Dan Triplett On (14 Oct 96) was overheard to say to Bob Moylan
BM> DT> It's very easy to validate since I have provided many sources
BM> DT> which are easily verifiable.
BM> Cited sources are VERY easy to verify; content of those sources is
BM> much less easy, if not impossible to validate.
 DT> Impossible?  From the sources I have quoted the authors have either
 DT> listed all referenced research information in the bibliography at the
 DT> end of the book or listed it under "References" at the end of every
 DT> chapter.
 What they have done is no more or no less than quote "research"
 information/studies that tend to support what they are writing on.
 DT> Do you question the existence of the research or just its validity?
 I accept that there has been a number of studies, referred to as
 research, conducted and written on.
 When I said impossible to validate perhaps validate was a less than
 appropriate choice of words...would "replicate" have changed the
 meaning of my note?  That is what I meant. I didn't read anything,
 in all that you posted, about controls of any kind.  I don't recall
 now that there was even any mention of inter-observer reliability
 checks.  If someone is going to do a study or observations of
 anything and that is ALL there is to it _observations_ they'd better
 have a pretty damn good inter-observer reliability control check in
 place or even the observations are totally unreliable due to
 preconceptions and bias of a single observer.
 DT> supported by a _large_ _body_ _of_ _research._
 DT> I have tried to provide sampling of this research to support my
 DT> statements.
 Yes.. yes.. but what you are calling research doesn't measure up to
 empirical research standards
 DT> The material I have presented has been called "non-existant" and
 DT> "impossible to validate."
 DT> I have used more than one source to show support for statements I
 DT> have made and I could provide many more.
 I can similarly post many sources that "prove" facilitated
 communication and gentle teaching are the absolute best ways to teach
 special needs learners.  Both have since been totally debunked but many
 of us in special ed were stuck with both for years because they were
 both hot off the academia idea burner.
 DT> It does seem a bit intellectually dishonest to ignore valid research
 DT> that has been widely accepted by a large body of early childhood
 DT> experts.
 You don't want to concede that some of us don't accept as "research"
 what you have posted.  As far as being widely accepted by ... etc etc
 "experts" goes... have you ever looked to see who is using who as a
 reference or source in all these published studies?  Would it
 surprise you to see the same names over and over; A cites B, B cites
 C, C cites A, B then cites A and C, then along comes D who cites A, B
 and C...
 DT> I have quoted from some of the greatest contributors in early
 DT> childhood education research.    What does it take?
 An exactly replicated controlled project.
 Re: Writing to read
 DT> I am wondering now if people are thinking of these programs when
 DT> they hear the term "invented spelling?"
 I am not.  I had a DOS demo version of the IBM product a good while
 back and didn't think too much of it.
... Oh no! Not *ANOTHER* learning experience.
--- PPoint 2.02
---------------