Morning:  I think the debate has been overlooking a
very important aspect of teaching reading to ESL
students in particular:   ESL students come to us with
a non-existant or limited English vocabulary.  Taking
this fact into consideration, from Beginning Literacy
through Advanced ESL, we teach our students to read
words in context.   I don't believe any ESL teacher
waits until students have a substantial spoken English
vocabulary to begin the "learning to read" process.
Nor do we delay reading until ESL students can decode
words.  For example, literacy level students are shown
signs-- "MEN" "WOMEN"--within a context and learn to
read those words without phoneme/decoding awareness.  

To say that a phoneme/decoding approach is the only
way to teach reading does not fit reality.  I remember
my children enthralled by watching Sesame Street,
where they learned both a phonetic/decoding and a word
in context approach to reading.  The music, colors,
comic characters and repetition were what did the
trick.  I was pleased to hear them read the words they
learned in books without the original prompts, having
transferred the skills they learned.  Even if only one
approach is taught in school, students learn to read
outside the formal process.  Phonemic
awareness/decoding is one strategy in a teacher's bag
of tricks and is only one strategy that students use
to read outside of class.

 I use a phoneme/decoding strategy that is very
different from the approach being touted in the US by
scripted reading or the approach used in the UK as in
Cloudworld, but also shares some aspects of both. 
This approach recognizes that ESL students who "hear"
the sounds that make up words, can then read and spell
them.  It is based on the fact that consonants are not
spoken without vowel sounds that accompany them, so it
is logical to teach the vowel/consonant sounds as
basic sounds in decoding rather than single letter
phonemes.  Most consonants have more than one sound
and have a different sound at the beginning of a word
than at the end.  Teaching the consonant-vowel
-consonant sounds IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORD, at the
beginning, in the middle and at the end of a word,
attenuates the students' ability to hear/recognize the
sounds in English and to pair the sound with the
letters.  I teach this pronunciation/spelling/reading
strategy in a separate section than Everyday Living
Skills, but it is also embedded in the lessons for the
day so students learn a strategy of decoding pattern
C-V-C sounds and a strategy for recognizing irregular
(sight) words in context.  This strategy makes sense
of patterns of sounds as well as the exceptions to the
patterns.  

I for one am very appreciative of the studies sited by
the participants.  It helps me stay abreast of current
research and is one of the most important aspects of
the discussion list.  Thanks to all. 

Bonnita Solberg, Teacher 
Oakland Unified School District  

--- Elsa Auerbach <elsa.auerbach at umb.edu> wrote:


> 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

> 

=== message truncated ===