Return-Path: <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id NAA04334; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:10:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:10:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <19990910170701192.AAB252.325@[130.91.108.97]>
Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "John Sabatini" <sabatini@literacy.upenn.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:132] RE: Reading Theories
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 1.5.4 (Mac)
Status: OR
Reply to: RE: [NIFL-FOBASICS:124] Reading Theories
I am new to this listserv (though not new to this discussion topic), and
just wanted to briefly comment on George Demetrian's (GD) comments below.
I believe my writing, research, and professional affiliations (e.g.,
member of the Society for the Scientific Study of Readings) associates me more
closely with the reading researchers espousing the phonics/phonemic
awareness"revival" as GD puts it, though I like to think of myself more - as in
political party terms - of an independent.
In particular, I want to highlight the paragraph (repeated just below)
because I think it is important, clear, supported by research, and I
believe, a core assumption in the beliefs of many, if not most, of the reading
researchers. While, these researchers mostly study children or model the
cognitive processing of adult readers, they have been indirectly referred to
in GD's commentary.
"The assumption upon which this is based is that for the most part,
reading (including phonemic awareness) is not learned through phonetic
rule mastery or short term memory, but through unconscious assimilation
over time through much practice. Basic skill work can, and sometimes
needs to facilitate this process, and we do need to be aware of where
people are stuck, but for the most part adults will learn to read through
reading important, useful, and absorbing texts in supportive learning
environments. Creative repetition through the utilization of words and
phrases, in richly narrative or other important contexts is much more
likely to induce reading mastery rather than dependency on excessive
decontextual drill exercises. The instructor does, though, need to act
in a supportive, bridgeing function between what students know and what
they do not know." (GD)
The phrase "unconscious assimilation", what Underwood refers to as
"implicit cognition" and is related to that slippery "automaticity" concept,
may be the key cognitive aspect we need to understand better. There are any
number of learning occasions where focusing on the explicit rules or
declarative knowledge seems to hinder rather than support acquisition of
understanding or skill. For example, we know that information about
orthography (positional and spatial frequency of letters) is some of the implicit
knowledge available (but not consciously, that is, individuals can't report
why they are able to perform well on tasks that require application of
this knowledge) to skilled readers. At other times, explicit strategy or
practice facilitates learning. As GDs commentary points out, we still need to
know when, where, for whom, and at what level of intensity or frequency
direct basic skills work, strategy instruction, or practice (hopefully
never something we feel compelled to call "decontextualized drill exercises")
are helpful.
Furthermore, although "reading (including phonemic awareness) is not
learned through phonetic
rule mastery or short term memory," aspects of how short term memory
works (including variations in some LD learners) are likely related to and
influence the learning process, suggesting alternate learning strategies and
environments may be more or less effective. Also, something like
"phonetic rule mastery" may be the implicit or assimilated cognitive structure
that is an outcome (not the primary outcome or goal, which is reading
ability) of the learning process, regardless of whether it is represented in a
connectionist network, through "fuzzy logic", or other pschological
mechanisms yet to be imagined. Skilled readers often behave "as if" they are
following implicit rules (witness grammars), regardless of whether they can
concsiously articulate their understanding or identify those rules.
In summary, one might say that just because we know something about how
reading operates as a cognitive process, doesn't mean we know how best to
instruct. However, the knowledge we are gaining about the cognitive
processes, helps us to explore more systematically what kinds of instruction and
learning environments might be effective in helping adults (with and
without LD) to learn to read better.
Best,
John
John Sabatini, Ph. D. Philadelphia, PA 19104
National Center on Adult Literacy (NCAL) (o)215-898-4539;(fax)9804
University of Pennsylvania email: sabatini@literacy.upenn.e
du
GEORGE E. DEMETRION wrote:
>Nancy (and Andres, also):
>
>Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Allow me a few questions,
>concerns, and comments.
>
>First, I don't have easily accessible information on the Orton
Gillingham
>research, but I do wonder about any one-to-one correlation between a
>phonics-first driven methodology and LD. Thus a polarity which states
>that those with LD need phonics and other students learn best through
>whole language concerns me. Rather, variations in the relationship
>between contextual learning (meaning making) and basic skill acquisition
>based upon specific student need and interest makes more sense to me.
>Any polarity becomes even more of a concern when the percentage of adult
>literacy learners with LD is depicted as representing anywhere from
>40-80% which I realize is not your specific argument, but nonetheless, a
>common assertion within the LD community. Merging LD and the phonemic
>revival with what I view as a statistical inflation of the numbers of
>ABE/literacy students with LD is a sure prescription for a decontextual
>back to basics emphasis.
