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 j3FNnXG29095; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:49:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:49:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <60.539d6503.2f91acd6@aol.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: RKenyon721@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:4716] Fwd: [NIFL-LD4714] Re:Expanding Discussion on LD X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Status: O Content-Length: 2763 Lines: 71 Hello John, Thank you for your response. I do agree that all the comments and questions to the list have broad application in our field working with adults. I also know that as a field we work on self-advocacy, social skills, math, organizational skills, and on - and on - and on, etc. I would like to open the discussion from reading into other deficit areas our learners might experience. Would someone like to share information about programs and services that your school/agency offers that involve other content areas? Thank you, Rochelle Kenyon Moderator, NIFL-Learning Disabilities Discussion List _RKenyon721@AOL.com_ (mailto:RKenyon721@AOL.com) ----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj:[NIFL-LD:4714] Re: Expanding Discussion on LD Date:4/15/2005 3:41:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time From:jn@cloudworld.co.uk Reply-to:nifl-ld@nifl.gov To:nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sent from the Internet (Details) 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.p df 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_ (mailto:info@cloudworld.co.uk)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:49 EST