Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h55I7WC24917; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 14:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <006401c32b8b$d4f0b860$130101c8@workstation1> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion@lvgh.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2342] The Radical Middle & More X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2901 Lines: 61 Colleagues, A couple folks have asked me off-line for more information on P. David Pearson. Pearson speaks of the "radical middle" when it comes to reading theory and practice, the same perspective for early childhood that Victoria Purcell-Gates identifies for adults (i.e., the Balanced Approach). This notion is rejected by those adhering to a very strong phonemic first philosophy (reading theory by faith rather than science), but Pearson is one of the most astute reading specialists on the scene. Not that I'm well versed on Pearson, but I know enough. A good place to start is: http://www.readingonline.org/critical/houston/pearson.htm This is Pearson's presentation at the Critical Balances: Early Instruction for LifeLong Reading Conference held in Lansing, MI on May 16, 1997 It's not too long, but spells out his core ideas. To read the presentations of the other conference members, go to: (http://www.readingonline.org/critical/houston/mainsp.htm). In broad terms Pearson's work (along with that of Purcell-Gates in their "balanced approach") is congruent with EFF's Standard Read With Understanding. For those who are not obsessed with ideological zealotry, his work on balanced reading in search of the radical middle has the capacity to serve as a powerful heuristic in moving forward our collective thinking about reading theory and effective practice. This is the value of his work. He would be the first one to acknowledge that his views do not represent the gospel truth. BTW, Some of the more extreme phonemic first people have attacked the "balanced theory" as a code name for what they view as a discredited whole language theory. Nonetheless, I've never seen a point-by-point rebuttal of Pearson's research. It may exist, but I haven't seen it. Pearson also has a long reflective piece, called Reading in the 20th Century that I find illuminating. (http://www.ciera.org/library/archive/2001-08/200108.htm). This essay is a broad overview of the intellectual and political influences which have shaped the field of reading theory. It is must reading for anyone who wants to understand the genesis of 20th century reading theory. There's plenty in both of these pieces to stimulate the kind of reflective dialogue that many people are seeking. His reasoned analyses are worthy of due consideration, especially for a field (adult literacy education) that is yet only at an emergent stage of development-- a field that is threatened by a new orthodoxy, referred to as "evidence-based" research. One final thought. Pearson has a lot to say about reading theory and practice. The matter of how literacy is defined and the relationship between reading and writing processes to that of literacy (to say nothing of the definition of the latter) is another matter to which the EFF project as a totality seeks to address. George Demetrion george.demetrion@lvgh.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:14:38 EST