I find it interesting that John Nissen has a vested commercial interest in
promoting the one size fits all methodology through the Cloudworld products.
This is not unlike what happens in the US where business interests use the
discourse of scientific/evidence-based research  to promote particular
perspectives which benefit them. See for example the recent Reading First
scandal which turned out to be about cronyism rather than science (and also
promoted a one-size fits all agenda, with the profits going to Bush
cronies).

I doubt that anyone claims that phonemic awareness has no place in teaching;
but there is quite widespread agreement among reading scholars (even those
on the much misrepresented US reading commission) that this is ONE avenue,
not THE avenue toward reading proficiency.  In the case of ELLs, there is
even stronger reason not to promote this as THE approach.

Anyone who claims to be a reading expert and is unfamiliar with the research
that shows the benefits of a context-specific approach, should perhaps
enroll in graduate studies. There are hundreds of studies which support this
view.  This is a debate which has been around for decades, with "scientific
research" on both sides.

Mr. Nissen, for "research that shows that systematic phonics is
inappropriate in certain circumstances",  you may want to familiarize
yourself with the work of the National Research and Development Centre
(Lancaster), the pre-eminent nationally funded research institute in the UK
looking at ESOL literacy; a text which explores alternatives to the one size
fits all model is Adult Literacy, Numeracy and Language (Tett, Hamilton, and
Hillier, Eds), Open University Press. I suggest you enter into dialogue with
your colleagues in the UK who work at the LLU+ (Southbank University London)
and who have recently published Teaching Basic Literacy to ESOL Learners.

I wonder, too, if NCSALL folks are comfortable having the studies published
in Focus on Basics used to support a one-size-fits-all agenda (Nissen cites
this publication to support a phonemic awareness training only perspective).

Elsa Auerbach
Professor
University of Massachusetts Boston
Boston, MA


Elsa Auerbach 

On 10/18/06 5:21 PM, "John Nissen" <jn at cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:


> 

> 

> Hello Sharon,

> 

> Thank you for your reply, but I beg to differ with you about the merits of

> an eclectic approach.  Recent research on methods of teaching reading points

> to the importance of phonemic awareness and decoding skills.  This research

> is summarised here:

> http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/html/mcshane/chapter4.h

> tml

> where systematic phonics is accepted as a requirement.  Further research in

> the UK suggests both that synthetic phonics (including phonics through

> spelling) is better than analytic phonics*, and that a mixture of methods

> (which we have had enshrined in the UK "National Literacy Strategy") should

> be avoided.

> 

> The brain research shows that fluent readers employ a certain parts of their

> brain, whereas dyslexic readers use different parts.  See for example the

> Focus on Basics article http://www.ncsall.net/?id=278 from 2001.   The

> current theory is that intensive training in phonemic awareness and decoding

> skills can help the brain to develop those pathways in the brain which allow

> for fluent reading, even for people who may have a genetic disposition to

> dyslexia.

> 

> Can you point to any research which claims to demonstrate the superiority of

> a mixed method approach?   Can you point to any research that shows that

> systematic phonics is inappropriate in certain circumstances?

> 

> Kind regards,

> 

> John

> 

> * P.S.  The apparent superiority of synthetic phonics was disputed by

> Torgerson et al, who were in turn rebuffed by McGuinness in an authoritative

> paper: http://www.rrf.org.uk/Torgersonarticle.pdf, which should be

> compulsory reading for anybody concerned in this debate.

> 

> 

> John Nissen

> Cloudworld Ltd - http://www.cloudworld.co.uk

> maker of the assistive reader, WordAloud.

> Try WordAloud with synthetic phonics:

> http://www.cloudworld.co.uk/teaching-synthetic-phonics.htm

> Tel: +44 208 742 3170  Fax: +44 208 742 0202

> Email: info at cloudworld.co.uk

> 

> 

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Sharon McKay" <smckay at cal.org>

> To: "The Adult English Language Learners Discussion List"

> <englishlanguage at nifl.gov>

> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:26 PM

> Subject: [EnglishLanguage 768] Re: one-size-fits-all methodology

> 

> 

>> I have to agree that a variety of instructional practices should be

>> available to address different learner needs with respect to reading.

