SHEILA KING spoke of An Explanation        1/2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 12-07-
96
SK>I understand your point, and I agree to a certain extent. However, as
SK>I previously noted, you seem to be the one trying to convince others
SK>of your POV, here. If that is the case, you must produce studies that
SK>will convince said "other" parties. Of course, if you're simply happy
SK>with what's going on in your classroom (and from what I've read here,
SK>it sounds like you are, and I'd probably be quite happy to have my
SK>child in your classroom) then you don't need to convince anyone and
SK>the lack of studies of scientific-controlled-group type (or your
SK>awareness of such) is not a problem.
I don't think I'm really trying to "convince" others of my pov so much 
as to clarify misconceptions about things (like what WL really teaches 
and what Invented Spelling really is) but I see now that people here 
have had different experiences with these concepts and for some the 
experiences have not been good.  I can accept this and in some ways we 
WL proponents only have ourselves to blame for the lack of 
understanding.  I don't think there has been enough effort to clarify WL 
views to other educators and to parents as well.  Seems that there were 
some people saying one thing and another group saying another (how else 
would we have the idea that phonics is not to be taught in a WL 
classroom?  The idea is not advocated by WL theorists and yet somehow it 
has been practised in WL classrooms)....something is amiss here...
 SK>-> have you never attending a workshop or taken a college course 
that
SK>-> spoke of research information and shared some general conclusions?
SK>Yes, this year alone I've attended two required inservices for our
SK>school. One, I thought, was a complete waste of time, mostly due to
SK>the fact that the speaker (who came to speak on "inclusion") had a
SK>presentation geared for an introductory level audience, and we were
SK>past that stage, and would've appreciated a more advanced level
SK>presentation. But, several times throughout her presentation she
SK>refered to "research" that showed something or other, and I remained
SK>skeptical.
I hate it when I go to an inservice and it's geared at an introductory 
level.  It is a waste of time and of money.  In our district we have 
"workshops" that teachers can go to.  There are many to choose from and 
the workshop topics are taken from information complied by the district.  
They actually asked us what we wanted and needed in the way of 
inservices.  There is hope yet.....
SK>-> What, besides experience, drives your teaching beliefs?  What
SK>-> formed your approach to teaching?  Have you never been influenced
SK>-> by things you have read?
SK>Of course I have been influenced by things I've read. But, even when
SK>I read something, I maintain a healthy skepticism. Just because it's
SK>in print doesn't make me an instant believer. 
Nor does it me...
SK>Because I do not go
SK>around investigating all the research cited at the end of every
SK>article I read or every presentation or workshop I attend (who has
SK>the time, right?) I usually let common sense and personal experience
SK>in teaching be my guide, as I'm sure most teachers do. And if I've
SK>understood you correctly, this is also how you are proceeding. So, I
SK>read something, or I attend a workshop, the presenter/author suggests
SK>that this or that my be the reason for the other thing, and we could
SK>try these things to deal with the situation. I think back on all my
SK>teaching experiences, and realize that it does (or does not) seem to
SK>explain many things I have experienced in my teaching. If it seems
SK>worthwhile to me, I may try it out. It may become part of my teaching
SK>beliefs. I am also strongly influenced by colleagues who I respect.
Ditto (it's ok to use some dittos.....:)
SK>But I don't go around afterward trying to convince everyone that
SK>"this is the way", precisely because I know that I am not familiar
SK>enough the research to justify it. Now, I may tell someone that "in
SK>my opinion...." and that it is also backed by my experience. But I'd
SK>leave it at that.
Neither do I...I really do more asking of questions than I do of 
anything else (regarding educational issues) but in this forum, I think 
a healthy debate can lay bare all the points of a particular issue and  
one can fully measure one's thinking against the thinking of others.  I 
think a forum such as this echo invites the type of dialogue I have 
participated in.  I would hate to think you are suggesting that simply 
because one is passionate about what one believes in that they are on a 
par with someone who goes around saying "Im right and you're wrong."  
I know that it is common to preface or end some statements with IMO or 
IMHO but it seems obvious that if I am stating something that it is my 
opinion.  I have had some people say some unfair things to me (not here--
grin) and then say.."in my opinion of course."  It seems redundant and 
unnecessary.  I also don't think I said "this is the way" -- correct way 
to teach.....I have said "this is the way" that WL really looks like 
(theoretically).  I don't think I can say what is the best way to 
teach....but I can say what is and is not a WL belief.  So when I say 
that phonics is a part of a WL classroom (theoretically) I am not merely 
stating a belief, but a fact.  Now the degree to which phonics is a part 
of WL is another matter.  I also understand that when I say that WL is a 
better way to teach I am stating a personal opinion.  It is an opinion 
that many others share with me, but it is just an opinion. (However a 
correct one.....:)   
SK>My point has been, that that not withstanding, without scientifically
SK>controlled studies to back them up, wide-acceptance alone does not
SK>constitute proof or validity.
Yes....and I understand this point.  Ron has said the same thing and I 
can take no issue with this statement.  You are correct. 
 There have been many movements in
SK>education that were widely accepted at one time or another and later
SK>were discarded. Instead of taking that as a valid point, it seemed to
SK>insult you. 
Well....I'm sensitive...:)
You do mention the longevity of these ideas. While the
SK>researchers themselves did publish much of their work some time back,
SK>it has not become "widely accepted and popular" until more recently.
Probably true.....and it seems that there is a lot of work to do before 
WL gains the acceptance it deserves.  One fear I have is that some will 
continue to apply the WL practices without a firm understanding of WL 
theories. 
SK>Perhaps you will be right, and this will be an enduring movement in
SK>education. I don't know. I become doubtful, however, as I see more in
SK>the news around me about schools reverting to phonice.
I welcome this (I think phonics is important...but only one of the many 
cueing systems good readers employ) Could it be that in our fears of low 
test scores, we have found a convenient "thing" to blame and now we can 
take the heat off (by blaming WL)....and spend the next 5-10 years 
teaching in a way that is no better?  
   Of course, I
SK>think that is a shame, too. I don't really think what you are doing
SK>in your classroom is what the majority of people (outside of your
SK>mailing list) call "whole language". I think you are using, what good
SK>teachers have been doing since the little red school house days.
SK>Common sense and a good mixture of methods which includes phonics and
SK>exposure to much good literature.
Yes...I am probably more eclectic (and maybe a bit traditional...the 
educational language I grew up with) than many of the newer and fresher 
faces on the early childhood scene.  I think I'm still trying to find 
myself.  
SK>-> Good point..perhaps I need to be satisfied for myself and leave
SK>-> well- enough alone.
SK>You said it, not me! 
See ya....
Dan
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------