SHEILA KING spoke of An Explanation        2/2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 12-07-
96
SK>-> SK> Trendy methods cited in college books doesn't necessarily
SK>-> impress me SK> either.
SK>-> First the research is called "worthless" and now the methods I
SK>-> cite are called "trendy."
SK>I did not call the research you were citing either "worthless" or
SK>"trendy". I do not know enough about it to call it anything. I was
SK>speaking hypothetically about some research that is, at any point in
SK>time, widely accepted and popular. You have characterized the
SK>research you have cited as being popularly taught in early childhood
SK>ed. That _may_ qualify it as trendy, although not necessarily.
It seems to me that we should expect teachers of tomorrow to be taught 
ideas that are sound and well-supported by research.  I am suggesting 
that this is the case here...sound ideas supported by research.  
 My
SK>point was, largely, that simply the fact that it is being taught and
SK>accepted everywhere does not convince me. If I recall correctly, you
SK>were using the fact that it is widely taught and accepted to somehow
SK>convince me of its worthiness? This is not a validity criterion for
SK>me with regard to research, although I suppose it might help in some
SK>instances.
Agreed.....that is what I was trying to show.  However, you are right 
that a particular practice being widely taught in college textbooks is 
not valid criterion with regard to research.  
SK>You seem to miss the generalizations and take it personally.
I told you I was sensitive...but the implication seem to be 
there...Charles (I think or was it Ron--I get those two skeptics mixed 
up) said worthless (in reference to the research I cited) and you did 
use the word trendy regarding the WL practices (I think we were 
discussing invented spelling ).  I realize you say you were speaking 
generally but we were discussing a specific concept and I naturally made 
the assumption that you were calling it "trendy."  
SK>-> I am impressed when I read college text books and professional
SK>-> journals and books I have relating to literacy learning and they
SK>-> all agree on many things regarding early childhood teaching
SK>-> practices. Why shouldn't this be found impressive?
SK>I don't know. Why should we be impressed that at other points in time
SK>numbers of educators have agreed on certain things and later these
SK>ideas were abandoned?
Good question...and a troubling one as well....
Take care...
Dan
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------