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 g94B7FX10174; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 07:07:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <002201c26bae$95b45460$e0255544@ewndsr01.nj.comcast.net> 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: Ujwala Samant <usamant@comcast.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:8097] Re: the phoneme debate X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Status: O Content-Length: 457 Lines: 13 Joe, As far as I am concerned, we need both, phonics and whole word. But I agree with Charles that phonics teaching needs to be included in whole language reading, not to replace it. I also agree with you that a lack of training in how to teach phonics can make it disastrous, as I've seen in some classes. What I still find unpalatable is the need to promote one over the other or at the expense of the other, as if they were opposites. regards Ujwala
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:44:23 EST