The study circle guide is based on Research-Based Principles for Adult 
Basic Education Reading Instruction, which summarizes all the scientific 
research on the topic and does include phonics. NCSALL's profiles of adult 
learners are based on research that employed extensive testing of the 
components of reading, including decoding skills, and cluster analysis to 
provide specific help.  For some adults phonics is their biggest hurtle, 
but for others it is not the limiting factor or one of several.

--On Friday, December 16, 2005 10:06 PM +0000 John Nissen 
<jn at cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:


>

> Hi John,

>

> Thanks for your explanation, though that ebaep model on the NCSALL site

> _does_ include recommendations about teaching practice.

>

> Looking at http://www.nifl.gov/readingprofiles/, which you recommended,

> it seems that there are various 'profiles' under which readers come.  No

> doubt this depends on how, and how successfully, they were taught in the

> first place.  Unfortunately the matching process doesn't tell you

> anything about that.  What we do know is that nearly all people who have

> a reading difficulty have missed out on some stage - one of the 6 that I

> mentioned. Very often it is phonemic awareness.  But also the alphabetic

> principle may not be grasped.  A very telling remark is made in a paper

> by Hager, actually at the NCSALL site.  Hager details the use of phonics

> in his/her teaching of adults:

>

> " The volunteers [teachers] are also surprised that students do not feel

> insulted or embarrassed working with the letters of the alphabet and

> reading texts that may appear babyish. On the contrary, after years of

> only using a hit or miss approach, my students are extremely relieved to

> discover that reading involves patterns of letters with predictable

> sounds. "

>

> Is there other research which supports these findings?  It seems that the

> phonics which Hager espouses has disappeared from the NCSALL

> consciousness. Phonics is one of the key aspects of reading instruction

> identified by the National Reading Panel, yet NCSALL seems to ignore it.

> See for example http://www.ncsall.net/?id=912 on reading instruction.  I

> am very puzzled. Surely there is some research to back Hager.

>

> Cheers from Chiswick,

>

> John

>

> 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: "John Comings"

> <comingjo at gse.harvard.edu> To: "John Nissen" <jn at cloudworld.co.uk>

> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 3:15 PM

> Subject: Re: [FocusOnBasics] [Technology] New Issue of "Focus on Basics"

>

>

>> The document you gained access to is about everything except the

>> specific  approaches to teaching literacy, numeracy, English, and the

>> skills and  knowledge needed to pass the GED test. It is about the

>> infrastructure and  very little of that has scientific research to back

>> it up.  Why for  example do you have school buildings with teachers and

>> desks?  Is there a  study to show that is more effective than having a

>> big room with pillows?  So, it would not have dealt with an approach to

>> teaching reading.

>>

>> However, we do support the components approach to teaching reading, and

>> for those adults whose reading is constrained by poor decoding skills,

>> they should be addressed. However, many of the adults who come to our

>> classes can decode but have low fluency and low oral vocabularies. We

>> draw  from the scientific research on teaching those two skills when

>> giving  advice about teaching reading. You might look at a site we set

>> up and  maintain for NIFL:

>>

>> <http://www.nifl.gov/readingprofiles/>

>>

>> or at our site you might look at the reading study circle guide linked

>> on  the home page.

>>

>> --On Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:52 PM +0000 John Nissen

>> <jn at cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Hello all,

>>>

>>> I am trying to find out how one should teach literacy skills to adults.

>>> It  has been suggested on several lists to visit the NCSALL web site,

>>> and look  at research.

>>>

>>> So I looked at the site and found the EBAEP model (draft for comment),

>>> http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/research/ebaep_model_monograp

>>> h. pdf, which is about Evidence-Based Adult Education, to find out what

>>> evidence  there was to support particular approaches to literacy, such

>>> as systematic/synthetic phonics versus whole language.  There was almost

>>> nothing there.  Worse, the teachers are expected to evaluate the

>>> research themselves, to decide how best to teach!  But no sources were

>>> given as to where there is good evidence for one method or another.

>>>

>>> In particular I looked at pages 77-78, the section 27 on "Instructional

>>> approaches".  Quoting from this:

>>> "Teachers need to understand why to use a particular technique, not just

>>> how  to use it; they need the underlying foundational theory of teaching

>>> and  learning that will allow them to integrate new thinking with new

>>> actions."

>>>

>>> Now I know for children about the foundational theory, and evidence in

>>> practice, that systematic phonics works.  On the other hand, there is no

>>> scientific theory, or evidence, that the whole language approach works -

>>> because it doesn't.  See Scientific American, March 2002.  (And mixing

>>> methods doesn't work either.)

>>>

>>> The March 2002 Scientific American put it well: "Because the controversy

>>> [between phonics and whole-language] is enmeshed in the philosophical

>>> differences between traditional and progressive approaches. The

>>> progressives  challenge the results of laboratory tests and classroom

>>> studies on the basis  of a broad philosophical skepticism about the

>>> value of such research." In  other words, they are willing to ignore

>>> solid research that contradicts  their beloved theories, theories that

>>> keep kids from reading.

>>>

>>> So I am trying to find if anybody has used systematic/synthetic phonics

>>> on  adults, because if it works on children I see no reason why it

>>> should not  work on adults, given suitable initial teaching material

>>> (so as not to  appear "childish").  The phonics approach must:

>>>

>>>  1.   establish that the alphabetic principle is fully understood by the

>>> student;

>>>  2.   work on phonemic awareness, so that all 44 phonemes can be

>>> recognised  within words;

>>>  3.  make sure common letter-sound (grapheme-phoneme) correspondences

>>>  are known;

>>>  4.  work on the basic skill of segmentation (for spelling);

>>>  5.  work on the basic skill of blending (for decoding and reading).

>>>

>>> After a basic reading skill level has been reached, with simple reading

>>> material:

>>>

>>>  6.  add vocabulary to allow comprehension of increasingly advanced

>>> reading  material.

>>>

>>> It seems to me, as a scientist by training, that the above approach is

>>> sound.  The evidence of the Clackmannanshire study, shows that the

>>> approach  works for everybody, including 'dyslexics' and childen with

>>> special needs.  In this study of 300 children in a deprived area of

>>> Scotland there were no  non-readers after synthetic phonics had been

>>> introduced!

>>>

>>> Anyway, the UK government is now convinced, and is going to adopt

>>> synthetic  phonics for schools.  See

>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4485062.stm.  Should we adopt it

>>> for adults?

>>>

>>> Cheers from Chiswick,

>>>

>>> John

>

> [snip]

>

>>

>> John Comings, Director

>> National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy

>> Harvard Graduate School of Education

>> 7 Appian Way

>> Cambridge MA 02138

>> (617) 496-0516, voice

>> (617) 495-4811, fax

>> (617) 335-9839, mobile

>> john_comings at harvard.edu

>> http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu

>




John Comings, Director
National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy
Harvard Graduate School of Education
7 Appian Way
Cambridge MA 02138
(617) 496-0516, voice
(617) 495-4811, fax
(617) 335-9839, mobile
john_comings at harvard.edu
http://ncsall.gse.harvard.edu