Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g8BMQAX26921; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 18:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <000001c259e1$d1426be0$6903d5cb@robyn> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Robyn Williams" <robynwi@tpg.com.au> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:7975] Re: Second Thoughts on Phonemic Awareness? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 3439 Lines: 95 I have been following this site's debates re phonemic awareness with great interest. I have recently re-commenced studies in Adult Literacy in Australia. As a volunteer, many years ago, we were instructed in the whole-language approach. Whole-language is also strongly promoted in my degree with phonemic awareness being almost denigrated by some lecturers. However, I have found when working with teenagers with very low skill levels, it is difficult not to revert to some instruction in phonetics. My question is - do you know of any research tracking the differences in needs from young children, teenagers and adults? Regards Robyn W -----Original Message----- From: nifl-esl@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-esl@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of John Nissen Sent: Wednesday, 11 September 2002 12:15 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-ESL:7960] Re: Second Thoughts on Phonemic Awareness? Hi Charles, >From green box on p72 of Sci Am: "During the 1990s many educators in America abandoned the traditional "phonics" method of reading instrution: teaching children directly the correspondences between spoken sounds and the letters that represent them. Instead elementary school teachers turned to various "whole-language" methods, by which students learn the connections between letters and sounds incidentally in the course of literature-based activities. Evaluations of the effectiveness of the two methods have shown that children become skilled readers much more readily when their instuction includes phonics. Modern research in psychology and linguistics helps to explain why this is so." The authors describe some research which concludes that: "the process of mentally sounding out words is an integral part of silent reading, even for the highly skilled". The article concludes: "Teachers obviously need to strike a balance [between phonics and other approaches]. But in doing so, we urge them to remember that reading must be grounded in a firm understanding of the connections between letters and sounds. Instructors should recognize the ample evidence that youngsters who are directly taught phonics become better at reading, spelling and comprehension than those who much pick up all the confusing rules of English on their own. Educators who deny this reality are neglecting decades of research. They are also neglecting the needs of their students." Cheers, John -- In message <000c01c25868$90f343e0$09150785@fedu.fukuiu.ac.jp> nifl-esl@nifl.gov writes: >JN wrotes: > >>For a definitive article on the subject, see Scientific American >> March 2002 "How Not to Teach Reading". I had done some research >> myself last year, and wrote a paper which you can read on my website; >> but this Sci Am article puts in perspective the danger of taking >> a certain approach, apparently popular in the US (and at one time >> popular in the UK > >John > >Could you just give us a summary of the Scientific American article? I've >seen some pretty bad science articles in that magazine over the years, >especially on topics that fall out of the 'hard' sciences, so I wouldn't be >surprised if an article on 'science of reading' in SA wasn't very good. > >Charles J > > -- Access the word, access the world! -- Try our WordAloud software!! John Nissen, Cloudworld Ltd., Chiswick, London Tel: +44 (0) 845 458 3944 (local rate in the UK) Fax: +44 (0) 20 8742 8715 Web: http://www.cloudworld.co.uk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:44:20 EST