DT>Some people have an extremely narrow definition of science, calling only
DT>research which is deductive and hypothesis-testing scientific.
Inductive... Specific to general....
DT>But part of a scientific attitude is to keep open-minded about method and 
DT>evidence.
Not method... If by open-minded you mean anything goes, then
you misunderstand the scientific approach.  The scientific
approach isn't always unbiased even; most experiments are
run in the expectation of a particular result.  What IS true
is that a scientist will not let his expectations influence
what the evidence bears out as being "true"...
DT>Qualitative research meets the scientific research 
DT>requirements of rigorous and systematic investigation.
SOME qualitative "research" may meet SOME scientific
criteria.  A few may even constitute experiment.  A great
deal of qualitative "research" is meaningless because of
the methods used.  Much of it is simple polling, and the
validity of polling is based upon the supposition that with 
a large enough sample you eliminate unwanted variables
(reference here previous discussions with Chuck and Paul).
THAT supposition depends greatly on methods...  I'm not
trying to be argumentative with you, I just think you are
misusing terminology, and misstating the nature of science.
All that aside, I agree with you that children will go
through periods during which they will spell "creatively".
What concerns me, and the others complaining about it, is
that in too many classrooms little or no correction seems
to occur.  Perhaps this is an offshoot of the self-esteem
issue?  Anyway, children learn to speak well by hearing
(and practicing) CORRECT speech; I suspect they learn to 
spell well by observing (and practicing) correct spelling.
It doesn't have to be correct from the "gitgo", but error
has to be corrected at some EARLY point.  Frankly, that is
exactly what happened in the traditional approach which
most of us old folks remember.
Why change?  I can see making it more interesting, less
grinding.  I can see using visuals, colors.  I understand
that there is legitimate concern about constantly
criticizing children.  I also like the idea of getting kids
writing at an early age, expressing ideas, being creative..
BUT... We have an awful lot of kids running around these 
days who cannot spell very well, and THAT seems the real 
issue.  Most of the criticism is not about temporary
misspellings, but the virtual elimination of spelling
correction over a long period of childrens' development.
You've indicated that this is not a feature of YOUR
instruction, and that's fine, but it IS a feature in a lot
of places.  What you're talking about as transitional
spelling is not what is being complained about; there's
nothing transitional about what happens in a lot of 
classrooms.  Some of the "fault" here lies with teachers,
some with administration, some with community.
It's unfortunate that this type of thing occurs.  Your
position on this issue is a lot like mine with Outcome
Based Education.  I'm in here arguing that OBE is nothing
more than testing for specific RESULTS of teaching, but
all around the country, OBE is political correctness and
touchy-feeley fluff instead of instruction - Good ideas
gone bad to the point of being ludicrous.  You find
yourself in much the same predicament...
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * Win95: The Partly New, 24-bit, "couple-processing" Operating 
System 
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
---------------