BOB MOYLAN spoke of Spelling And Stuff to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-15-96
BM>Dan Triplett On (14 Oct 96) was overheard to say to Bob Moylan
BM> DT>From the sources I have quoted the authors have
BM> DT> either listed all referenced research information in the
BM> DT> bibliography at the end of the book or listed it under
BM> DT> "References" at the end of every chapter.
BM> What they have done is no more or no less than quote "research"
BM> information/studies that tend to support what they are writing on.
Seems an appropriate thing to do.  I would think that educators would 
expect no less than this when reading material where a writer is 
presenting views on educational issues.  Seems to me this approach (of 
quoting research and citing sources) should carry some weight (as 
opposed to "well in my opinion" or "in my experience..."
BM> DT> Do you question the existence of the research or just its
BM>validity?
BM> I accept that there has been a number of studies, referred to as
BM> research, conducted and written on.
BM> When I said impossible to validate perhaps validate was a less than
BM> appropriate choice of words...would "replicate" have changed the
BM> meaning of my note?  That is what I meant. I didn't read anything,
BM> in all that you posted, about controls of any kind.  I don't recall
BM> now that there was even any mention of inter-observer reliability
BM> checks.  If someone is going to do a study or observations of
BM> anything and that is ALL there is to it _observations_ they'd better
BM> have a pretty damn good inter-observer reliability control check in
BM> place or even the observations are totally unreliable due to
BM> preconceptions and bias of a single observer.
If you are asking me to provide the exact methodology for every study I 
cite or every research I may happen to mention, that is a task I will 
not undertake.  If I provide the resource and someone is interested in 
these questions (regarding controls or methodology) then the reader can 
investigate it for him/herself.  As for my discussions on spelling 
instruction and research that supports my views, I am looking for more 
specific information.  I too am interested in the specific studies.  I 
have contacted the Washington State Commission on the Improvement of 
Student Learning.  I may have to go to the local college here and do 
some data base searches.  
BM> DT> supported by a _large_ _body_ _of_ _research._
BM> DT> I have tried to provide sampling of this research to support my
BM> DT> statements.
BM> Yes.. yes.. but what you are calling research doesn't measure up to
BM> empirical research standards
You wouldn't know this is true since you haven't reviewed the research.  
You are making an assumption here.  On what do you base this "opinion?"
BM> DT> I have used more than one source to show support for statements
BM> DT> I have made and I could provide many more.
BM> I can similarly post many sources that "prove" facilitated
BM> communication and gentle teaching are the absolute best ways to
BM>teach  special needs learners.  Both have since been totally debunked
BM>but many  of us in special ed were stuck with both for years because
BM>they were  both hot off the academia idea burner.
Can't trust any research anymore.  Guess we'll all have to rely on our 
own classroom observations to guide our thinking.  You do your thing, 
I'll do mine, and so what if we are using inferior methods; research is 
unreliable so well just have to rely on gut instinct.
BM> You don't want to concede that some of us don't accept as "research"
BM> what you have posted.  As far as being widely accepted by ... etc
BM>etc  "experts" goes... have you ever looked to see who is using who
BM>as a  reference or source in all these published studies?  Would it
BM> surprise you to see the same names over and over; A cites B, B cites
BM> C, C cites A, B then cites A and C, then along comes D who cites A,
BM>B  and C...
I have seen the references and I expect to see some of the same names in 
the many different books I have read.  If Cambourne's work is 
foundational to a certain educational idea, then I would expect to see 
his work cited in many papers, articles, and books (and I do).  But 
there are other names as well.  It doesn't surprise me to see some of 
the same names over and over because these same "experts" are well 
respected and their ideas supported by early childhood professional 
organizations.  What would you expect to see?  As for your circular 
argument, what are you suggesting here?  Is this your attempt to 
discredit the researchers?  Don't you think it is expected that 
researchers whose work shows agreement with other research work would 
quote each other to show support their ideas?  You asked for replicated 
studies and now you argue that what??  
Dan
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------