Hi Liz,

I think perhaps what you are talking about here is analytic vs.  
synthetic phonics.   In OG methodologies, both analytic and synthetic  
phonetic drills are presented in each lesson.  I happen to use the  
Slingerland Method which always introduces the sound and then the  
letter that spells the sound.  The introduction of the s/s match is  
from what Slingerland calls the "Auditory" part of the lesson.  The  
precursor for all this is the ability of the student to manipulate  
sounds without any letters, perhaps using colored squares of felt.

With OG methods, there are two kinds of s/s drills.... one in which  
the student is asked to name a letter, and give it's sound match by  
looking at a letter card that is presented to them.  In some methods,  
the student also air-writes the letter to engage the motor connection  
to writing.  The second drill is for the tutor to give a sound prompt  
and ask, "what letter spells.../p/....... /r/  /a/  etc.  The last  
drill might be the tutor prompting to "Write on paper" the letter(s)  
that spell.......  Eventually, or course,  there are more than one  
spelling for the same sound.  Careful planning is necessary!    
Slingerland calls this s/s/ correspondences from auditory and visual  
prompts.  Wilson calls the auditory prompt the "drill in reverse".   
Both should be done every time for the connections to be made in the  
brain.  Auditory drill is the precursor to encoding, spelling, and  
writing from dictation ( and eventually self-dictation).  The visual  
drill is the precursor for decoding and reading.  If I am limited in  
time, I usually spend more time on the "auditory/ written" part of the  
lesson.  I find the reading develops along with the spelling and  
writing of words, and often my post tests show great gains in reading   
after spending most of my time on spelling and writing.




On Mar 3, 2008, at 6:13 PM, Elizabeth K.i wrote:


> I have been reading these posts with interest.

>

> My background is in elementary education. I was never interested in  

> adult

> education until about 7 years ago when I was taking my recertification

> classes the subject came up as a part of another class. The upshot  

> of that

> was that I began volunteering with Proliteracy. From the beginning I  

> felt

> a calling for this work that I have never felt at any other time in my

> life.  My first student, a man of 45 who only was reading at a third  

> grade

> level when we began, was a huge part of that.

>

> Since this was not my original field of study I have done a lot of

> reading, listening to other educators, and applying those things in  

> my own

> experience.  One area seems to have conflicting sides and it is this  

> one I

> wish to ask this group about.

>

> There is a body of literature and practice that says the sound/symbol

> correspondence has been presented in reverse for many years.  The most

> common viewpoint is that sounds are assigned to certain symbols, and

> students must learn this association.       The other viewpoint is  

> this:

> Sounds were present and being produced by human beings from the dawn  

> of

> time. At some point symbols were assigned to represent these sounds.

> Proponents of this stance feel that saying sounds are assigned to  

> symbols

> is backwards and more difficult. They go so far as to say that  

> teaching

> that way is the reason such a large percentage of students have  

> reading

> problems, especially as the difficulty level of the reading material

> increases.

>

> I would really like some feedback on this. both from the  

> perspectives of

> theory and actual practice in your classrooms and tutoring situations.

> I would also, from those who espouse to the second viewpoint, like  

> to know

> some sources of application and how to teach using this method since I

> have found very little of this in my exploration of the subject.

>

>  Thanks!

>

> Liz

>

>

>>> The most common problem in learning how to read is difficulty

> in > matching a sound to a symbol--commonly called a phonological  

> deficit.

>> This has been extensively documented, and the regions of the brain

>> which do not make the necessary connections seem to be understood,  

>> too.

>

>

> Liz K.

> On the banks of the Mighty Mississippi River, Davenport,IA/Quad cities

> ~~~~~~

> "Giving of ourselves is the way we change the world at the end of our

> fingertips."--Author Unknown

> ~ 

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>                   EMAIL:   juliette at inebraska.com

>       PERSONAL HOMEPAGE PAGE  http://members.tripod.com/~LizK

> ~ 

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

> 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

> Email delivered to mcarro at lmi.net

>