-=> Quoting Dan Triplett to Rick Pedley <=-
 RP> EL> Isn't a dictionary the best spelling book?
 RP>
 RP>But you'd have to know it was "phoneme" and not "foneme" to find it
 RP>in the phirst place :) But to answer your question, no, _spelling_
 RP>books are the best spelling books.
 DT> The research on spelling instruction is in more agreement than in any
 DT> other area of the curriculum.  This research does _not_ support what
 DT> you have stated and in fact, states just the opposite.
I don't care about your research. I can see the results of educational
methods used in the last 15 years in the _teachers_ now entering the
work force. As a rule, _they_ can't spell worth a damn either. And now
they're passing along their ignorance to another generation. The same
thing has happened in math BTW: kids aren't being made to memorize
multiplication tables to the degree they were twenty years ago, and it
is a perfect analogy to the lack of spelling instruction and its
consquences. Because they can't multiply 7 by 8 in their heads, they
have trouble factoring x^2 + 15x + 56, in addition to the actual task
at hand, learning to factor polynomials.
I don't care about the research you quote because it is almost
impossible to validate it. Show me _reproducable_ results from
controlled experiments performed by unbiased researchers well-
schooled in the "scientific method", and then you might have some-
thing. The research you quote is based merely on statistics gleaned
from pre-existing data, in pre-existing learning environments. Experi-
ments need to be set up in a controlled environment for proper research
to take place. Meanwhile, I'll trust the conclusions based on my own
observations, which have served me well thus far.
fRenz do'nt lit thuR frEnz yooZ hol lanWij
 DT> In 1966 a study was conducted by Hanna (and others) regarding the
 DT> relationship between symbol and sound in English.  They programmed a
 DT> computer with more than 300 rules.  They then tested the computer's
 DT> ability to spell 17,000 English words and found the computer could
 DT> spell with 84 percent accuracy.
So what? We're not teaching computers, we're teaching human beings.
More invalid research. The subject might as well have been a squirrel.
 DT> ******************************
 DT> *                            *
 DT> *   ,~~~~.___.   spelin      *
 DT> *  /  |  .    \    maid      *
 DT> * (   )        0    e-z      *
                      ^^^^^^
Yeah, that pretty much says it all.
coffeerp@adan.kingston.net  Û] COFFEE MUG SOFTWARE Û]
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- InterEcho 1.18
---------------