>> If one size fit all, we would have marketed the Great Reading Solution

>> by now. Each new instructional strategy contributes to the field but and

>> eclectic approach to teaching reading is still the best instruction we

>> can offer.

>> 

>> Consider our audience which may have first literacy background in Roman,

>> non-Roman or non-alphabetic characters.

>> Our learners may be literate, semiliterate, nonliterate or preliterate

>> in first language.

>> They could be very advanced in aural/oral language acquisition and need

>> help to connect this to literacy.

>> They may be challenged in aural/oral language acquisition and unable to

>> use any verbal cues to assist in literacy.

>> These differences don't include the myriad of learnings styles and

>> strategies that have been readily observable in our students but not

>> easily understood.  Brain research may yield many secrets to reading in

>> the future, but until then, we build what's best for each situation.

>> 

>> I look forward to hearing about any and all successful reading

>> strategies that you've tried in your classes.

>> 

>> Sharon McKay

>> smckay at cal.org

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov

>> [mailto:englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Lynne Weintraub

>> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:03 PM

>> To: englishlanguage at nifl.gov; learningdisabilities at nifl.gov

>> Cc: focusonbasics at nifl.gov

>> Subject: [EnglishLanguage 767] one-size-fits-all methodology

>> 

>> In my experience, one set of strategies might work well with one

>> indivual or group, and another set will work better with other

>> groups/individuals. Not everybody wears a size seven shoe, and not every

>> student (or cultural/linguistic group) will benefit from the same

>> literacy methodologies. I'm with UNESCO on this one.

>> 

>> 

>>> From: "John Nissen" <jn at cloudworld.co.uk>

>>> Reply-To: The Adult English Language Learners Discussion

>>> List<englishlanguage at nifl.gov>

>>> To: "The Learning Disabilities Discussion List"

>>> <learningdisabilities at nifl.gov>

>>> CC: englishlanguage at nifl.gov, focusonbasics at nifl.gov

>>> Subject: [EnglishLanguage 766] CROSSPOSTING - National Institute

>>> forLiteracy Launches International Perspective Webpages

>>> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:34:21 +0100

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Hi all,

>>> 

>>> Following up on the NIFL webpages, I looked up the UNESCO initiative to

>> 

>>> reduce illiteracy in the UN Literacy Decade, 2003 - 2012, and read this

>> 

>>> in the message* from the Director General:

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Literacy is best acquired in ways that are consonant with the local

>>> context; in our efforts to make literacy universally available,

>>> therefore, we must be careful not to propose solutions which impose one

>> 

>>> way of acquiring literacy.

>>> With the unreserved commitment of national governments, the Decade must

>> 

>>> give space for methods and approaches to develop at local level, with

>>> full input from learners themselves. The notion of 'literacy as

>>> freedom' points to the way that the acquisition and practice of

>>> literacy can enhance the capacity to lead a free and more fulfilled

>>> life.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> It seems that this notion that different methods of teaching literacy

>>> must be used in different contexts, and depend on input from learners,

>>> is accepted at the highest levels.  Yet it is a load of nonsense.

>>> There are good methods and bad methods, period.  A good method trains

>>> the brain for effective reading skills.  A bad method fails to train

>>> for effective reading skills.  The best method is the method which

>>> produces the most effective reading skills for the greatest proportion

>>> of learners.  And mixing a good method with a bad method produces a bad

>> 

>>> method, because it confuses.

>>> 

>>> While the people at the top are not recognising this common sense, the

>>> United Nations Literacy Decade has little chance of success.

>>> 

>>> Cheers from Chiswick,

>>> 

>>> John

>>> 

>>> *

>>> http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=27158&URL_DO=DO_TOP

>>> IC&URL_SECTION=201.html has link to the Directory General's message,

>>> see bottom of page.

>>> 

>>> John Nissen

>>> Cloudworld Ltd - http://www.cloudworld.co.uk maker of the assistive

>>> reader, WordAloud.

