SHEILA KING spoke of Whole Language 1      1/ to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-02-
96
SK>-> I am basing my use of the term on Brian Cambourne, an Australian
SK>-> researcher,
SK>I am going to have to make an effort to get ahold of something by
SK>this guy, he's been mentioned so much here.
See *The* *Whole* *Story,* by Brian Cambourne:  Ashton Scholastic
also:
*Whole* *Language* *Self* *Destruction* *or* *Reconstruction,* by Susan 
Church: Heinemann
and books by Regie Routeman especially *Invitations* and *Transitions.*
SK>The seven conditions sound interesting. However, you do not say they
SK>are based on "research"
I think you mistakenly believe that for research to be credible it must 
follow strict criteria in order to be valid.  Control groups are not 
used in every research study conducted nor is such an approach always 
appropriate.  Conducting observations over time will yield a great deal 
of data and such an approach to research is both necessary and 
acceptable.  If I want to see how children use language in the classroom 
to communicate I could simply observe them and over time I can make some 
generalizations regarding what I have observed.  Such an approach would 
not be hap-hazard but rather a systematic collection of information.  
For example, that these "seven conditions."  In a classroom where 
children are not encouraged to write before they can read, it seems 
unlikely that one would see a continuum of developing of writing skills.  
However, in a classroom where writing is encouraged and included in the 
many daily classroom activities, one would expect to be able to observe 
how children engage and process knowledge regarding writing skills.     
SK>My point is, though, that if he hasn't done these things, then really
SK>his opinion and observations impress me little more than my own
SK>opinions and observations.
Your own observations of children are research to a degree in-and-of
-themselves and through these observations you have learned a great deal 
about your area of teaching.  You do not believe that your experience in 
education has taught you anything about children?  
 Not on the same topic, of course. I've
SK>done precious little work with reading in early childhood. However,
SK>in math instruction I'm fairly experienced, fairly opinionated, and
SK>have my ideas what works in the classroom and what doesn't.
And your ideas are valid.  Are they research based?  I don't need a 
researcher to tell me everything about what is true regarding early-
childhood.  My experience has taught me a lot.  
I have noticed for example, that 5 year old children who enter 
kindergarten able to write their names correctly, will nearly always go 
through a period where they write their names _backwards._   Eventually 
they will return to writing their names left-to-right.  I have drawn 
some conclusions regarding this backward writing and believe it has to 
do with perceptual development.  If I wanted to conduct a study I would 
systematically collect information that would tell me how common this 
backward phase is.  I hypothesize that it is as high as 90%.  I have 
never conducted a study but if I did, I would not need a control group 
here (who can really control 5-year-olds anyway?  ).  Such an 
approach can be a very valid research too.  
 Where my
SK>philosophies and Mr. Cambourne's _may_ be in conflict (and perhaps
SK>they are not in conflict at all, but just for the sake of argument),
SK>then which one of us is right?
A good question....but his research must be corroborated to be of any 
use.  Piaget studied through observation.  His work is widely accepted 
because other researchers have drawn similar conclusions.  Brian 
Cambourne's work too has been widely accepted.    
SK>Maybe I'm being ridiculous and overly argumentative here. Maybe I
SK>should just stop participating in this discussion, because as I said
SK>before, I have very little experience in early childhood reading
SK>instruction.
No.....I like your ideas and your questions are good ones.  You have 
good insight into educational issues and ideas and that is what this 
forum is all about.  I am really just stating personal beliefs on this 
forum and nothing make my word more valid than others.  That is why I 
try to show some supporting evidence for my views.  I really don't mind 
it when people disagree with me.  After all, they have a right to be 
wrong  * Origin: R-Squared BBS  (1:352/28.0)