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 h6GGpU721498; Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <000e01c34bb9$072983a0$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:2421] A small point on reading theory 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: 4820 Lines: 93 Colleagues: Last year I was working with a group of adults who were reading at an intermediate level as determined by our program in our Basic Literacy program. In terms of the CASAS, their scores ranged in the low 200s. In terms of the LVA created READ, they scored on the C-D range on an A-F scale.This group was able to read short narratives of 2-3 pages in a given two-hour session. One story that they read was titled Good-Bye Television that includes the following paragraph: "I looked at my family. They were sitting quietly in front of the television set watching a football game. No one was talking. 'That is the way we act every night and every weekend!' [the mother] thought. 'We are in the same room, but we are never really together. I have to do something about this right now.'" The mother then shut the TV off, the family began to talk. Certain problems arose. The family began working on the problems and set a one-hour rule per day for the TV. It was an interesting lesson and raised a lot of discussion. We worked hard both on proficiently reading the text and probing the content. With this group, I may preview some words in advance. We'll read through the narrative. I'll note words with which they're having difficulty. I give time for students to sound them out. I try to hold back other students who want to jump in. We work through and continue probing the content of the narrative all the way through the lesson. At the end, I'll jot down the words on the white board that they had trouble with. We work on them by a) sounding them out, b) breaking them into syllables, c) or through sight word memorization. Then I'll do some drill activities with the words. Here's a question. In one of our stories the word "restaurant" came up. I wrote the word on the board. We began to sound it out. From what I remember they got "rest," and were working on the sounds in the last two paragraphs. Yet, they just couldn't put it together. I spent a few moments on working through the word, depending only on phonemic awareness clues, as I thought it was important for them to master that word in that way. I eventually gave up. I said it was a place where you can get something to eat. They got it immediately. In formal terms, I activated the schema that provided the context where they were able to get the word in a flash. Yet, I do think that the work we did on the sounds was important, which in a sense, resulted in the students "earning" the word, which the schema activation in this case, brought into focus. The broader question then is how does reading take place and what are the key relationships between top-down (whole language) and bottom-up (skill-based) processes? It is apparent to me that knowledge of the sound-sight relationship between the spoken and written word is an essential component of what makes a competent reader. How that knowledge comes to be, however, is no simple matter. In this case, what happened? I can't say for sure, but this is how I see it: a) In context, "they would have usually--but not always--and there's the rub--gotten that word. b) When I had isolated the word on the board, they had a block that wouldn't allow them to put the sounds together into a coherent whole, even though they accurately pronounced the individuals sounds. c) After getting the word via the context clue, they could then go back and look at the sound and letter combinations and thereby make a connection with the informal phonemic exercise we had taken on. That is, they could work background from what was now known to that which had been previously unknown. and make connections accordingly. That, in turn, would allow them to make sense of the letter and sound combinations, and perhaps draw a lesson or two, accordingly that they could transfer to another learning situation. Let me say that this group benefits by consistent work on phonemic awareness, though I would say that it is at least a worthy discussion on the extent to which phonics with them needs to be taught systematically and should essentially drive their instruction. They derive a great deal of value from the content of the materials we study, including that, which on occasion they create themselves. At the same time they need persistent work on a broad array of basic skills, which we incorporate. In short, to me, this calls for a balanced approach, such as advocated by P. David Pearson, Michael Pressley, and Victoria Purcell-Gates that allows for a certain fluidity in the instructional process. This opens space for a variety of approaches within a given range that respects students' needs for both content-driven and skills-based methodologies and materials. Perhaps others have a different way of looking at this episode. George Demetrion
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:14:42 EST