BOB MOYLAN spoke of Spelling And Stuff to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-12-96
BM>Dan Triplett On (10 Oct 96) was overheard to say to Rick Pedley
BM> 
BM> DT> RP>I don't care about the research you quote because it is
BM> DT> RP>almost impossible to validate it.
BM> 
BM> DT> It's very easy to validate since I have provided many sources
BM> DT> which are easily verifiable.
BM> 
BM> Cited sources are VERY easy to verify; content of those sources is
BM> much less easy, if not impossible to validate.
Impossible?  From the sources I have quoted the authors have either 
listed all referenced research information in the bibliography at the 
end of the book or listed it under "References" at the end of every 
chapter.  Whether it is a book the researcher has written, or an article
written by the researcher and published in a professional magazine, it's
all listed.  Do you question the existence of the research or just its 
validity?  
If you question the content of the original research and its findings, 
you can easily go to the original publication (where the research was 
first published) and read for yourself.
Often on this echo others have asked to be shown where information was 
obtained.  I have stated on this echo that approximated spellings are a 
developmental characteristic of young children and are a natural 
occurrence when young children engage in any writing activity.  I have 
said (and others here have stated it also) that children progress 
through stages of writing development beginning with scribbles on paper 
all the way to conventional writing.  I have also said that these stages
of development, which include approximated spellings, are fully 
supported by a _large_ _body_ _of_ _research._  
I have tried to provide sampling of this research to support my 
statements.  The material I have quoted from includes books written by 
professional educators and educational researchers, research material 
published in professional publications, and original papers presented at
conventions and Doctoral Thesis papers such as the one I posted recently
(JOAN ANNE KERNS.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPELLING
KNOWLEDGE IN A FIRST-GRADE CLASS: THE
SPELLING-READING CONNECTION (INVENTED SPELLING). Thesis
(PH.D.)--THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL
HILL, 1993.)
The material I have presented has been called "non-existant" and 
"impossible to validate."  
It seems that there is the idea here in this echo that all one has to do
is refuse to acknowledge the research and any points one might try to 
support using that research information becomes invalid.  I have used 
more than one source to show support for statements I have made and I 
could provide many more.
It won't entirely spoil my day if I don't convince anyone that 
approximated spelling is a developmental characteristic.  It does seem a
bit intellectually dishonest to ignore valid research that has been 
widely accepted by a large body of early childhood experts.  I have 
quoted from some of the greatest contributors in early childhood 
education research.    What does it take?  
By the way, it occurred to me as I was investigating "invented spelling"
that there were attempts a number of years ago by IBM to introduce a 
phonetic spelling program called "Writing to Read" that included a 
invented spelling curriculum.  Riggs institute has called this invented 
spelling program a "colossal failure."  I have written directly to the 
Riggs institute for clarification...  I am assuming they are referring 
to programs like IBM's Writing to Read or Action Reading which is 
currently on the market and has its own phonics codes.  Essentially both
these programs have re-invented spelling and teach that re-invention to 
students.  These programs, or any programs like them, are NOT the 
approximated spellings to which I have been referring.  I am wondering 
now if people are thinking of these programs when they hear the term 
"invented spelling?"       
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------