BOB MOYLAN spoke of Spelling... to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-11-96
BM>Dan Triplett On (10 Sep 96) was overheard to say to Bob Moylan
BM> 
BM> DT> What evidence besides your opinion are you using to support that
BM> DT> statement?  I suspect you have none because the research doesn't
BM> DT> support the traditional method of spelling instruction.
BM> 
BM> ....and your suspicions would be correct, this is not a topic I have
BM> investigated.  I've been following this thread and threw out my
BM> personal observations of how my own 3 children have learned (or not
BM> learned) how to spell.
If you would hold an open mind on the subject of approximated spelling I
will share with you some of the history and current research regarding 
approximated spelling.  Since you have not investigated it, it seems 
unwise to form an opinion based on emotion only. (I will refrain from 
calling it "invented spelling" because that does not describe it 
well...I have used  the term "transitional spelling" because it is 
transitional in nature -- there is an effort to call it something more 
accurate that describes it as a process.  It is more accurately 
referenced as "approximated spelling."  Unfortunately many educators 
call it by several different names.  What matters most is what it really
is, where did it come from, is it a reasonable practice, and is there 
educational research that supports the idea?)
BM> 
BM> DT> You are uninformed.  No one inflicts creative spelling or
BM> DT> invented spelling or transitional spelling on anyone
BM> 
BM> When teachers are presented with a curriculum that contains
BM> creative/invented spelling they have not been trained in, do not
BM> agree with and implement poorly then it is inflicting it on those
BM> children.  (BTW I didn't have a beef with the teacher, she didn't
BM> have much of a choice, but with the curriculum that I obtained a
BM> copy of and absorbed before bitching with like minded parents at
BM> the school board)
I will buy this statement.  I don't think any teacher should teach 
something they have not been trained in.  One cannot be trained in the 
concepts of approximated spelling in a single workshop.  I have spent 
several years exposed to the various concepts and on my own have been 
investigating its history and the theory behind the "practice."  I do 
not understand how a curriculum can contain practices in approximated 
spelling.  It is not something one can be trained to "teach" children.  
It is, however, a developmental concept to be understood.
 
BM> DT> anymore than you inflicted baby talk on your own children.
BM> 
BM> Not one of my children was subjected to hearing adults (other than
BM> grandmothers) talk to them in that ridiculous language referred to
BM>as  baby talk.
I think you made my point.  None of the adults talked baby talk to your 
children (or mine) and yet all children go through developing stages of 
speech and language usage.  As children mature and as their experiences 
in language expand so do their speech and language patterns become more 
sophisticated.
The same holds true for approximated spelling.  Children "naturally" go 
through identifiable and definable spelling stages.  The greater their 
experience with written language the better their spelling.  I would 
venture to say that _everyone_ on this echo has passed through at least 
some of the stages of development.  Some may disagree, but I think it's 
best to consider the research facts before one concludes the idea is 
ridiculous. You may be surprised to find out that approximated spelling, 
once fully understood, makes perfect sense.
BM> 
BM> DT> Children spell developmentally in classrooms where early writing
BM> DT> is allowed.
BM> 
BM> Developmental/creative spelling is, IMO, complete nonsense.  Are you
BM> saying that when doing this children are consistently using the same
BM> groups of letters to represent the same word?  Are all the children
BM> using the same groups of letters to represent the same word?  If,
BM>for  example, "qwerty" does not represent "horse" to every kid in the
BM> class then how can they understand what any other kid is trying to
BM> write?  For that matter how do you understand it?  By the kid
BM>telling  you what it says?   If the child doesn't learn that specific
BM>groups  of letters represent specific things EVERY TIME they see it
BM>then, at  least with regard to this, their valuable learning time is
BM>being  wasted.  Being wasted at the time and later when they have to
BM>forget  all that creative spelling and actually learn how to spell
BM>horse.  
You don't understand the concept.  The way you have described it above 
shows your lack of experience regarding approximated spelling.  You must 
first go beyond your own prejudices.  It is not complete 
nonsense according to the major early childhood researchers.  
Approximated spelling has been observed in students in different 
countries.  Some (a lot?  much?) of the research data was conducted 
outside of America.  
