Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i1CK6gI21961; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:06:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:06:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1A31ED15.356639DB.0AB94E44@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AndresMuro@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:989] phonics vs whole language theory and research X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 6892 Lines: 71 I posted this earlier but did not seem to go through. I'm trying again. Dear Tom, Jackie and all: Let me sincerely apologize for my rude display. What I want to do is address the issue of phonics vs whole language on scientific evidence about language processing. I will make this explanation very easy, understanding that many don't have background in anatomy and physiology. Imagine the brain as the language procession center with three distinct areas. These three areas are the points of a triangle. So, to be didactic, draw a triangle. it is necessary for the explanation to work. Name one point visual area, another point sound area, and another point, motor area. visual area is responsible for sight word recognition. sound area is responsible for recognition of sounds, phonics motor area is responsible for movement, writing and speech. The sides are cables that connect the areas to each other through electrical signal, just like a car. In most people all the cables are working in order, so language can be processed correctly. Now, imagine that you remove one area. Lets start with the visual area. this causes blindness and this person will not be able to learn words by sight word recognition. Yet, properly taught, the person will learn language through sounds, and will be able to spell and read. This supports phonics Now, put the visual area back, and remove the sound area. this causes deafness, and the person will not be able to hear words. Properly taught, this person will be able to see, spell and read. This supports sight word recognition. Last, remove the motor area. this causes paralysis. The person, will be able to read, hear and recognize, but will not be able to speak, or write. Most people have all three areas working, and will be able to learn with either approach, just like a blind and a deaf person can learn. Now, try a different thing on the triangle. Leave the points intact, but remove one of the cables. This causes what is usually called dyslexia. Remove the connection between the sound area and the motor area. the person will be able to hear words, but not be able to sound words and write them. This person will need a sight word program to learn to read and spell properly. Romove instead the connection between the visual and the motor area. The person will see words, but will not be able to spell sighted words properly. This person will need a phonics program to be able to read and write properly. A reading diagnostician will be able to assess the learners needs and determine if there is an impairment that requires one or the other approach. So, dyslexia is not caused because one approach is better than the other, but because one approach, or the other may be neglected. So, both approaches are necessary to allow people with one or the other disability to learn. I hope that this is clear so far, and as far as I know, it has not been scientifically refuted yet. So, it stands. Therefore, anyone who speaks against sight word learning, or phonics learning is not being scientific since both approaches are valid and necessary. Now, lets explore this further. Assessment of adults shows that most adults in the USA can recognize, read and spell single words. So, it is obvious that the ability of schools to teach the basics should not be questioned, since most adults aquired the very basics. Where is the problem? The problem is with lack of formal logic, or what Piaget call formal operational period. this refers to statements like: God is love, love exists, therefore god exists. All humand can talk, Andres is a human, Andres can talk All squares have 6 sides, this is a square, therefore this has six sides. Most adults can recognize every single word in these three statements, they can spell them, they can read them, but they may have difficulty understanding the sentences and processing them. The sentences work at two levels. One, is making logical statements, and the second is making sure that each section in the entire statement is correct allowing to draw proper conclusions. So, all three sentences have perfect logic. However, the sections in the last sentence are incorrect. So, while the logic is correct, the conclusion is wrong and so are the premises. With the first statement, the logic is also correct, but the premises are questionable, and so is the conclusion. The ability of adults to process written language in this way is what is at question in the assessments that have been done. So, talking about sight word recognition and phonics is irrelevant to the discussion of language acquisition needs. the focus is on getting learners to work on logic, not on phonics or word recognition. Research recommends that children are exposed to rich, complex and varied literaature to develop their logical abilites, not phonics, and sight word recognition. Lets explore another level, the one of learning, context and interference. Do not try this at home. If you take a child, you give her a something to learn, and you shock the child with electricity while she is trying to learn, she will most likely not be able to do it. Take the same child, give her a learning task and make noise in the background. Child will not be able to learn. Take this to the real world. Imagine a child with a cavity, at home trying to recognize words either through phonics or by sight. Now, imagine the same child in a tenement in south bronx with four brothers and sisters screaming in the same room. The evidence extrapolated from the experiment is that context affects learning regardless of how we teach. So, we need to explore the issue of context. All this is based on scientific evidence. For scientific evidence to refute any of the above, an experiment needs to be conducted that demonstrates the oppossite. For example, if someone can show me that a deaf person, or a person with damage to the sound area connections learns to read through phonics then, the above research will be rendered invalid. Also, If someone can demsonstrate that a blind person can learn through sight word recognition, the above stuff will be rendered invalid. If someone can show that children that are only exposed to phonics can understand complex logical statements, then the research will be rendered invalid. If someone can show that children can learn while being shocked by electricity, then the above will be rendered invalid. anything else that people repeat about whole language vs phonics is meaningless political propaganda. Tom, and others, I hope that his was clear and understandable. If anyone did not understand any part of it and needs clarification please let me know. If anyone knows of research that refutes the above, please post it and explain it in clear concise terms. Andres -- go here: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html go here: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:38 EST