An aspect of language that I feel is a major impediment to good reading 
is a limited vocabulary. Without a large store of words and an 
understanding of their meanings, reading would be an exerise in 
attempting to comprehend nonsense. I find many of my adult students have 
such an impoverished vocabulary, making sense of what they read is 
extremely difficult in all but the simplest reading exercises.

In my decade of teaching reading to non-reading adults, most of the 
people I encounter have a pretty good understanding of letter/sound 
relationships and they are pretty good at phonetic decoding. A few 
aren't, and they seem to fall into two categories. One group just can't 
learn the rules for phonetic decoding. It's not for lack of trying. You 
teach them, say, the short vowel sound in the c/v/c pattern and they can 
do it, and then on the next page, or the next day, they have forgotten 
it. The second group reaches a proficiency with small words, but they 
fall apart on long words. I suspect that in many many cases, it is 
because the long words are not part of the reader's vocabulary, but the 
short words are.

One young man I'm working with now is able to read 8th grade material at 
an instructional level IF we look only at his reading speed and 
accuracy. His problem is he comprehends none of it. He confuses words; 
his sequencing is all mixed up; his memory of details is sketchy. In his 
23 years, his experience has never been that reading is something you do 
to obtain information or to understand something better or to experience 
pleasure. This young man has learned the code. He just never learned 
what to do with it now that he has it. There may be some very organic 
reasons that have prevented his learning this.

The problem I see with educational research into specific reading 
programs or methodologies such as Hooked on Phonics, or any other for 
that matter, is they rely on statistics to support their hypotheses that 
the methods are effective. The assumption is if a treatment is effective 
on a large number of individuals then the treatment must be good for 
everyone. It just doesn't work that way. My student with the 
comprehension problem is the exception, not a member of the large group 
who experienced success. The tried and true method advanced by the 
research does not work and will not work for him.

Please be very wary of any research validated methods to enhance reading 
achievement for students unless the method targets a very specific need 
and your student actually has that need. Anything else would be akin to 
intellectual torture.

Tom Woods


Will Fagan wrote:


>I have been reading different postings and wonder if we are going  

>backwards or forwards  in terms of teaching reading!

>We seem to have different vested interests in reading: the searchers,  

>the borrowers, the missionaries, the proselytizers, and the  

>researchers/consumers of research. Unfortunately, the latter group  

>seem to be in the minority.

>Prescribing one method or program for reading difficulties would be  

>the same as prescribing one treatment for all cancers.

>We have well over 100 years of research in reading. This year marks  

>the 100th anniversary of the publication of Edmund Burke Huey's, The  

>Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading. As in any problem/issue (cancer  

>or reading) the treatment has to interact with the nature of the  

>problem. Of course, to be an accomplished reader (certainly, an oral  

>reader) readers must be knowledgeable of symbol-sound correspondences  

>but to say that teaching this aspect of language (one of many) must  

>be packaged and sandwiched, and isolated, is doing a disservice to  

>our understanding of language and learners. A good teacher/ 

>facilitator of reading operates on at least  four areas of knowledge:  

>knowledge of language (its structure, totality, interrelatedness),  

>knowledge of the  brain and the capabilities of learning, knowledge  

>of the learners as a social person/socio-economic conditions, and  

>knowledge of teaching-learning strategies in helping the learner and  

>learning connect.

>In the 1970's a combination of the use of these four areas of  

>knowledge was called "diagnostic  teaching" of reading. We had all  

>the research by Brophy and associates on how many decisions a teacher  

>had to make in the course of a day - the number of decisions being  

>phenomenal.

>Why have teacher education programs gone away from this level of  

>understanding and knowledge for teaching reading? Rather than making  

>a decision (Brophy et al) on what is the best strategy  for this  

>individual at this time, seems to have given way to a request for  

>"the latest fix".

>

>I am not sure how we get back to understanding the teaching or  

>reading as good decision making using a range of knowledge. Results  

>of reading tests suggest we have to make an effort.

>Bill Fagan

>

>

>

>

>

>

>On 18-Apr-08, at 5:42 PM, Susan Jones wrote:

>

>  

>

>>Catching up with the list... the same fault lines causing rumbles!   

>>(Yes, I felt the quake of the a.m. tho' far enough from the  

>>epicenter it was about the equivalent of the cat jumping on the bed).

>>

>>I remember a website that described the hooked on phonics claims to  

>>research as being completely shady; apparently he tried to track  

>>down the original sources of the research they claimed to have, and  

>>it didn't exist.

>>

>>IMO there are lots of more structured resources that are cheaper  

>>and more effective.  HOP is marketed to the masses, not fo r  

>>special needs folks.

>>

>>It's one of those "phonics" products that prob'ly helps (but you  

>>have to pay for all those ads) ... *if* you already process sounds  

>>reasonably well. It's not going to help you learn to do it if it  

>>doesn't come naturally - as is the case for many folks with dyslexia.

>>

>>Susan Jones

>>Academic Development Specialist

>>Academic Development Center

>>Parkland College

>>Champaign, IL  61821

>>sujones at parkland.edu

>>Webmastress,

>>http://www.resourceroom.net

>>http://bicyclecu.blogspot.com

>>

>>

>>    

>>

>>>>>"Orleck, Ralph" <Ralph.Orleck at doc.ri.gov> 2/14/2008 12:17 PM >>>

>>>>>          

>>>>>

>>The Special Education Teachers within the Rhode Island Department of

>>Corrections have been using a series of research validated  

>>materials and

>>techniques to work to enhance the reading achievement of students with

>>special needs.

>>

>>

>>

>>I have been approached by staff requesting we add the "Hooked on

>>Phonics" program to our inventory.

>>

>>

>>

>>Is there research out there to support the utilization of the  

>>"Hooked on

>>Phonics" program as an appropriate instructional program to enhance

>>reading skills for students with special needs?  Do any of you use it?

>>What are the results?

>>

>>

>>

>>Thank you.

>>

>>Ralph Orleck

>>

>>Special Education Director / Principal

>>

>>Rhode Island Department of Corrections

>>

>>Education Unit

>>

>>15 Fleming Road,  Bernadette Building

>>

>>Cranston, RI 02920

>>

>>Office: (401) 462-2507

>>

>>Direct: (401) 462-1415

>>

>>Fax: (401) 462-2509

>>

>>E-Mail: Ralph.Orleck at doc.ri.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

>>Email delivered to wfagan at mun.ca

>>    

>>

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

>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 woodsnh at isp.com

>

>

>  

>