-> SK> Trendy methods cited in college books doesn't necessarily impress
-> me SK> either.
-> First the research is called "worthless" and now the methods I cite
-> are called "trendy."
I did not call the research you were citing either "worthless" or
"trendy". I do not know enough about it to call it anything. I was
speaking hypothetically about some research that is, at any point in
time, widely accepted and popular. You have characterized the research
you have cited as being popularly taught in early childhood ed. That
_may_ qualify it as trendy, although not necessarily. My point was,
largely, that simply the fact that it is being taught and accepted
everywhere does not convince me. If I recall correctly, you were
using the fact that it is widely taught and accepted to somehow
convince me of its worthiness? This is not a validity criterion for
me with regard to research, although I suppose it might help in some
instances.
You seem to miss the generalizations and take it personally.
-> I am impressed when I read college text books and professional
-> journals and books I have relating to literacy learning and they all
-> agree on many things regarding early childhood teaching practices.
-> Why shouldn't this be found impressive?
I don't know. Why should we be impressed that at other points in time
numbers of educators have agreed on certain things and later these ideas
were abandoned?
-> Like you math teaching experience has taught you many things about
-> what's important in a good math program, so too has my early
-> childhood experience taught me many things.  My readings most often
-> validate my experiences (and yes guide me in other areas).
That's fine. It is what I would expect of a good teacher.
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
---------------