UNSCIENTIFIC STUDIES:
-
"Whole language" is typically endorsed by faulty research
termed "qualitative research" by its proponents
-
The results are "descriptive" – for example: "teachers
use phonics in whole language" is a "research finding"
-
There is no separation of groups that receive the experimental
treatment from "control" groups not receiving treatment that can be used
to compare outcomes
-
There are no definitive conclusions because there is nothing
to compare with
-
There does not appear to be any random assignment of subjects
(teachers/ schools/ students/ or programs) in such studies
-
Recent teacher training programs employ these "results"
to document effectiveness of whole language programs and to disparage phonics
-
School administrators seem unaware of the unscientific
nature of the studies
-
Many reading curricula are chosen by educators using outcomes
of this kind of "research"
-
Current teachers are frequently not trained to teach reading
effectively
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES:
-
Typically more balanced view of programs
-
The studies have long duration and are carefully designed
so that only one component of the reading program is changed at a single
time
-
There are always "control" groups that do not receive
the expermental treatment for the duration of the study, so that results
with and without treatment can be compared
-
Groups are carefully matched and the subjects of the study
(teachers/ schools/ students/ or programs) are randomly assigned
-
Study outcomes can be replicated if conditions are duplicated.
|
http://www.hishelpinschool.com
HOME