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 j2NKR1G21549; Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:27:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:27:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <LOBBICLOAFKBEPDBHIAJAEFFFNAA.l.cuttler@comcast.net> 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" <l.cuttler@comcast.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:4673] RE: OG and ... long :-)... reading in college settings... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 5257 Lines: 127 I appreciate and heartily agree with your thoughtful observations and comments, Susan. We learn to read (to decode), so we can read to learn. Adults I've tutored have always been thrilled to finally break the code and read - even the simplest sentence. Let's consider integrating all methods. Learning styles differ and as teachers we should know as many approaches as possible. Lucille Cuttler -----Original Message----- From: nifl-ld@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-ld@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of Susan Jones Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 12:12 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-LD:4671] OG and ... long :-)... reading in college settings... There are many other adaptations for classroom settings, too, besides Slingerland. Good training * especially getting to watch somebody do it in a classroom setting, with the kinds of students who will be embarrassed and hesitant at some of the activities * can make the difference between success & floundering. See if there's somebody out there who could be a mentor, even if long distance, or figure out specific strategies at your/their comfort level and apply them consistently. In my experience, it's the practice of the skill that matters an awful lot * practice so that you're no longer feeling "funny" about doing it, it's just working. It's spring break here, and I've only got a handful of students dropping by (but yes, they do!), so I'm doing some reading and background for a summer project I've had funded to develop modules for our learning lab, to try & improve success in our entry-level reading courses. There's a placement test of the computer-assessment multiple-choice type; when a section of students were also giventhe Gates-McGinitie, they clocked out between 5th & ninth level (the brilliant teacher leaves the word "grade" out of that value-laden phrase). Interestingly, I did finally find a mention of the P word (phonics) in the literature. The article (_College and Precollege Reading Instruction: What are the Real Differences_) asserted that most reading teachers are trained in reading pedagogy, not andragogy (teaching children, not adults) and that there were important differences * an excellent topic. I was a bit nonplussed by this, though: "According to recent studies, the number of students with no knowledge of sound-letter relationships is only about 6 % of the adolescent population. (Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1993). For this reason, college reading is usually not concerned with orthography, phonics, and word recognition." So... if you have **some** knowledge of sound-letter relationships, we can just skip over the whole word recognition issue? I'd like just a *tad* more rationale than that, personally. I understand the desire to make sure we don't teach adults with their adult brain matter in the same way as we teach children, but this seems to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I understand that reducing reading to decoding would be a grave mistake; seems that excluding decoding from the equation, though, is equally grave, without first having some backup for the assumption that it is not part of the problem for some of these students. THe idea that there *could* be a special reading course for reading disabled students is mentioned, which would include these elements * but it's dismissed in the same sentence as "an exception." Susan Jones Academic Development Specialist Academic Development Center Parkland College Champaign, IL 61821 sujones@parkland.edu Webmastress, http://www.resourceroom.net >>> l.cuttler@comcast.net 3/22/2005 9:57:06 PM >>> Hi Michele, Orton/Gillingham can be adapted to be used in classroom settings. It's called the Slingerland method. When used in primary grades it provides a firm foundation in how the 44 sounds of English are formed from 26 alphabet letters. You can find training in O/G by going to the International Dyslexia Association to find a branch near to you. O/G is just another tool for all teachers to use. We need all we can get. The writer was founder and director of a literacy program training volunteers in O/G. The premise was that any students needing help could benefit, with or without a diagnosis of dyslexia. This tool, combined with skill and devotion and the passion to help did help hundreds of students. And we never used any labels. Lucille Cuttler -----Original Message----- From: nifl-ld@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-ld@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of Michele Anne Craig Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 6:38 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-LD:4662] How to find out about LD screening tools Dear list, Someone in reply mentioned the Washington 13. Is this an screening tool that can be used by someone who is not an LD specialist? Where do I find it? (I did a Google search with little luck). Also, I have read books about the Orton Gillingham, but maybe I need more training in this because I have a hard time in a classroom setting getting students to use the tactile/auditory (which is usually what they need most) because they seem to become embarrased. Do others do this in a classroom setting or is the Orton Gillingham approach usually used in one on one tutoring? Michele > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:48 EST