Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9L1xd913710; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:59:39 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:59:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20001020.215631.9294.0.GDEMETRION@juno.com>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "GEORGE E. DEMETRION" <gdemetrion@juno.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:206] John Sabatini <sabatini@literacy.upenn.edu>: NLA Discussion:
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Juno 1.49
Status: O
Content-Length: 10271
Lines: 222
To Anne Murr and others. Anne, let me respond at this time indirectly by
forwarding John Sabatini's message he posted on the NLA list. I'm also
pressed with various assignments, but will attempt a response as I can.
In brief, I take little issue with the following statement by John:
"As mentioned in Nickie Askov's response, balanced, broad literacy
instruction (reading and writing and more) as advocated by IRA but
tailored to adult learners is, I hope, everyone's conception of
appropriate instruction. There is, nonetheless, much "contested ground"
about how and where to strike that balance."
More, later
George
--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: John Sabatini <sabatini@literacy.upenn.edu>
To: nla.nla@world.std.com
Subject: NLA Discussion: Policy and instructional practice
Date: 18 Oct 2000 16:54:02 -0400
Message-ID: <200010190451.AAA10812@europe.std.com>
Reply to: RE: NLA Discussion: Policy and instructional
practice
Thank you Tom and others for raising this issue.
In reading the legislation, I also noted the 6 or 7 mentions of the
instructional practices. I have also examined the NRP report (it is a
long read for anyone). I have also conducted research on adult reading
processes, and specifically on decoding and word recognition abilities -
the issue at the core of research on the development of basic reading
skills of children underlying the NRP report.
[By the way, The Snow, Burns, & Griffin report is an important companion
piece to this discussion (Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.).
(1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.) It can be found at the National Academies
Press website (books.nap.edu).]
I have much to say on this topic. I had hoped to be brief, but failed in
my attempt.
We are only beginning to collect the research necessary to understand the
reading processes of poor reading adults. Many do have specific
difficulty with automatic word recognition, that is, recognizing even
familiar words rapidly and without effort, even if their functional
comprehension is relatively better in specific domains. A number of
researchers, including myself, have found many similarities in the
profiles of children and adults with reading difficulties when it comes
to basic decoding, spelling, and reading speed, as well as significant
differences from children's profiles. (ESOL is a completely different set
of patterns and profiles.)
The relationship of "phonemic awareness" to adult reading development and
instruction is much less clearly established than it is for young
children. In fact, the research identifying the implications of
"phonemic awareness" instruction to children above Grade 2 or 3 is still
sketchy, especially when one considers that phonemic awareness is
reciprically related to the reading instruction one receives in schools
(that is, one only achieves advanced phonological analysis skills when
one learns to read in school). It is my judgment that there will be
implications for adult reading - it is premature to say we understand
them.
Whether and when such reading difficulties should be assessed and treated
as specific reading disabilities is a central part of the research,
practice, and policy context that we must address in the coming years.
We still do not have enough evidence to know how best to define, assess,
and provide services for reading difficulties/dyslexia/disability in
adults (though we're better thanks to the good work of NALLDC). The
issues of reading development in adults and reading difficulties should
not be addressed as if they are not interrelated in policy and practice.
As mentioned in Nickie Askov's response, balanced, broad literacy
instruction (reading and writing and more) as advocated by IRA but
tailored to adult learners is, I hope, everyone's conception of
appropriate instruction. There is, nonetheless, much "contested ground"
about how and where to strike that balance.
Which brings me to the claims of "scientific". Though I largely agree
with the major themes of the NRP report and have read enough of the
reviewed research to make my own judgments, I also agree that they
defined their "scientific" criteria too rigidly and implied that all
the 100,000 reading research studies including all qualititive studies
did
not inform the knowledge base on how to teach literacy. There are
plenty of positivist overtones to complain about in the report and in the
heavy handed use of the term "scientific". The Snow report strikes a
better balance.
Finally, to the policy statements. I know of no "scientific" studies
comparable to those cited in the NRP report that prove that instructional
practices that have been successful in helping children with reading
difficulties to improve their reading, will be equally effective in
helping adult literacy learners. On this criteria, the policy statements
overstep their bounds.
Do I support more professional development, more attempts at applying
such instructional methods, and more rigorous research to find out
whether and what works? Yes. I think we will find support for
generalizing some of the findings, but adapted to theories and practices
of how adults learn.