>>> Try WordAloud with synthetic phonics:

>>> http://www.cloudworld.co.uk/teaching-synthetic-phonics.htm

>>> Tel: +44 208 742 3170  Fax: +44 208 742 0202

>>> Email: info at cloudworld.co.uk

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> ----- Original Message -----

>>> From: "Nguyen, My Linh" <Mylinh.Nguyen at ed.gov>

>>> To: "Aaace-Nla discussion group (E-mail)"

>>> <aaace-nla at lists.literacytent.org>; "Assessment" <assessment at nifl.gov>;

>> 

>>> "Content Standards" <contentstandards at nifl.gov>; "English Language

>>> Learners"

>>> <englishlanguage at nifl.gov>; "Family Literacy"

>>> <familyliteracy at nifl.gov>; "Focus on Basics" <focusonbasics at nifl.gov>;

>> "Health Literacy"

>>> <healthliteracy at nifl.gov>; "Learning Disabilities"

>>> <learningdisabilities at nifl.gov>; "Poverty & Race"

>>> <povertyliteracy at nifl.gov>; "Professional Development"

>>> <professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov>; "Program Leadership"

>>> <programleadership at nifl.gov>; "Special Topics"

>>> <specialtopics at nifl.gov>; "Technology" <technology at nifl.gov>; "Women

>> Literacy"

>>> <womenliteracy at nifl.gov>; "Workplace" <workplace at nifl.gov>

>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:44 PM

>>> Subject: [LearningDisabilities 624] National Institute for Literacy

>>> LaunchesInternational Perspective Webpages

>>> 

>>> 

>>>> Just in time for International Literacy Day on September 8, the

>>>> National Institute for Literacy has launched a series of webpages on

>> 

>>>> its website

>>>> (www.nifl.gov) to highlight worldwide efforts to address and combat

>>>> literacy problems. The International Perspectives webpages allow

>>>> American adult literacy and English language teachers and students

>>>> quick access to information about:

>>>> * adult literacy education in other countries and cultures,

>>>> including both developing and industrialized countries, and

>>>> including curriculum and outcomes standards for adult education in

>>>> other countries

>>>> * international comparative studies of adult literacy and

>>>> PreK-12 education, and

>>>> * international efforts to raise literacy levels (e.g.UNESCO,

>>>> International Reading Association, and the Venezuelan and

>>>> Argentinian literacy campaigns) The Institute plans to continue to

>>>> build on the information on the International Perspective pages

>>>> (<http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/international/intro.html>) as they

>>>> develop

>>> into

>>>> a

>>>> central site for worldwide literacy resources.

>>>> The National Institute for Literacy provides leadership on literacy

>>>> issues, including the improvement of reading instruction for

>>>> children, youth, and adults. In consultation with the U.S.

>>>> Departments of

>>> Education,

>>>> Labor, and Health and Human Services, the Institute serves as a

>>>> national resource on current, comprehensive literacy research,

>>>> practice, and policy.

>>>> 

>>>> 

>>>> My Linh Nguyen

>>>> Associate Director of Communications National Institute for Literacy

>>>> (202) 233-2041

>>>> fax (202) 233-2050

>>>> mnguyen at nifl.gov

>>>> 

>>>> ----------------------------------------------------

>>>> National Institute for Literacy

>>>> Learning Disabilities mailing list

>>>> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

>>>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>>>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

>>>> 

>>> 

>>> ----------------------------------------------------

>>> National Institute for Literacy

>>> Adult English Language Learners mailing list EnglishLanguage at nifl.gov

>>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/englishlanguage

>>> Message sent to LYNNEWEINTRAUB at hotmail.com.

>> 

>> 

>> ----------------------------------------------------

>> National Institute for Literacy

>> Adult English Language Learners mailing list EnglishLanguage at nifl.gov To

>> unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/englishlanguage

>> Message sent to smckay at cal.org.

>> ----------------------------------------------------

>> National Institute for Literacy

>> Adult English Language Learners mailing list

>> EnglishLanguage at nifl.gov

>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/englishlanguage

>> Message sent to jn at cloudworld.co.uk.

>> 

> 

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Adult English Language Learners mailing list

> EnglishLanguage at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/englishlanguage

> Message sent to ELSA.AUERBACH at umb.edu.

>