[NIFL-LD:3946] the ceiling effect
From: john.makay@excite.com
Date: Thu Mar 14 2002 - 08:50:20 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 g2EDoKu19785; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:50:20 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:50:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20020314134805.974CC3E01@xmxpita.excite.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: "john.makay@excite.com" <john.makay@excite.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-LD:3946] the ceiling effect
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Mailer: PHP
Status: O
Content-Length: 3406
Lines: 29
Dear Mr. Willard,
I am a new member of NIFL-LD list.serv and was fascinated by the intellectual discourse last fall in reference to the issue of phonetic awareness. I am presently a student at Johns Hopkins University and finishing my masters. I also am with in an ABE program at our local community college. Presently, I am looking at research around the country in order to propose modifications for our ABE program. The issues that you raised seem to have relevance in our effort, and therefore, I am seeking your and others’ advice.
First, I have I read the entire string of conversations “no support for phonetic awareness” and it apparently is quite a heated discussion with possibly a lot at stake in the case of publishing companies and others who seem to be backing one horse these days. First, I was fascinated by the 5.9 reading level ceiling that you report in the majority of your clients with dyslexia, and I was wondering if you know of any studies to back your observations? I have done only a cursory Internet search to date, and thought you might give me some leads before I headed to the library. I am not too savvy at research so any help would be greatly appreciated.
If what you propose is true, how might one use this information to modify literacy programming that serves the general population? Remember, this is hypothetical so don’t worry about any rash policy “knee jerking” from any of your comments. In this imaginary world I am creating, should we continue providing OT instruction to our low level readers but rethink our strategy for others who are reaching this ceiling? Do all our students need to be formally diagnosed before we look at such strategies? Is there any particular point in the educational process that accommodation should be more emphasized? Finally, I am curious how other literacy programs sequence their instructional processes? For example, what programs are being used for what levels and why? And finally, how would we best look at our data to understand our population better? In other words, what data is paramount in collecting to help us better serve the individual needs of students and make programmatic decisions?
By the way, in reference to the “ceiling” effect, does the following graphic information at
http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/adlitUS/Page151.htm support your claim. This comes from Thomas Sticht’s report titled Adult Literacy in the United States: A Compendium of Quantitive Data Interpretive Comments. In this graphic, reading levels seem to plateau at grade level 4.5 in these programs that “used Literacy Volunteers of America, Laubach Literacy, or “eclectic” approaches to literacy instruction.” I am unfamiliar with these programs as I am an ESL instructor dabbling in another area. Therefore, I do not know how to interpret the data correctly. Can you tell me what this means and its relevance to literacy programming if possible?
Remember please, that any “scraps” you can throw our way may possibly help the 1500 students we serve in our program each year.
John Makay
ACE Instructor
Baltimore City Community College
600 E. Lombard St.
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410) 986-5430
john.makay@excite.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:15 EST