.....just wanted to clarify 
that isolated studies do not impress me....they may interest me....but 
unless studies have support of the educational community I could not 
place much confidence in them.   
Last thought here:
You're a math educator.  I am an early childhood educator.  You probably 
see things more logically/sequentially than I do (I'm guessing).  When 
someone speaks authoritatively regarding Math education, they must have 
significant mathematical expertise and educational experience if their 
ideas are to be considered.  The same is true for early childhood 
education.  
The people whose works I cite, whose ideas I believe in, are considered 
to have significant early childhood educational expertise by the 
majority of early childhood - educators/professional organizations.  
Perhaps we just don't understand each others area of expertise.  Perhaps 
the gap between upper-grade educators and early childhood educators is 
too wide a gap to bridge.
Dunno....
Dan   
--- GEcho 1.11+
 * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256)
---------------

FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 265 EDUCATOR      Ref: DEX00004 Date: 10/27/96
From: DAN TRIPLETT                                          Time: 08:43pm
\/To: SHEILA KING                                         (Read 4 times)
Subj: Spelling "Research"

SHEILA KING spoke of SPELLING "RESEARCH" to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-26-96
SK>-> I don't want to dissect this study....the goal was to document
SK>-> "spelling knowledge."  Of special interest was to determine if
SK>-> invented spelling was predictive of word recognition.  It was a
SK>-> strong predictor.
SK> 
SK>Be careful. From what you posted of the study, I didn't see how they
SK>determined that their was any cause-effect relationship established.
SK> 
SK>Certainly they observed a high correlation between students who used
SK>invented spelling and then later had good word recognition. But how
SK>can it be ascertained from a purely observational study whether
SK>students, in the absence of a traditional spelling program, and who
SK>therefore resort to their only alternative, invented spelling,
SK>wouldn't have had good word recognition anyhow? Perhaps what is
SK>really happening here is that students with a propensity for good
SK>word recognition resort to invented spelling in the absence of any
SK>other spelling program. From an observational case study you have NO
SK>WAY of determining the cause and effect relationship here, which has
SK>been a point that Ron McDermott tried to make to you unsuccessfully
SK>some time back. All you can glean from an observational study is that
SK>there is a high correlation between the two, and that it bears
SK>further investigation in a more highly structured and controlled
SK>experiment. If you believe that what you posted here indicates that
SK>invented spelling PREDICTS word recognition, then you mislead
SK>yourself.  
SK>Sheila King
Point well taken and I can offer no arguments.  I do not believe what I 
have posted here indicates that invented spelling PREDICTS word 
recognition.  The study did find that it can be equally predictive with 
conventional spelling.  I don't know that we can draw any real 
conclusions from this.  This is but one study and I offered it mainly 
because I found the information and thought it was interesting.  I don't 
think I offered any personal conclusions.  
If I did, please ignore them....
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
 * Origin: The South Bay Forum - Olympia, WA (360) 923-0866 (1:352/256)