NO ONE teaches the students to spell words in approximated fashion.  I 
may however, help a child develop spelling strategies from which 
approximated spelling will occur.  For example, it is not uncommon for 
children who begin attempts at spelling to get first/last consonant and 
maybe something in between.  (like skuel or  skool for school)  The 
approximation is that the child attempted the spelling on his or her 
own.  They were close and they used the decoding skills they had at the 
time. Notice:
Spelling "school"
The /s/ is correct and so is the /l/.  Those sounds stand out 
phonetically.  The medial sounds are a bit confusing.
The beginning sound in "school" is /s/.  So far so good.
Next is the /k/ sound.  However the spelling is ch.  The /ch/ blend as 
in chicken is not the pronunciation  in the word school.  We teach /ch/ 
as in /ch/icken.  To a child this can be very confusing.
Next is /oo/ which should be /oo/ as in book.  But because of the /l/ it
is /ool/ as in tool or fool or cool.  For early spellers this too is 
confusing.
So using the spelling tools they have (decoding skills and sight words) 
they make an approximation.  It's close, but no cigar.  Over time this 
approximated spelling _disappears_ completely.  Teachers don't teach 
approximated spelling.  Approximated spelling just happens.  It is 
natural.
  
BM> I'm referring, of course, to what this whole thread has been about,
BM> developmental/creative spelling.  Just because something is an
BM> acceptable practice doesn't mean that it came down from the
BM>mountain.  Putting kids in a corner with a pointed hat on their heads
BM>was an  acceptable practice at one time.
BM> Such attitudes come also from those who have seen "current learning
BM> theories" and "research studies supporting... " come and go with the
BM> wind.
And also from those who don't understand something and react 
emotionally.  Many have an uninformed response.  
BM> DT>  Many first grade teachers I know allow transitional
BM> DT> spelling because they understand it to be a natural process.
BM> 
BM> I don't believe it is natural to let a child invent their own
BM>written  language 
Children do _NOT_ invent a written language.  This idea is on the wrong 
track.
BM>that no one else can understand and that the child
BM>probably  can't read a week later.  If they are taught the correct
BM>way of doing  something the first time around they won't have a lot
BM>of the problems  they have later with reading and writing.
This statement is in conflict with nearly _all_ the research data 
regarding the subject of approximated/invented/creative/transitional 
spelling.  In fact, research conclusions regarding the traditional 
approach to teaching spelling do not support the traditional method.  
Ultimately it's not important what one believes but it is important what
one knows and understands.  If your belief is formed out of 
misconceptions, of what value is it.  If, on the other hand, your 
opinion is formed from knowledge and understanding, then that is another 
matter.  
BM> DT> There is plenty of research data to show that transitional
BM> DT> spelling is natural.  People who don't understand the process
BM> DT> are often quick to criticize.
BM> 
BM> Okay I'll take your word for that if you will cite one research
BM> project that was validated by another independent group of
BM> researchers using exactly the same thing as the original (allowing
BM>of  course that a different group of children would be involved).
BM>One  doesn't have to understand the process to clearly see that it is
BM>a  waste of the child's and the teacher's time.  What precisely does
BM>it  accomplish?
I will attempt to provide more information on future posts.  I will also
provide as much in the way of research studies.  However, if you are 
looking for an objective measurement you may not find one.  The studies 
I know of are qualitative and follow a different research method.
BM> 
BM> DT> Read Transitions or Invitations by Regie Routman.  Her case
BM> DT> studies are very informative.
BM> 
BM> Since you didn't provide a citation I will do a library search
BM>before  I send this and let you know if it's available here.  Case
BM>studies  are not, BTW, "research" they are merely case studies.
This statement is way off.  What is valid research in your opinion?  
Research takes on many forms and there are many different methods of 
obtaining reliable data.  There are a wide range of acceptable 
strategies in qualitative research and case studies is one of them.  
Some people have an extremely narrow definition of science, calling only
research which is deductive and hypothesis-testing scientific.  But part
of a scientific attitude is to keep open-minded about method and 
evidence. Qualitative research meets the scientific research 
requirements of rigorous and systematic investigation.  And it's coming 
your way.
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------