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_monograph.

>> 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