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 j3FJclG23224; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <010b01c5299e$ac8ab430$0202a8c0@Tomschoice> 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 Nissen" <jn@cloudworld.co.uk> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:4714] Re: Expanding Discussion on LD X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 9488 Lines: 247 Hello Rochelle, I think some lessons from the "phonics first and fast" approach can be applied more broadly. I have a degree in Natural Sciences, so I am always looking for a scientific basis for any theories. This for me is even stronger than "evidence based" theories. The "phonics first and fast" seems to me to have a good scientific explanation for its success. The Clackmannenshire study is evidence to support that explanation. I have a feeling that "educationalists" put more weight on the psychology of having the right "learning environment", and "suiting the teaching to the pupil", with such phrases as "every pupil is different". This has been called the "top down" approach, versus "phonics arguments" being bottom up. I have no objections to this. But I am always wanting to get at the fundamentals, which you find from examining the bottom up, and being as analytical as possible. And I have no worries that the learners might be discouraged by having "pure phonics", or "phonics too early", or an unduly "formal" introduction to reading, as some people have. For example, the second of the Commons Select Committee "conclusions" is: Reading for pleasure 2. Whatever method is used in the early stages of teaching children to read,we are convinced that inspiring an enduring enjoyment of reading should be a key objective. This can be endangered both by an overly formal approach in the early years and by a failure to teach decoding.(Paragraph 39) See http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Education/documents/2005/04/06/reading.pdf Cheers, John Cloudworld Ltd - http://www.cloudworld.co.uk maker of the assistive reader, WordAloud. Tel: +44 208 742 3170 Fax: +44 208 742 0202 Email: info@cloudworld.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: <RKenyon721@aol.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 4:11 PM Subject: [NIFL-LD:4712] Expanding Discussion on LD > > Hello all, > > Thanks to Susan for her comments. It reminds me that much of our > postings > are about reading and dyslexia. What about other specific learning > disabilities - in math, writing, non verbal, etc., etc.? Does anyone > have a program > that specifically deals with another aspect of LD as the primary focus? > > > Rochelle Kenyon > Moderator, NIFL-Learning Disabilities Discussion List > _RKenyon721@AOL.com_ (mailto:RKenyon721@AOL.com) > > > ----------------- > Forwarded Message: > Subj:[NIFL-LD:4710] Weaving silver bullets ... > Date:4/14/2005 4:03:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time > From:SUJones@parkland.edu > Reply-to:nifl-ld@nifl.gov > To:nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov > Sent from the Internet (Details) > > > > 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? > > 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