-> SK>No, but one CAN call research worthless if it does not employ
-> SK>correct statistical procedures and correct scientific controls.
-> SK>I would.
-> Not if they are unfamiliar with how the research was conducted and
-> how conclusions are drawn.
Clearly one must understand how the research was conducted before one
makes any conclusion about its validity. I never implied otherwise. As I
have stated before, some of us here (at least myself) were trying to
rely on your familiarity with the research you were citing without
having to go look it up ourselves (not that I wouldn't enjoy doing
that...I just don't know where I'd schedule it into my day). You did
state previously (some long time back now) that you were not aware of
any research on the topic that employed the traditional scientific
control group methods. Old topic, I don't want to rehash it, really.
-> One of the problems I see here is you have one group of educators
-> validating research and another group calling it worthless.  It can't
-> be both...and since you havent seen the specific studies and others
-> have......well..
I understand your point, and I agree to a certain extent. However, as I
previously noted, you seem to be the one trying to convince others of
your POV, here. If that is the case, you must produce studies that will
convince said "other" parties. Of course, if you're simply happy with
what's going on in your classroom (and from what I've read here, it
sounds like you are, and I'd probably be quite happy to have my child in
your classroom) then you don't need to convince anyone and the lack of
studies of scientific-controlled-group type (or your awareness of such)
is not a problem.
-> have you never attending a workshop or taken a college course that
-> spoke of research information and shared some general conclusions?
Yes, this year alone I've attended two required inservices for our
school. One, I thought, was a complete waste of time, mostly due to the
fact that the speaker (who came to speak on "inclusion") had a
presentation geared for an introductory level audience, and we were past
that stage, and would've appreciated a more advanced level presentation.
But, several times throughout her presentation she refered to "research"
that showed something or other, and I remained skeptical. She presented
some sort of inventory instrument, something along the lines of a
Meyers-Briggs type of test, but I thought it looked like something she'd
written herself as part of her Ph.D. thesis, and I disagreed with how
she classified the person being tested on a number of the questions on
the instrument.
We had another speaker, who had quite a few interesting things to say.
She was much more practical, giving us suggestions for things we could
try out immediately in our classrooms. It was along the lines of meeting
the needs of students with different learning styles. She also cited
research, which I have not investigated. The things she suggested may or
may not help. But they probably wouldn't hurt. And I would be willing to
try them out in my classroom if I had a student who needed this type of
help. This is not to say that I believe in them and will go around
sharing these suggestions with others trying to convince them that they
are good classroom practices.
-> What, besides experience, drives your teaching beliefs?  What formed
-> your approach to teaching?  Have you never been influenced by things
-> you have read?
Of course I have been influenced by things I've read. But, even when I
read something, I maintain a healthy skepticism. Just because it's in
print doesn't make me an instant believer. Because I do not go around
investigating all the research cited at the end of every article I read
or every presentation or workshop I attend (who has the time, right?) I
usually let common sense and personal experience in teaching be my
guide, as I'm sure most teachers do. And if I've understood you
correctly, this is also how you are proceeding. So, I read something, or
I attend a workshop, the presenter/author suggests that this or that my
be the reason for the other thing, and we could try these things to deal
with the situation. I think back on all my teaching experiences, and
realize that it does (or does not) seem to explain many things I have
experienced in my teaching. If it seems worthwhile to me, I may try it
out. It may become part of my teaching beliefs. I am also strongly
influenced by colleagues who I respect.
But I don't go around afterward trying to convince everyone that "this
is the way", precisely because I know that I am not familiar enough the
research to justify it. Now, I may tell someone that "in my opinion...."
and that it is also backed by my experience. But I'd leave it at that.
-> The studies and the researchers (which I have mentioned by name)
-> apparently do not impress anyone here (which I find amazing since
-> there work is so well know in early childhood).
I understood everything you said about these well known researchers. I
DO understand the importance of the names you have mentioned in the
field of early childhood education, although that is not my area. I am
capable of drawing analogies between the names of persons who are
well-known and respected in my field and those who seem to occupy a
similar position in your field.
My point has been, that that not withstanding, without scientifically
controlled studies to back them up, wide-acceptance alone does not
constitute proof or validity. There have been many movements in
education that were widely accepted at one time or another and later
were discarded. Instead of taking that as a valid point, it seemed to
insult you. You do mention the longevity of these ideas. While the
researchers themselves did publish much of their work some time back, it
has not become "widely accepted and popular" until more recently.
Perhaps you will be right, and this will be an enduring movement in
education. I don't know. I become doubtful, however, as I see more in
the news around me about schools reverting to phonice. Of course, I
think that is a shame, too. I don't really think what you are doing in
your classroom is what the majority of people (outside of your mailing
list) call "whole language". I think you are using, what good teachers
have been doing since the little red school house days. Common sense and
a good mixture of methods which includes phonics and exposure to much
good literature.
-> Good point..perhaps I need to be satisfied for myself and leave well-
-> enough alone.
You said it, not me! 
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
---------------