DT>But invented (transitional) spelling is a researched based idea and 
DT>did not spring up just because someone thought it was a cool thing 
DT>to do in the classroom.
My belief, based solely on what I THINK may have happened,
is that someone thought starting kids writing early would
be a good idea, and they realized that the kids would be 
unlikely to be able to spell correctly at this point.
Correctly (imo) surmising that constantly correcting their
spelling would inhibit the writing process, it follows
naturally that one would INITIALLY overlook spelling in
the interests of promoting writing.  Commonsense then
suggests that the creators would have you start to correct
spelling down-the-line, as the writing becomes natural.
Others, reading this, may have interpreted it as meaning
that spelling correctly is optional generally (another
example of interpretation being suspect)....  I don't
think there was ANY research, initially, on this concept, 
it was simply "commonsense"....
DT>Researchers consistently observe a pattern of spelling development 
DT>when children are given the opportunity to write in early childhood 
DT>classrooms.  If the observations are consistent, isn't this a valid
DT>practice?
It may amount to being an experiment, but a lot depends on
the DESIGN and CONTROLS...  If these observations occur with
large numbers of kids, representing a cross-section of the
population, over wide areas of the country (representing a
cross-section of THAT as well), while using the SAME process,
then the chances of making valid conclusions jump.....
DT>Are you suggesting that when we were once a nation of "traditional" 
DT>teachers we were doing a better job educationally?
This would be one of those conclusions which could be drawn 
from observation in the absence of real research.  Another
would be that the older teachers were better than current
ones.
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * My best view of Windows was through OS/2 WARP.
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
---------------