Should we start a national program implementing instruction "proven to be
effective in teaching individuals to read"? Only if we are willing to
violate another tenet of "scientific" research - generalizing from
research conducted with one population (early childhood preK to 2nd
grade) to another (adult).
Best,
John
John Sabatini, Ph. D. Philadelphia, PA 19104
National Center on Adult Literacy (NCAL) (o)215-898-4539;(fax)9804
University of Pennsylvania email:
sabatini@literacy.upenn.edu
Thomas Sticht wrote:
>
>David: I hope the NLA list members may provide comments on the
>following. >
>Tom Sticht
>
>Policy Issues Related to Adult Literacy Instructional Practices
> >On March 6, 2000 I posted a message on the NLA list noting
that the 1998
>Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) extends adult literacy
>education funding policy into prescriptions for the actual practice of
>adult education. The text of the AEFLA emphasizes that in considering
>applications for grants from educational providers, granting agencies
>should consider whether or not the program "…uses instructional
>practices, such as phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency, and
>reading comprehension that research has proven to be effective in
>teaching individuals to read." It refers to these instructional
>practices six times throughout the AEFLA.
>
>About a month later, on April 13, 2000 the National Reading Panel
>mandated by the U.S. Congress issued a press release about its report
>on teaching reading to children. The press release included the
>following:
>
> "Quote: National Reading Panel Reports Combination of Teaching Phonics,
>Word Sounds, Giving Feedback on Oral Reading Most Effective Way to Teach
>Reading
>
>In the largest, most comprehensive evidenced-based review ever conducted
>of research on how children learn reading, a Congressionally mandated
>independent panel has concluded that the most effective way to teach
>children to read is through instruction that includes a combination of
>methods.
>
>The panel determined that effective reading instruction includes
>teaching children to break apart and manipulate the sounds in words
>(phonemic awareness), teaching them that these sounds are represented by
>letters of the alphabet which can then be blended together to form words
>(phonics), having them practice what they've learned by reading aloud
>with guidance and feedback (guided oral reading), and applying reading
>comprehension strategies to guide and improve reading comprehension. End
>Quote" More information about the National Reading Panel is available at
>the panel's web site, http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org.
>
>In my earlier posting I noted that many adult educators in workshops I
>had conducted on Listening and Reading Processes of Adults were not
>familiar with phonemics and phonics. Of some 247 participants, of whom
>45 to 76 percent were teachers, depending on the particular site, 38-70
>percent said that this new emphasis upon phonemics, phonics , etc. was
>"Very important" to their classroom teaching or tutoring. Yet, 38-79
>percent said they had never received training in teaching or tutoring
>phonemic awareness and 31-59 percent said they had no training in
>teaching phonics. >
>The policy issues I am interested in are >
>(1) should federal or state adult literacy education funding legislation
>include policy related to instructional practice, >
>(2) should adult educators who work in adult literacy education be
>required to attend staff development education for certification in the
>conceptual understanding of the relationships of oral and written
>language, including how to teach phonemic awareness and phonics, how to
>help students develop fluency and how to increase listening and reading
>comprehension, >
>(3) should special funding be provided for supporting this type of staff
>development and
>
>(4) would this include ESOL educators?
>
>You can respond on the NLA list or directly to me to me at
>telephone/fax (619) 444-9133 or email: tsticht@aznet.net
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
> Return-Path: <nla-approval@world.std.com>
> Received: from europe.std.com (europe.std.com [199.172.62.20])
> by mustang.oldcity.dca.net (8.9.3/8.9.3/DCANET) with ESMTP id
XAA07863;
> Sat, 14 Oct 2000 23:13:13 -0400
> Received: (from daemon@localhost)
> by europe.std.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07260
> for nla-outgoing; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 23:07:11 -0400 (EDT)
> Message-Id: <200010150307.XAA07260@europe.std.com>
> To: nla@world.std.com
> Subject: NLA Discussion: Policy and instructional practice
> From: Thomas Sticht <tsticht@aznet.net>
> Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 13:29:29 -0800
> Sender: nla-approval@world.std.com
> Precedence: list
> Reply-To: nla@europe.std.com
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
--------- End forwarded message ----------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:27 EST