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 eAN0v8928889; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:57:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:57:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20001122.195333.12030.0.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:290] Reading Theory debates X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 Status: O Content-Length: 9379 Lines: 191 Anne: I don't think there's really any final point of truth here--sort of like the ongoing saga of the Presidential race. Where's the neutral ground or the higher truth? Your scholarship or mine? So I didn't see any point in responding to your previous post, which I do grapple with at this time in light of your message today, which provoked me to respond. Here I'm responding in sections to your message of, I think it was, 11-9, which was in response to my post of 10-21. I'll take up a few of the points and may add an additional message or two related to the discussion in other posts. (Your Quote) "Research into the cause of reading failure supports what I am learning from adults in the daily practice of adult literacy instruction. The failure to learn to read is caused by language-based learning disability which cannot be successfully addressed within the balanced literacy instruction approach (whole language with skill development as needed). The "as needed" approach does not meet the many voids in understanding language. Research with children is clear -re mediation of this disability requires direct, multi sensory, systematic instruction with a multitude of opportunities for practice. " (My response) 1. Some research and how much of it is focused on the *adult* literacy learner? If I recall the Fowler & Scarborough text that you cite, "Should reading-disabled adults be distinguished from other adults seeking literacy instruction," I believe their response was no. 2. Your comments about the balanced theory of reading is an assertion and flies in the face of some good work in this topic. There is an article by Pummelled-Gates in Focus on basics, somewhere, and i believe she has written a monograph on the subject. This scholarship can't simply be ignored. BTW, have you gotten to any of Frank Smith's work yet? (Your Quote) You ask what percentage of adults in community-based literacy and ABE programs fall within this category of language-based learning disabilities. I don't know. I have read that 17% of populations (regardless of the language) experience this disability. Reid Lyon (1999), chief researcher of the National Institutes for Child Health and Development (NICHD), which has spearheaded literacy research, states that this disability affects one in five Americans. An educated guess would be that MOST adults who come for reading help ARE within this 17-20%. (Read the posting on the NIFL-LD listserv, titled RE: Comprehension improvement by Sharon Teruya, for a full discussion.) The modest progress you find in measuring with LVA READ and CASAS - do you find persons becoming fully independent with literacy? Without the systematic development of skills and an understanding of the structure of words and language, the modest progress reaches a ceiling beyond which these students do not move. (Case in point, John Corcoran, in his autobiography, The Teacher Who Couldn't Read, was taken to the 3rd grade reading level by his literacy tutor, but it was not until he received direct instruction in phonological processing skills using the Lindamood Bell method did he move into full reading competence.) (My Response) 1. It is clear that you are saying something like 75-80% of the folks who attend ABE programs are learning disabled. I assume that would be "undiagnosed" learning disabilities. I'm not sure how one can assert that (and it is an assertion)with any confidence, though perhaps its possible by conflating symptoms with a diagnosis. 2. While it is a given that virtually all people participating in adult literacy/ABE programs short of GED prep have one problem or another with reading/writing, it does not follow that they are therefore "learning disabled." To say the least, that's a leap. It is also to assume that "learning disabilities" exists out there in "objective reality" rather than serving as an intellectual construct the validity of which is determined by its usefulness in resolving problems associated with adult literacy. I have discussed these issues in depth in the Nov-Dec 1997 NLA discussions on LD. I would encourage you to check the archives. It's not necessary to cover that ground again. If you are going to press the issues here, I would encourage you to review that material. 3. Folks in our program span a wide gamut of literacy abilities even though CASAS scores seldom extend beyond 215. This is due in part to the disconnect between what CASAS tests and the nature of our curriculum. It is also due to the lack of scaffolding allowable in the test-taking environment, yet pervasive in our tutoring sessions. A while back, I provided an overview of classroom dynamics of our beginning level students. Our intermediate students read with considerably more fluency. In fact, we recently worked with a lesson on domestic abuse that I'll post in a separate message, the content of which might be of interest to the members of this list. These students scored between 190-205 on the CASAS and come out on an intermediate level on the READ test--modest from those standards. Yet with the text that I'll send in a separate post, they were able to read 2/3 of it fairly fluently with only modest help. Beyond that, their attempts to read the words were sound--phonetically in the ballpark. Through "normal" means of breaking down words and just practice, they seemed able to process many of the words they initially missed. That is, we didn't have to have a special, all-phonics program, which if we had, would have obviated any context-based instruction on topics students find significant. Our advanced students read even more complex texts and do some writing as well, even though they continue to have reading and writing programs, but in session, they are reading and wrestling with substantial texts that speak to them as adults. 4. While total independent may still seem elusive for most of our students, when one considers the range of folks we work with, there is, in turn, an array of texts of divergent levels to which they are successfully able to grapple, even as they continue to have problems with reading and writing. 5. Besides, what percentage of students have attained independent fluency through highly structured phonological programs, particularly when variables of program intensity and other factors considered? In one of your posts, you indicated some progress based on your program model, but I didn't see anything earth shattering in what you presented--certainly nothing to eliminate a context-driven instructional program that raises issues and evokes critical thought where folks live, linking literacy to life. 6. If your perspective on adult literacy education prevailed, where would we be with EFF, with the curriculum concerns raised on this list, or any powerful connection between reading for basic skill application and reading for life application? (Your Quote) Let me clarify. Perhaps you have the conception that instruction in phonological processing skills is devoid of text reading. No! The goal of all reading is comprehension. Literacy is "being developed as it is applied," as you stated in WRS instruction. Reading is not "separated from writing, nor is listening from speaking." Every Wilson Reading System lesson incorporates text reading - in topics written for adults, using words and concepts they are mastering. This gives them opportunities for success - reading without guessing, learning to trust what they know. They move into metacognitiion - learning how to think about the structure of language. This is respectful, not condescending, of their needs. (My Response) Here are two examples of texts meant for adults from the WRS Cut Lip Mom got the tot, Jim, a bib. Jim bit the fig and bit his lip. He had a sip of Tab. His lip was OK. Then, Jim got on the mat with his pal, the cat. Beth and the Pup On the job, at the shop, Beth had a pal. It was a pup. The pup was a lost dog. It did wag and yap. Beth led the pup to a dish. The pup then sat with Beth. Beth called the pup "Zip." A few years back, my colleague, Allison Gruner and I, conducted learning interviews of 10 students, which we placed in a collection titled, Dialogues in literacy: Interviews With New Readers. The afterward speaks very much to the issues we've been raising, which I'll send in an other post. Anne, my objective is not really to persuade you to my point of view, as it seems quite clear that you are quite persuaded of your own belief. That is fine, but as a microcosm of issues facing the field of adult literacy education I enjoin you in debate because the issues themselves have much relevance for the field. (Your Quote) You cite an eloquent quote from one of your adult new readers, and I have heard many adults give positive self reports of reading progress. They do make some progress. But in most cases they continue to struggle with basic decoding skills. We MUST give them opportunities to build the skills so that they can "develop their knowledge and potential". My Response) No argument there, though we obviously disagree on what this means. Do you think there is a single answer in what some may view as the reductionist fallacy in your argument? George Demetrion GDemetrion@juno.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:29 EST