Dan Triplett On (10 Sep 96) was overheard to say to Bob Moylan
 DT> What evidence besides your opinion are you using to support that
 DT> statement?  I suspect you have none because the research doesn't
 DT> support the traditional method of spelling instruction.
 ....and your suspicions would be correct, this is not a topic I have
 investigated.  I've been following this thread and threw out my
 personal observations of how my own 3 children have learned (or not
 learned) how to spell.
 DT> Your children are different.  Who is to say what factors were a part
 DT> of the overall picture.
 That's a good point, I believe that one of, perhaps not the most
 important, those factors was the "old fashioned" way that spelling
 was taught.
 DT> This is just not a true statement.
 Your opinion.
 DT> You are uninformed.  No one inflicts creative spelling or invented
 DT> spelling or transitional spelling on anyone
 When teachers are presented with a curriculum that contains
 creative/invented spelling they have not been trained in, do not
 agree with and implement poorly then it is inflicting it on those
 children.  (BTW I didn't have a beef with the teacher, she didn't
 have much of a choice, but with the curriculum that I obtained a
 copy of and absorbed before bitching with like minded parents at
 the school board)
 DT> anymore than you inflicted baby talk on your own children.
 Not one of my children was subjected to hearing adults (other than
 grandmothers) talk to them in that ridiculous language referred to as
 baby talk.
 DT> Children spell developmentally in classrooms where early writing is
 DT> allowed.
 Developmental/creative spelling is, IMO, complete nonsense.  Are you
 saying that when doing this children are consistently using the same
 groups of letters to represent the same word?  Are all the children
 using the same groups of letters to represent the same word?  If, for
 example, "qwerty" does not represent "horse" to every kid in the
 class then how can they understand what any other kid is trying to
 write?  For that matter how do you understand it?  By the kid telling
 you what it says?   If the child doesn't learn that specific groups
 of letters represent specific things EVERY TIME they see it then, at
 least with regard to this, their valuable learning time is being
 wasted.  Being wasted at the time and later when they have to forget
 all that creative spelling and actually learn how to spell horse.
 DT> What specifically are you talking about?  I happen to be very informed
 DT> of acceptable practices regarding kindergarten.  What is the nonsense
 DT> to which you refer?
 I'm referring, of course, to what this whole thread has been about,
 developmental/creative spelling.  Just because something is an
 acceptable practice doesn't mean that it came down from the mountain.
 Putting kids in a corner with a pointed hat on their heads was an
 acceptable practice at one time.
 DT> Perhaps you should have been involved sooner.
 I have been involved with the education of this particular child from
 the time he came screaming from his mother's womb; I was hovering
 over the pediatrician shoulder when he was doing the APGAR.  This
 child was ready for kindergarten - what he got was developmental
 nonsense that prevented any real progress.
 DT> It's worth very little since such attitudes generally come from those
 DT> ignorant of current learning theories and research studies supporting
 DT> such practices.
 Such attitudes come also from those who have seen "current learning
 theories" and "research studies supporting... " come and go with the
 wind.
 DT>  Many first grade teachers I know allow transitional
 DT> spelling because they understand it to be a natural process.
 I don't believe it is natural to let a child invent their own written
 language that no one else can understand and that the child probably
 can't read a week later.  If they are taught the correct way of doing
 something the first time around they won't have a lot of the problems
 they have later with reading and writing.
 DT> Any knowledgeable early childhood teacher understands this.
 Why, because they learned about it in a theory/methods class as an
 undergrad?
 DT> There is plenty of research data to show that transitional spelling
 DT> is natural.  People who don't understand the process are often quick
 DT> to criticize.
 Okay I'll take your word for that if you will cite one research
 project that was validated by another independent group of
 researchers using exactly the same thing as the original (allowing of
 course that a different group of children would be involved).  One
 doesn't have to understand the process to clearly see that it is a
 waste of the child's and the teacher's time.  What precisely does it
 accomplish?
 DT> Read Transitions or Invitations by Regie Routman.  Her case
 DT> studies are very informative.
 Since you didn't provide a citation I will do a library search before
 I send this and let you know if it's available here.  Case studies
 are not, BTW, "research" they are merely case studies.
 Bob
 Not able to connect with the library...thunderstorms and LOTS of rain
 seem to have shut them down; will trudge over there in the next
 couple of days.
... Cats remind us that not everything in Nature has a purpose.
--- PPoint 2.00
---------------