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 g2EEmPu22038; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:48:25 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:48:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <973A8A3969EF064B8C462506CBA8D459106860@muxc02.marshall.edu>
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: "Guyer, Barbara" <guyerb@Marshall.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-LD:3948] RE: the ceiling effect
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Status: O
Content-Length: 10988
Lines: 193
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--Boundary_(ID_/+8M6J5MWgOswqJ9mkYtKQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Dear John,
I read your interesting letter to Mr. Willard, and I thought you might
be interested in some research that we conducted here regarding phonemic
awareness and the whole work approach. We had one group of college students
with dyslexia and received remediation using the Wilson Reading System (a
multi-sensory phonetic approach) The second group of college students who
also had dyslexia had remediation using a nonphonetic approach. The group
using the WRS made significantly more imprvement than the group receiving
the nonphonetic approach. The third group received no intervention at all.
Since then, I have been sold on a multi-sensory phonetic approach. After
participating in a summer program, the mean grade level of performance in
spelling was 8.0. This was in the Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 43, 1993. P.
186-193. The title was "Spelling Improvement for College Students Who Are
Dyslexic". If you will give me your address, I'll be glad to mail you a
reprint.
I might add that we have been using the Wilson Reading System plus other
workbooks, etc., as seems appropriate with each individual student, and it
is not unusual to have students reading/spelling on a 12th grade level after
2-3 years of individual remediation. If you have other questions, please
let me know. Barbara Guyer, Director, H.E.L.P., Marshall University.
-----Original Message-----
From: john.makay@excite.com [mailto:john.makay@excite.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:50 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [NIFL-LD:3946] the ceiling effect
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 d! ecisions?
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
_____
--Boundary_(ID_/+8M6J5MWgOswqJ9mkYtKQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=640181714-14032002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Dear
John,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=640181714-14032002> <FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I read your interesting letter to Mr. Willard, and I
thought you might be interested in some research that we conducted here
regarding phonemic awareness and the whole work approach. We had one group
of college students with dyslexia and received remediation using the Wilson
Reading System (a multi-sensory phonetic approach) The second group
of college students who also had dyslexia had remediation using a
nonphonetic approach. The group using the WRS made significantly more
imprvement than the group receiving the nonphonetic approach. The
third group received no intervention at all. Since then, I have been sold
on a multi-sensory phonetic approach. After participating in a summer
program, the mean grade level of performance in spelling was 8.0. This was
in the Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 43, 1993. P. 186-193. The title was
"Spelling Improvement for College Students Who Are Dyslexic". If you will
give me your address, I'll be glad to mail you a reprint.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=640181714-14032002> <FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I might add that we have been using the Wilson Reading
System plus other workbooks, etc., as seems appropriate with each individual
student, and it is not unusual to have students reading/spelling on a 12th grade
level after 2-3 years of individual remediation. If you have other
questions, please let me know. Barbara Guyer, Director, H.E.L.P., Marshall
University.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> john.makay@excite.com
[mailto:john.makay@excite.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:50
AM<BR><B>To:</B> Multiple recipients of list<BR><B>Subject:</B> [NIFL-LD:3946]
the ceiling effect<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Dear Mr. Willard, <BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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 d! ecisions? <BR><BR>By the way, in reference to the "ceiling"
effect, does the following graphic information at
<BR>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? <BR><BR>Remember please, that any "scraps"
you can throw our way may possibly help the 1500 students we serve in our
program each year. <BR><BR>John Makay <BR>ACE Instructor <BR>Baltimore City
Community College <BR>600 E. Lombard St. <BR>Baltimore, MD 21202 <BR>(410)
986-5430 <BR>john.makay@excite.com <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<HR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_/+8M6J5MWgOswqJ9mkYtKQ)--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:15 EST