SHEILA KING spoke of Approximated Spelling/No to DAN TRIPLETT on 10-26-
96
SK>-> You have no idea what methods were used in any of the studies
SK>-> since you did no investigating.  It is unreasonable for you to say
SK>-> that the arguments I have put forth here are unconvincing because
SK>-> the research I cite is worthless.  
SK>Dan,
SK> 
SK>You yourself have down played the importance of the scientific method
First of all, my argument above has to do with comments made about 
research I have cited here as being "worthless" and "existent."  It has 
also been said that this research doesn't measure up to scientific 
criteria.  I am simply saying that one cannot call research worthless 
simply because it doesn't happen to fit into one's pedagogical beliefs. 
I do not know the precise methodology of all the studies I have quoted. 
Some certainly were done using qualitative methods.  Some may very well 
have been done using a quantitative method. 
 Usually the material I read presents an argument (idea) and then cites 
studies to support the argument.  (Isn't that the way it is in 
educational material?)  Contributors names are mentioned and in many 
cases a brief description of the research methods are explained.  These 
researchers are the same ones whose names appeared in my undergraduate 
studies.  We examined their findings more than their methodology.  As a 
graduate student, I studied Early Childhood Education and again studied 
ideas that were consistent with ECE's philosophy.  I have put into 
practice teaching methods consistent with what I have learned in college
(and beyond).  My teaching experience has validated to a very large 
degree what I have studied regarding early childhood education.  So now 
when I read something By Donald Graves or Lucy Calkins or my new 
favorite, Regie Routman, I am ready to listen (with confidence).  
Perhaps I have too much confidence with these ideas.     
I don't think I have tried to down play the importance of quantitative 
research as much as "up play" qualitative research.  I have stated that 
qualitative methods, like quantitative methods, do meet scientific 
standards.  I don't remember saying that quanatative research (this is 
the same as scientific method -- right?) is unimportant.  I have tried 
to say that qualitative methods can stand on equal footing with that of 
the quanatative (scientific) method.  I have also said that in many 
cases, a qualitative approach to a particular educational inquiry would 
be more appropriate.  
SK> in research and even wrote in some message
SK>that you weren't personally aware that studies of that type had been
SK>conducted on the subjects that we were discussing, and that you felt
SK>they probably weren't necessary. 
You are right that I did say this.  The fact that I am not aware of the 
exact methodology doesn't mean that the more acceptable (to some) 
"scientific" approach wasn't used.  I don't think we need to conduct 
quanatative studies to examine a traditional classroom vrs a whole 
language approach.  I have stated that I believe many studies have been 
done and from those studies we already have a wealth of information.  
If someone wanted to conduct such a study, I would welcome it however.  
Without such a study, this debate will never get resolved.  I am 
personally satisfied, based on my Early Childhood formal education and 8
years experience (which is where the real learning takes place in my 
view) that the philosophy of WL is the most effective way to teach.
 SK>You suggested that the wealth of
SK>qualitative studies was sufficient to, I guess, convince anyone of
SK>these positions?
I do not know that all these studies were qualitative thought many were.
Until someone personally examines what has been written one cannot be 
convinced or unconvinced.  But, for me the answer is yes.  The wealth of
studies is sufficient for me.  Perhaps that is because I also live out 
every day the implications of the studies and find them to be reliable. 
SK>I don't know about Charles, but my skepticism with the references you
SK>have presented does not come from what I have heard and read from
SK>others, but from your own admission a few weeks back in this echo
SK>that you are not aware of any scientifically conducted studies on
SK>these topics.
Why would this make you skeptical?  My admission that I don't know of 
any "scientifically" conducted studies doesn't mean studies weren't done
this way.  I just don't personally know.  (By the way, when I read the 
word scientific study I get the feeling that you and others may equate 
that with quanatative research - leaving qualitative research to be 
"unscientific."  Is this your view?)
 I guess that AFT's report that they could find no
SK>'well-conducted' research also adds to my skepticism.
I believe Charles said that the AFT's "distinguished" experts examined 
much of the research material I personally presented.  I want to know 
what research they actually looked at. I think this is an important 
question, don't you?  Interesting, I have quoted Marie, Clay's research 
here (which these distinguished experts must have examined) and yet, I 
found some of here work quoted in AFT's educational database located on 
the web and AOL.  
 Admittedly, I
SK>haven not looked into the research you presented myself. But there is
SK>no way that I have time to do so, and I assumed that you were at
SK>least somewhat familiar with the references you were citing, and your
SK>own admission that you were unaware of quantitatively conducted
SK>studies seemed sufficient reason to me to doubt the veracity of the
SK>references.  
Im not sure what you are saying here.  I am very familiar with the 
references I have cited here.  I don't know their precise methodology 
for every study they conducted.  (Should I?)  I am most familiar with 
the conclusions they have drawn and have been impressed at how other 
researchers came to similar conclusions. I am also impressed that this 
research appears in college text books and that many early childhood 
organizations recognize and accept these studies.  I have read many 
books on early childhood education, some written by the researchers and 
others simply citing the research work.  I am not immediately familiar 
with the methodology of the researchers as I am with their educational 
philosophy.  
Sorry this is so long..
Dan
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------