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 j9PM7nG26736; Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:07:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20051025220425.36326.qmail@web52901.mail.yahoo.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: Anita Landoll <amlandoll@yahoo.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:4961] Re: LD and intensive phonics X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Status: O Content-Length: 6941 Lines: 232 Hi, About the "sight words"... It seems to me that the "natural reader" does fine with even the most illogically spelled (in relation to its sound) sight word. I have thought about why, and have come to the conclusion that our brains decode the words to cause them to make sense. Thus busy becomes b short i/z long e/. Seems our decoding center just makes sense of the word. So, I think it is appropriate to help the struggling student "do the decoding" to get from the written spelling to the "sound spelling." And I think it is important that it be possible to do the process with any word the student needs to know in order to read any text. Anita www.learntoreadnow.com --- John Nissen <jn@cloudworld.co.uk> wrote: > > > Hello Robin, and everybody, > > Further to my email last night, it has been pointed > out that the major > barrier to reading for many people is in the > "blending", and this is why > synthetic phonics is so important. (The term > 'synthetic' arises from > putting together the sounds.) To quote: > > "A reader does not need to be good at rhyme or have > an awareness of onset > and > rime in order to be able to read. Decoding the words > all-through-the-word is > a process of sounding out and blending and having a > 'trained' ear to hear > the target word. Some children do not even need > special training as they can > 'hear' the target word straight away. The reading > process goes from print to > sound and that is where the knowledge and skill is > needed. > > "Breaking up a word into various sized phonic units > and an ability to be > able > to generate or hear rhymes is not a prerequisite for > being taught to read or > for being able to read. This manipulation of sounds > is more relevant for > future spelling and then beginners can be trained to > hear the individual > sound units all-through-the-spoken-word even if they > more naturally break up > a spoken word into larger units. > > "The reader needs to be able to recognise the letter > shapes and known > combinations of letters in order to translate them > into the sounds they > represent followed by sounding out and blending for > reading. > > "The reader should be able to do this with real or > nonsense words. It is > advantageous especially to a beginner when the word > is within their oral > vocabulary. > > "Research showing that children more readily break > up spoken words into > onset > and rime or syllables (manipulation of sound) is > nothing to do with the > processes of learning and being able to read! > > [end quote] > > Let us summarise our argument. > > "Phonological awareness" can be divided into the > analytic aspect and the > synthetic aspect. Robin, you have concentrated on > the analytic skill, for > breaking a spoken words into constituent sounds. > This can be a barrier for > writing, but not for reading, we argue. On the > other hand, the analytic or > "blending" skill, required to put the sounds of > letters together to make the > sound of the whole word, is the major barrier for > reading which has to be > surmounted. There are of course other barriers that > can hamper people, like > visual problems, memory problems, hearing problems > and comprehension > problems. But, we claim, it is a difficulty in > blending which is the major > cause of poor reading. The fact that in the > Clackmannanshire study there > were no non-readers is testament to our claim. > > Furthermore, we argue that anything which encourages > the learner to adopt a > whole word recognition approach, is going to detract > from the learning of > the blending skill. So the fewer the sight words > the better, during initial > learning. > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > John > > John Nissen > 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: "John Nissen" <jn@cloudworld.co.uk> > To: "Multiple recipients of list" > <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 11:56 PM > Subject: [NIFL-LD:4952] Re: LD and intensive phonics > > > > > > Hello Robin, > > > > Thank you for an excellent contribution to the > discussion. You raise a > > number of issues. > > > > 1. I agree with Tom that there are only around > four hundred common > > graphemes. I have got to a total around the 480 > mark , though I am > > continuously adding to the list, with obscure > spellings. I have an Excel > > spreadsheet, if anybody is interested. > > > > 2. It is interesting that the dyslexia 'rate' is > about half in Italy > > compared to UK, and I agree with you that this can > be put down to the > > language - the complexity of > spelling/pronunciation rules in English > > versus > > Italian. > > > > 3. However on the brain issue, I don't think > there has been a study > > showing > > the effect of teaching on the brain patterns. Can > we be sure that the > > 'dyslexic' has lost some brain function - an > anomaly as you call it? > > Perhaps, with a common approach to teaching, > common brain patterns will > > emerge. If so, that would support my thesis that > poor reading is the > > result > > of inadequate teaching. I'd like to see fMRI > research on this. > > > > Note that in the Clackmannanshire study of around > 300 children, taught by > > synthetic phonics, there were no non-readers! So > do we deduce there were > > no > > dyslexics? No dyslexia? What was going on? I'd > love to see fMRI on > > them. > > > > 4. You need to have very few sight words, when > you start teaching a child > > to read. 'I', 'the' and 'of' can get you a long > way. See my web page: > > > http://www.cloudworld.co.uk/teaching-synthetic-phonics.htm > > > > 5. The phonological awareness seems to be the > biggest hurdle to get over > > for many children, not the complexity of the > language: number of > > spelling/pronunciation rules, synonyms, multiple > meanings, size of > > vocabulary, morphology, etc. These complexities > can be introduced > > gradually, after the initial hurdles have been > overcome, and the children > > are reading simple stories, contrived to avoid > those complexities (see my > > story example at the end of the page). > > > > Cheers from Chiswick, > > > > John Nissen > > 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: <robinschwarz1@aol.com> > > To: "Multiple recipients of list" > <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 9:48 PM > > Subject: [NIFL-LD:4943] Re: LD and intensive > phonics > > > > > === message truncated === __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:56 EST