Fair criticism of SP practitioner theory by Elsiep?

Moderators: Debbie Hepplewhite, maizie, Lesley Drake, Susan Godsland

elsiep
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Fair criticism of SP practitioner theory by Elsiep?

Post by elsiep » Sun May 24, 2015 12:56 pm

maizie wrote:
elsiep wrote:We have no idea. Children generally want to communicate. We know that. It would be interesting to find out if it's an innate desire or whether it's one that develops. But I can't see why that distinction is important enough to justify speculating about it.
maizie wrote:The distinction is important in this context because you are claiming that the innate/learned distinction is wrong.
I'm saying we don't know whether the desire to communicate is innate or learned, not that the distinction is wrong. If we don't know which it is we shouldn't be making assumptions about it.
maizie wrote:I don't see that you you can, on the one hand, castigate people for suggesting that there is a distinction, and then, on the other hand, say that the distinction is not important. It clearly is important in your eyes else you would not be making an issue of it.
I'm not saying the distinction is not important, I'm saying we can't assume it's one thing and not the other.
maizie wrote:I also think that you are conflating speech, language and communication. I would suggest that the only one of those three which is likely to be 'innate' is communication.
I know you've suggested that. I'm disagreeing with you.

That's because the evidence is ambiguous. It could be explained by babies having an innate drive to communicate. Or it could be explained by babies learning that they can communicate and enjoying doing that. What we know is that babies reach a point in their development where they actively seek to communicate. We can't assume that means it's an innate drive any more than we can assume it's something they've learned.

We're are both entitled to our opinions, but I'm not advocating the government require a particular approach to pedagogy because I happen to interpret the evidence in one way rather than another.


elsiep

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Re: Fair criticism of SP practitioner theory by Elsiep?

Post by maizie » Sun May 24, 2015 4:51 pm

elsiep wrote:We're are both entitled to our opinions, but I'm not advocating the government require a particular approach to pedagogy because I happen to interpret the evidence in one way rather than another.
So your objection to the requirement for SP to be taught is that some people are, in your opinion, making assumptions about matters which are completely peripheral to the actual instructional technique?

Because it matters not a whit whether speech is innate or learned, or whether infants are, or are not, aware, able to discriminate, conscious,unconscious or preconscious when talking of phonemes. These are interesting matters but not relevant to the fact that teaching how letters correspond to the sounds of the language and how to decode and blend has been shown by decades of research into the teaching of reading to be the most effective method of teaching the greatest number of children to read.

I have a feeling that in mediaeval times you would have been right on in there with the clerics arguing about how many angels could dance on a pinhead... ;-)

elsiep
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Fair criticism of SP practitioner theory by Elsiep?

Post by elsiep » Sun May 24, 2015 6:16 pm

maizie wrote:
elsiep wrote:We're are both entitled to our opinions, but I'm not advocating the government require a particular approach to pedagogy because I happen to interpret the evidence in one way rather than another.
So your objection to the requirement for SP to be taught is that some people are, in your opinion, making assumptions about matters which are completely peripheral to the actual instructional technique?
No. I'm saying teachers shouldn't use assumptions as support for SP. Or any other pedagogical approach. If these matters are completely peripheral to the actual instructional technique, why does Diane McGuinness go into such detail about them, why does Steven Pinker open his foreword to her book with a quotation about them, and why do SP proponents often justify the need to teach SP explicitly by referring to them?
maizie wrote:Because it matters not a whit whether speech is innate or learned, or whether infants are, or are not, aware, able to discriminate, conscious,unconscious or preconscious when talking of phonemes. These are interesting matters but not relevant to the fact that teaching how letters correspond to the sounds of the language and how to decode and blend has been shown by decades of research into the teaching of reading to be the most effective method of teaching the greatest number of children to read.
So why bring them into the equation as additional justification for the use of SP? Isn't the evidence shown by decades of research convincing enough?
maizie wrote:I have a feeling that in mediaeval times you would have been right on in there with the clerics arguing about how many angels could dance on a pinhead... ;-)
I would be the one asking the clerics why they were bringing angels and pinheads into any debate.


elsiep

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests