[NIFL-LD:3850] RE: NIFL-LD:3810 NO Support for phonetic

From: Nashansen@aol.com
Date: Sun Jan 20 2002 - 13:01:58 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 g0KI1wn08313; Sun, 20 Jan 2002 13:01:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 13:01:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <10e.b0b0eb2.297c5f5e@aol.com>
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: Nashansen@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-LD:3850] RE: NIFL-LD:3810 NO Support for phonetic
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 124
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Status: O
Content-Length: 2754
Lines: 60

In a message dated 01/17/2002 arthur@ellijay.com writes:

<<  I'm NOT looking for an argument here, "discussion" yes.  I am sorry Clif 
left
 the discussion and the list.  And I do respond quite well to "Shut-up Art".  
 >>


This NIFL article was very stimulating for me.  Wouldn't it be nice if we had 
some "pat answer" that would tell us exactly why a child "fell through the 
cracks" ... I agree with you about this message.

THE ABOVE:  You are far more generous than *I* would be saying publicly you 
are sorry Clif isn't on the list responding to the discussion.  Art - He 
doesn't **know** how to discuss!  Did he actually TELL you on-line to shut 
up????  The gall.

You also wrote:
<< I've used the McCarron-Dial Perceptual Memory Task (PMT) on several 
occasions at
a local level in the adult literacy classroom to verify that the visual,
auditory, and spatial capabilities were not dysfunctional in order to rule out
limitations in data handling / 'learning'. >>

What publishing house stocks this evaluation tool?  Is it an expensive tool 
and is it a standardized test that is accepted by the fed's?  I was told that 
the only way I was going to be able to get around TABE testing our adult 
learners is with a standardized test.

Next writing: 
<< We've all taught students who just never got it.  But why didn't they get 
it?
They could do a bunch of other stuff, why can't they do long division?  Years 
of
practicing erroneous procedures in long division, or any other brain dependent
skill, sets up indelible neural pathways that interfere with new information.
That's why I indicated that children can be brought back on track much quicker
than adults because the pathways are not so strong.  Adults require much 
support
and much repetetion of new skills simply to build the trust of usage required
before they will incorporate the new as replacements for the old.  And even
then, in times of stress (testing), they will often revert back to the old,
because it has stronger influence, even though it may be incorrect and they 
know
it. >>

This paragraph made *me* wonder if the child described in the first sentence 
really can get much out of an adult literacy program.  Do you think they can?

I *do* agree with your premise that "adults reauire much support and much 
repetition" because that's one of the factors Laubach's written materials 
use.  Sometimes it's very hard for me to get the tutor whose excellent 
reading capabilities make his/her want to push forward without repetition 
activities the next tutoring session.  Testing???  That last sentence is why 
I'm fighting TABE testing as required by the S.D. Dept. of Labor for the 
minimal amount of funding we received.

Thanks for sharing your ideas.

Nancy Hansen



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:13 EST