[NIFL-LD:3822] RE: NIFL-LD:3810 NO Support for phonetic awareness

From: Lucille Cuttler (lu@projectliteracy.org)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2002 - 14:23:37 EST


Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0CJNb006197; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 14:23:37 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 14:23:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <LOBBICLOAFKBEPDBHIAJEENFDGAA.lu@projectliteracy.org>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "Lucille Cuttler" <lu@projectliteracy.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-LD:3822] RE: NIFL-LD:3810 NO Support for phonetic awareness
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;

Thanks, Art, and thanks, Ellie, for expressing yourselves so clearly.
Experience gives proof to the validity of all you say.  As director and
founder of Project Literacy/Outreach, Inc. we develop volunteers and/or
staff to use explicit, direct instruction, to teach the 44 sounds and
miscellaneous rules of English.   The method is kinesthetic, multisensory.
It derives from the teachings of Dr.Samuel Orton.  Equally important in the
training workshops to reinforce with lots of verbal encouragement.  When I
tutor, I make sure to tell the student constantly "you're doing fine!"
"great!"  and anything more to inspire confidence.  Truth is, those words
are accurate and true to the situation.  Right now I'm teaching Hispanic day
laborers English phonemic awareness.  They are reading, writing, and
spelling what we've taught to this point.  With this foundation securely in
place they will be able to use dictionaries. The curriculum will add oral
skills next.   Lucille Cuttler   www.projectliteracy.org

-----Original Message-----
From: nifl-ld@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-ld@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of
LELemke@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 9:43 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [NIFL-LD:3821] RE: NIFL-LD:3810 NO Support for phonetic
awareness


Dear Art,

I have found EVERYTHING you say below to be true.  As a teacher of students
with disabilities, I use the direct instruction method in teaching phonics
so
that my students will know the code.  But I am also so aware of the hurts my
students have from not being able to read as well as his/her peers, so
there's lots of "good word attack skills" and you go, girl/boy, that was
excellent reading..." and hugs....I probably shouldn't put that part out
here
in cyber space, but I'm sorry, my students come to me before school begins
JUST to start their day with a hug.  I've had students who are not in
special
ed ask me:  "Can I change into your class?" because along with teaching the
basics, we teach respect.  The students know they cannot laugh or make
derogatory remarks about another's reading, and thus they know they are in a
safe place where learning will happen without ridicule.   As for testing, I,
too, give little credence to its accurate interpretation of my students'
abilities.  We have the AR reading program in our school and the students
have to take a reading assessment on the STAR program.  If I stand next to
them as they take the test and periodically give encouraging remarks:  "You
are doing well..." etc, the students do better.  If I say nothing, I see
their frustration rise, and soon they're picking any answer just to get the
da...rn thing over with.  Also, the STAR program may think it checks for
comprehension, but I know if the student asks me what a word is, and I tell
him (which I'm not suppose to do....), he/she can then answer the question
correctly, and the score could end up being on grade level.  (I don't
explain
anything; I have just (as an "experiment" to me) pronounced the word(s).
The
same with adult learners.  The TABE test is wonderful IF the person can read
all the questions.  If not, it may say he/she needs to study a particular
area when, in fact, the student understands the topic but just couldn't read
the questions.  That is one reason why I go over the math and grammar
portion
with them after they have taken the test.  When we read it together, they'll
frequently say, "Oh, the answer is B..."  and be right.  This eliminates the
need for having them work on an area that they really know, and work, in
stead, on reading skills.

Whew, sorry this is so long, but, again, Art, I agree with you 100%.  There
is so much involved with teaching, and I feel sorry for those who think it's
merely disseminating info without taking in all the other ramifications.

Ellie Lemke
Huntsville, AL

(Art, I have relatives in North Georgia.  I'd love to meet with you sometime
when I'm in the area.)


In a message dated 1/9/02 1:01:00 PM, arthur@ellijay.com writes:

I believe "Phonetics" and its effects on reading capability is directly
related to several factors that are not connected to curriculum and
which further are not considered in any "research" that I'm aware of and
frankly I simply gave up trying to interpret current "research" and/or
apply such to my practice when I found that little of what was reported
as scientific fact actually held true in most situations.

Of the several factors that I've noted as participants one is
motivation.  Motivation can be and often is undermined by negative
emotions. Where "learning" is concerned the negative emotions are
usually set in place in the early school years when the child discovers
that his lack of progress (for whatever reason) results in embarrassment
and emotional pain.
The resultant is that the child avoids returning to that environment.
And I mean "avoids".  One way or the other the child will not
participate in an environment that is emotionally painful.  If we MUST
physically attend the environment then the possibility that the child
will mentally remove him/herself is extremely likely.  You may find
evidence of mental distraction specifically in the diagnostic criteria
for ADD and ADHD.

Second (not in any order) is repetetion.  If the necessary mental skill
repetetion doesn't occur to a degree that permits strong neural pathway
development then short term memory outlives it's usefulness and the
brain never incorporates the new information as anything usable nor does
it get transferred into long term memory where it may be used in the
evaluation or decoding processes involved in 'reading'.

Third is professional influence.  Negative professional influence can
and does quite often set up a system of self defeating thought
processing on the part of the child and the parent(s) and ultimately may
become the most daunting to overcome. Many many times professional
reports follow the child into adult-hood.  The quality of the
assessment, diagnosis, and narrative is totally dependent on the
capability of the assessor.  And I think you might agree with me when I
say that we all don't see to eye on many aspects of human brain
functioning.

Fourth is self concept.  If a child believes him/herself to be "learning
inadaquate" as a result of "professional advice or diagnosis" or
significant-other influence (parents as an example), it will take 5
times the work to disengage that pattern and open up or remove emotional
blackades to permit the "learning" sequences to begin.  Self concept is
also tied directly to the first three factors mentioned here.  One of
the primary reasons I address self-concept issues first as the highest
priority.

"Curriculum" could be considered at this point if all other factors have
received remedy.  And without a clear "understanding" of the decoding
processes for the language it is highly improbable that the student will
ever grow beyond his/her current level of expertise.  The truth is that
to be able to decode any language you must "know" the code and have
better than a casual association with the skills involved.  If you only
have a rudimentary understanding of the code, then you can only decode
at a rudimentary level.

At age ten I lost the ability to express my thoughts verbally and in
writing as a direct result of a head injury, reading was also affected
but to a lesser degree.  That was NO speech, NO writing, and minimal
reading. To bore you with the details of survival and reestablishment of
those skills would take more time than we have here.  Nonetheless, I
learned to speak again fluently and to write fluently following better
than 30 years of less than adaquate language reception and expression.
As stated before in other posts, at age 43 I began working with the
disabled population in a rehab setting, earned a masters in rehab
counseling and then went on to adult literacy.  I don't believe in LD,
ADD, ADHD, as PERMANENT situations.  I've just seen far too many
children and adults make complete turnarounds from those conditions and
resume normal functioning parameters in "learning" with quite a number
of those surpassing their peers in measured reading capability.  Nothing
is "black or white", fact is it's all gray and anything is possible.
Therefore I simply refuse to administer a limiting prognosis to ANY
human being regardless of their condition or capability (refer back to
factor # 3 and 4 above pls).

Art

Art LaChance
Gilmer Learning Center
Ellijay, GA



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:00:45 EST