CHARLES BEAMS spoke of Spelling... to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-17-96
CB>Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
CB>DT>I suppose then if you carry your reasoning further here Charles
CB>DT>then we  shouldn't allow children to draw because when young
CB>DT>children draw they  are drawing incorrectly.  Many of my kids draw
CB>DT>just a head and arms and  legs protruding out from the head.  
CB>You don't see the analogy as I see it.  The golfer is allowed to 
CB>continue to swing as long as he receives some instruction first, and 
CB>throughout the learning process.  Children should be allowed to draw 
CB>- as long as it preceded and accompanied by instruction.
My children are able to draw just fine without drawing instruction.  I 
do some instructing regarding drawing but only when appropriate.  Again,
it's a developmental thing and children should be allowed to draw freely
to develop their skills "naturally."  This idea doesn't preclude 
instruction.  It's just that allowing children to draw _only_ as long as
it is preceded and accompanied by instruction doesn't fit with what's 
really best for kids.  Such an approach could really stifle creativity. 
I do agree that instruction is important and does have it's place (and a
very important one) but *most* drawing experiences should be free 
expression.  
Writing is no different.  Instruction is important and children do need 
to learn proper writing conventions; however, writing skills (such as 
spelling) should be learned in the context of writing and not "taught" 
separately.
CB>Why do we place children in school if not to teach them?  Why allow 
CB>those budding artists of yours to continue to draw the arms and legs 
CB>coming out of the head?  Teach them a little today and a little more 
CB>tomorrow and soon they may actually have quite a few things 
CB>connected together properly.  If you allow them to keep drawing the 
CB>figure improperly without encouraging them to improve, their growth 
CB>will be much, much slower.
We are in complete agreement here.  I do teach them these important 
things.  However, not EVERY time we draw.  I know from experience that 
children's drawing improve over time as they developmentally mature.  I 
do agree that we should be about the business of developing artistic and
perceptual awareness in children.  Part of my drawing lessons of people 
include talking about the various parts of the body (head, hands, feet, 
lets, neck, lips, and on....) and helping children become aware and 
encouraging children include these features in their drawings.  
CB>And so it is with writing and spelling.  I see no sense in the 
CB>notion that children should waste their time putting gibberish on a 
CB>page under the pretense of language development.  There should be 
CB>some initial instruction and the writing process should be critiqued
CB>and worked on every day.  
Not according to current theory.  I think I posted some things recently 
regarding this idea.  And there is nothing gibberish about it.  Much of 
it makes perfect sense.  
Practicing the art of marking gibberish on 
CB>a piece of paper does not develop language skills any better than 
CB>would the process of storytelling or news-time each day.
This must be just an opinion because the opposite is true.  Storytelling
and "Daily News" times are very important for emergent readers.  
CB>DT>I have watched 5,6 and 7 year olds children playing soccer.  I
CB>DT>don't  think they should be allowed to play soccer at such a young
CB>DT>age because  they have no concept of team work, a concept
CB>DT>essential to a good soccer  team.  
CB>You stretched the analogy using a variety of examples, but you 
CB>simply didn't look at the process very carefully.  Does the soccer 
CB>team have a coach?  Are the kids given instruction before the first 
CB>game?  
I don't think I ever suggested that writing in the early grades is done 
completely without the "coach" providing some instructions.  The 
argument is the degree in which this "coaching" is done.  Certainly in a
kindergarten soccer league the coaching is _very_ basic.  It would have 
to be since the kids cannot comprehend the more complex task team work 
requires.
CB>Under the auspices of "inventive spelling" the children are kicking 
CB>the ball into the wrong net day after day and nobody is teaching 
CB>them any differently.       ?^^^^^^^^^^^?    ?~~~~~~?
This is a false statement since it is extremely over generalized.
CB>DT>Your view that children will learn spelling habits that cannot be
CB>DT>broken  or will be difficult to correct is not supported by the
CB>DT>experience of  most early childhood teachers (K-2).
CB>But my view *is* supported by virtually every intermediate teacher 
CB>(4-6) teacher that I know.
You have no way of proving cause and effect here so the position that 
approximated spelling is the culprit is a "leap of faith."
CB>DT>Children eventually become aware of more complex spelling 
CB>DT>patterns (Usually beginning with initial sounds, then ending 
CB>DT>sounds, and then the stuff in the middle.)  We can see a 
CB>DT>_consistent_ developing pattern of spelling skills when children 
CB>DT>are allowed to write.
CB>I understand that you aren't a proponent of the extreme forms of 
CB>whole language and inventive spelling, so perhaps we're not talking 
CB>about the same thing.  I'm not indicating that each child has to 
CB>have every misspelled word corrected every time they write, but I 
CB>*do* believe that they ought to be getting spelling instruction and 
CB>that they ought to be encouraged, when writing, to use words they 
CB>can spell or to look up words they can't spell.  Many of the 
CB>children will work to the lowest acceptable standard and the higher 
CB>you set that bar, within reason, the more the children will do.
I think we agree on many things here we just don't fully understand each
other's perspective.  I could have written the above statement myself 
since I firmly believe that children need to be instructed in writing 
conventions (spelling) _as_ _they_ _write._  I absolutely agree that our 
standards for children (and for ourselves) should be high.  (Reaching 
for something that requires stretching rather)
CB>DT>I don't think the traditional method of teaching spelling has the
CB>DT>best  track record either.  In fact, the method I grew up with
CB>DT>(and the one  you learned in school) is not supported by research
CB>DT>data.
CB>Here we go again .  What research data?  Which methods don't work 
CB>and what don't they work as well as?  Many of the teachers I know 
CB>who work in the intermediate grades and middle school teach spelling 
CB>not only because of the desire to have kids spelling words 
CB>correctly, but because spelling is also a means of teaching letter 
CB>sounds and word recognition skills.  Do the studies indicate this is 
CB>ineffective as well?  If so, why does *anyone* bother to spell
CB>correctly?
Spelling teaching letter sounds?  No way.  Yes if our language was 
purely phonetic.  It is not.  It's not just a few words either Charles.  
Read the paper phonetically and try to get the meaning of any article.  
It probably can't be done.  
CB>Sorry, Dan, but it does not compute (with me) that teaching spelling 
CB>does not help the language development process.
I don't think I ever put forth the argument that one should not teach 
spelling.  The topic was approximated spelling and I am arguing that 
such approximations are "natural" and must be allowed.  As for the 
research data  regarding the effectiveness of the traditional 
approach to spelling instruction, it's there but would be pointless and 
too time consuming for me to dig up.  I have provided some good posts 
that support the concepts of approximated spelling which were research 
based.  Have you seen them?  I could do a repost .
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
Use the Force, Luke, Don't give in to the DOS side.- ObiWan Kenobi
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------