SHEILA KING spoke of Whole Language 1      1/ to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-13-
96
SK>I do think you make a valid point about observations being useful for
SK>drawing conclusions about development. However, in order to determine
SK>which of two teaching philosophies is better (i.e. Whole Language or
SK>Traditional) one would need to conduct studies which compare them
SK>against each other and obtain quantitative data. Otherwise it is mere
SK>unsupported conjecture.
The case for WL is very supported.  (as in approximated spelling....this 
WL idea has been around even in traditional classrooms...it doesn't need 
a quantitative study....there is a great deal of information to support 
the concept and _many_ studies have been conducted.)
I have said this before:  WL ideas are borne of research...studies are 
supported by a large body of research.  If one investigates WL properly 
one can find a great deal of information and data we already possess.  
We also have a great deal of data regarding traditional methods.  For 
example, research data clearly shows the traditional methods of teaching 
spelling to be inferior.  We have supported research that clearly shows 
what works best (and it's not the traditional method). 
Now the practices of WL in some classrooms is another matter.  I don't 
care what it is called, WL or traditional, if the practice isn't sound 
or supported, children shouldn't be subjected to it.  
SK>-> Your own observations of children are research to a degree
SK>-> in-and-of -themselves and through these observations you have
SK>-> learned a great deal about your area of teaching.  You do not
SK>-> believe that your experience in education has taught you anything
SK>-> about children?
SK>I do believe that I have learned a great deal about teaching and
SK>children through my career as a teacher, but I would never venture to
SK>call it research. It is experience, and nothing more.
It's not research in the systematic sense, but your experience has 
taught you some "truths" about teaching and you have incorporated these 
"findings" into your teaching.  I realize it's not scientific in nature, 
but experience counts for much of the way any teacher approaches the 
practice of teaching.  I think of it as on the job research.  It may be 
job specific and it may not yield itself to generalizations, but it is 
important information (one which a researcher conducting interviews 
might want to include in a particular study).  
SK>-> I have noticed for example, that 5 year old children who enter
SK>-> kindergarten able to write their names correctly, will nearly
SK>-> always go through a period where they write their names
SK>-> _backwards._
SK>That is odd. I have never heard of that before. I neither of my two
SK>children did that, and I don't recall myself or any of my siblings
SK>doing it either, although those memories are certainly less reliable
SK>than the ones of my own two children.
I have never done a study on this (it would be difficult to teach and 
keep records consistently) but I think that if you view children's work 
in kindergarten you would notice a great many children (throughout the 
year...not all at once) who write their name backwards and then forward.  
I have observed for example that sometime children will write backwards 
when starting from the left.  I usually see backward writing when 
children begin on the right side of the page.  Often I see children 
write their names beginning on the right side of the page and running 
out of room.  The just continue below (where ever there is room).  I'd 
be interested to know just how common this is.  I have many early 
childhood books around my home and there are examples of children's 
writings with many reversed letters.  Some examples include backward 
names as well.  I would bet (no way to prove it though) that your 
children and you as well wrote some letters backwards as they/you were 
learning to form the letters.  It is very common.
SK>-> I have drawn some conclusions regarding this backward writing and
SK>-> believe it has to do with perceptual development.  If I wanted to
SK>-> conduct a study I would systematically collect information that
SK>-> would tell me how common this backward phase is.  I hypothesize
SK>-> that it is as high as 90%.  I have never conducted a study but if
SK>-> I did, I would not need a control group here (who can really
SK>-> control 5-year-olds anyway?  ).
SK>This is an interesting idea. I don't know enough about studies and
SK>proper procedures to gainsay what you write here. It sounds
SK>reasonable. But what you are suggesting is mere observation to find
SK>the frequency of a certain occurance. That is simply collecting data.
SK>I don't know that you prove anything by that other than that this
SK>phenomenon occurs a certain percentage of the time.
I think it could tell us more than that.  If I saw it happen over an 
over for a long period of time and if I saw the phenomenon in many 
samples and a consistent pattern developed I could draw some reasonable 
conclusions.  Supportive studies would be necessary but the information 
could lead to further studies.  From what I know of perceptual 
development I may be on the right track.  
SK>What we were discussing before, is the relative merits of certain
SK>types of instruction, and how to determine which is the best teaching
SK>methodology, or combination thereof. This can not be done by mere
SK>data collecting and observation of a qualitative measure as you
SK>suggest above. If you want to compare the relative merits of two
SK>different strategies, you must pit them one against the other in a
SK>quantitative study. Your hypothesis would be something like "whole
SK>language teaching methodologies result in better reading
SK>comprehension" or something along those lines. This statement is much
SK>too vague, of course. But then the traditional method would be used
SK>on your control group and you would try to prove that you got better
SK>results by evaluating students on the same type of instrument. This
SK>is the only way to draw a valid conclusion about which method is
SK>better.
I see where you are coming from but I see this idea from a different 
angle.  I see WL being borne out of studies that clearly show how 
children learn best.  Literature based instruction is one idea that has 
been studied and many researchers have concluded that the basil approach 
is inferior for many reasons.  It is a detailed argument so I won't go 
into it here.  What I am driving at is that no study is necessary to  
compare traditional vrs WL.  We have data right now that we can look at 
that will tell us what are good and sound teaching practices.  In 
spelling instruction alone there is enough data already that concludes 
the traditional method is ineffective.  We also have information that 
clearly shows what works.  Why do another study and subject a control 
group to an incompetent approach? 
 
Dan....
By the way...I have found through the course of the discussions here, 
the reading I have done and the conversations I have had with educators 
around the country regarding WL that there is good cause for alarm.  
What interest me most is not WL but effective teaching practices.  If 
one considers him/her-self a WL teacher then they must fully understand 
each individual practice _clearly._  Phonics is a good example.  Some WL 
practitioners believed that phonics was _totally_ unnecessary.  WL does 
not subscribe to this idea.  Traditionalists may consider it 
foundational.  WL doesn't subscribe to this either.  I include some 
phonics instruction in kindergarten and I have a variety of approaches I 
use...all of which are valid practices.  Some are found in the more 
traditional method and others are not.  It's not being eclectic that is 
important here....it's practicing what really works.
Take care....  
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
Silly wabbit.....QWKs are for QWKidds.
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------