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 j3EMGAG26194; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <f41280f1aac2852e9f7f4ac82c6698a7@lmi.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: Maureen Carro <mcarro@lmi.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:4711] Re: Weaving silver bullets ... X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 9144 Lines: 233 My experience in a HS setting of "at risk" ( of dropout) adolescents is similar, although they were more successful at naming the sound when presenting the letter than they were naming the letter when presented the sound. That does not mean that they can process these connections at the level of automaticity however, which is what they need to do. So, I empathize with your distress! I agree that ownership is key. My adult students ( who had already been at the level of "failure in the real world"), were much more willing to do "anything if it helped them to read". Once in the program, they would often become angry that " no-one ever taught them this before". Adolescents are not so easy to sell, but I found that once they see it working for them, they too come around. It is challenge to bring them around, but they need to "own it" if it is to work successfully. We are social beings and I think "social context" is key to learning. I heard Patricia Kuhl speak at IDA conference in San Diego last year. Her research is with infants and her co-authored book is titled: Scientist in the Crib, What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind. In one of her experiments, her Japanese interns engaged in a play program with infants, speaking Japanese to them. Another group of infants was presented the same program with the same interns but on a large video screen. Patricia states that her interns actually thought that the video presentation would be more effective because the images were larger and the infants were closer. Just the opposite occurred. the infants in the video group, did not retain knowledge of Japanese phonemes any better than babies who were not exposed at all. The group with live interaction retained all the Japanese phonemes. I thought this was quite revealing as I have always thought human interaction was key. Maybe this can tell us something about "computer learning" as well! This may be especially true of adolescents for whom peer relationships are most important. When I am contacted for private instruction for teens, I often refer to a "Skills for Success" program that I know of, that uses social group activity to develop skills. My experience tells me it is important! On Apr 14, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Susan Jones wrote: > Almost all of my students with LDs in the middle/high school setting > knew their letter sounds reasonably well, though y & q sometimes had > slipped by them, which is why I was distressed by that little snippet > from the research that said that since a low percentage of adolescents > had *no* letter-sound knowledge, orthography, word recognition & > phonics > were not included in developmental reading. > > However, my little program included, from day one, a whole lot of > conversation about the how and why of what we were doing. Student > ownership of the process was explicitly incorporated into every step; > students at least had to have some idea why we were doing things this > way, not just because "this is good for you, it will work, I promise." > (For starters, of them had heard that line before!) > > The developmental education research is saturated with the importance > of the ownership part of success, and the importance of students' > forming of social groups that develop successful learning habits. I > tend to be a linear, do-you-have-the-skills thinker, which is okay > since > my job is to help 'em get the skills. However, I can't help but notice > that my success stories do, it would seem, come here as much to connect > with their friends (which they made here) as to learn the math. > > My setting is a little different than most of yours, but do you notice > the same thing? I'm wondering, too, if there's something about math > that > makes it easier to bond (in mutual aggravation), and that maybe that's > one reason I don't get as many people looking for help with reading. > It's more likely, I think, that a: it's socially okay to "need help" > in > math, but if you need help in reading, you must be "stupid," and b: > you > have lots and lots of problems for homework, instead of "write a > summary." > > > > > > > > > Susan Jones > Academic Development Specialist > Academic Development Center > Parkland College > Champaign, IL 61821 > sujones@parkland.edu > Webmastress, > http://www.resourceroom.net > >>>> mcarro@lmi.net 4/14/2005 1:10:24 PM >>> > John, > I agree that the synthetic piece is essential. In OG methods we DO > start with phonemic awareness and the synthetic piece (blending), > before the analytic ( decoding). We do it always > together.....synthesize/ analyze. Your description of "synthetic > phonics" sounds exactly like what we do.....to start! I also agree > that too many early reading curricula leave this out or do not > emphasize it, or, start with the analytic piece, thus the failure of > many readers. > > I also agree that we do not START with syllable types and morphology. > > That comes later in the continuum. Blending sounds sequentially to > form spoken words, and letters to form written words IS the fundamental > > "structure of language" , but there are many levels of "structure of > language". EG. sounds form syllables, syllables combine to make > words, words combine into phrases, phrases into sentences, sentences > into paragraphs, paragraphs into discourse! And everything goes > together in an "orderly" manner! > > The audience of this list is comprised of professionals working at all > > of these levels. Most work with adults who need "repair" at one or > more of these levels to become literate. I don't think any of us are > > in disagreement as much as we might not be "on the same page". > Sometimes we get tunnel vision! I don't doubt that your program is > successful....from the example I saw on the list it looks quite sound! > > Congratulations! > Maureen > > On Apr 14, 2005, at 2:52 AM, John Nissen wrote: > >> >> Hello Maureen, >> >> I think your analysis of failure is correct. That would explain the > >> success >> shown in the Clackmannenshire study as compared to "conventional >> phonics" >> taught in other schools, where both the "whole word recognition" > route >> and >> the "phonic decoding" route are tackled from the start. Research >> suggests >> that both routes are employed by experienced readers in parallel. >> However, >> in learning to read, starting with some whole words to recognise > only >> confuses the learner. For example, the National Curriculum in UK >> contains >> lists of words to be recognised at various stages of reading, and > many >> of >> the words for the first stage have irregular spellings (was, would, >> have, >> etc.). Essential to the Clackmannanshire approach was a quick start > on >> phonics, starting with regular spellings, and learning to read within > >> two >> terms as compared to two years expected in the National Literacy >> Strategy. >> Quick success must be a great motivator. And, as the learner's >> decoding >> speeds up, whole word recognition kicks in quite naturally. >> >> However, Maureen, I am not sure of the importance of bringing in the >> structure of the language at an early stage. When you learn an >> instrument, >> or learn to read music, you don't start with symphonies! >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> P.S. concerning the "two routes": the research suggests that, after >> you look >> at a word, the brain has recognition processes working in parallel, > and >> accepts the output from the path that first produces sufficient >> semantic >> connection to move onto the next word. One of the tests of this >> theory is >> to measure the disruption to reading when the text contains words > that >> sound >> rite but are spelt wrong and mean something else. Another test is > to >> measure the disruption from including words that are the right shape > >> but >> mronq spelling. Fascinating stuff. I'm sorry I don't have any >> references. >> I read about this research a few years ago now, under > neurolinguistics >> I >> think. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Maureen Carro" <mcarro@lmi.net> >> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:47 PM >> Subject: [NIFL-LD:4697] Re: Synthetic phonics a silver bullet? >> >> [snip] >> >>> What we cannot forget is that if a student cannot rapidly decode >>> words, >>> they cannot comprehend what they are reading! If they cannot > fluently >>> encode words, they cannot write in a way that they will be > understood. >>> This is what leads to failure. Students with reading/writing > problems >>> need explicit instruction in the structure of language. If they > have >>> some >>> information about six syllable types, prefixes, suffixes, and > roots, >>> they will have a good start to fishing on their own! >>> Let's not "dis" synthetic phonics! It is a necessary piece which > IS >>> typically left out of many early reading curricula. It may be a > good >>> place to start with young children, but to truly "read" we need it >>> all. It >>> IS a symphony! >> >> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:49 EST