>
>A more specific point: My understanding of LD in the strict
definitional
>sense is that it is organically linked to a problem either in processing
>or sending information that is within the range of the individual's
>intelligence to deal with. On this definition the specific malfunction
>may have a variety of manifestations, including, but not exclusive to
>"auditory processing problems [linked to] lack of phonemic awareness."
>Moreover, while I believe that phonemic awareness is critical (though
not
>foundational), the building up of phonemic awareness may or may not be
>facilitated by extensive drilling exercises which may or may not be a
>turn-off to students whether or not classified as LD.
>
>I agree with you that pure guessing is not generally an effective
>methodology and that the instructor does need to provide a certain
degree
>of bridging not only in facilitating phonemic awareness, but also in all
>aspects of enhancing literacy. A common strategy from a whole language
>perspective is the assisted reading approach where the instructor reads
a
>passage around the level of the students' capacity in a supportive
>reading environment. The instructor initiates the reading and students
>follow along. In successive readings, students take over more of the
>reading until they are gradually mastering most of the text. It is only
>after several attempts that one then begins to identify particular words
>that continue to be problematic. These are the words that might require
>specific attention whether through phonic or word patterned activities,
>multisyllabic practice, sight word memorization, cloze exercises, and
>perhaps other methodologies.
>
>The assumption upon which this is based is that for the most part,
>reading (including phonemic awareness) is not learned through phonetic
>rule mastery or short term memory, but through unconscious assimilation
>over time through much practice. Basic skill work can, and sometimes
>needs to facilitate this process, and we do need to be aware of where
>people are stuck, but for the most part adults will learn to read
through
>reading important, useful, and absorbing texts in supportive learning
>environments. Creative repetition through the utilization of words and
>phrases, in richly narrative or other important contexts is much more
>likely to induce reading mastery rather than dependency on excessive
>decontextual drill exercises. The instructor does, though, need to act
>in a supportive, bridgeing function between what students know and what
>they do not know.
>
>LVA has always taken a balanced methodological approach about the
reading
>process. This goes back to the late 1960s when LVA founder Ruth Colvin
>linked up with Syracuse University reading specialist, Jane Root to
>develop an eclectic tutor training program consisting of phonics, word
>patterns, sight words, and language experience stories. This view was
in
>contrast to the predominantly phonic-based approach that held sway at
>Laubauch Literacy Action for quite a number of years. LVA's eclectic
>methodology remained more or less constant throughout the 70s and much
of
>the 80s until the whole language revolution began to take hold.
>
>The shift from decoding to meaning making ushered in by the whole
>language revolution was reinforced in LVA by the emphasis on
>collaborative learning and process writing, depicted in the training
>manuals Small Group Tutoring: A Collaborative Approach for Literacy
>Instruction (1990) and Tutor: A Collaborative Approach to Literacy
>Instruction (1993). This was reinforced by a strong student-centered
>approach, which in a sense was always indicative of LVA philosophy,
>except that before the "revolution," such support was tied to the
>isolated student in a survival-like imagery of "deficiency." Afterward,
>reflecting the influence of Fingeret and Jurmos's pioneer study,
>Participatory Literacy Education, the agency adopted a much more
>empowering interpretation of the adult literacy learner linked to
>collaborative learning and a more communal sense of social identity. As
>a result, LVA shifted the designation of its tutor training from Basic
>Reading to Basic Literacy reflective of the emphasis on meaning making
>and knowledge construction without ignoring the importance of contextual
>basic skill development. This was in line with the progressive movement
>in adult basic education throughout the US and elsewhere
>
>While such a pedagogy is always in need of continuous improvement, one
>wonders what is gained by a back to basics revival that is becoming
>pervasive in at least some quarters.
>
>It would be useful at least to me to have laid out a good articulation
of
>the theoretical assumptions of the Wilson Method and how someone working
>from its premises would interpret some of what I've stated above.
>
>George Demetrion
>LVA-Connecticut River East
>Gdemetrion@juno.com
>
>RFC822 header
>-----------------------------------
>
> Status: U
> Return-Path: <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov>
> Received: from literacy.nifl.gov ([192.188.111.2])
> by litnetserver.literacy.upenn.edu
> (Netscape Messaging Server 3.62) with ESMTP id 205
> for <sabatini@literacy.upenn.edu>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:50:20
-0400
> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id
>WAA20030;
> Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:47:03 -0400 (EDT)
> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:47:03 -0400 (EDT)
> Message-Id: <19990908.214721.1950.0.GDEMETRION@juno.com>
> Errors-To: lmann@literacy.nifl.gov
> Reply-To: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov
> Originator: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov
> Sender: nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov
> Precedence: bulk
> From: "GEORGE E. DEMETRION" <gdemetrion@juno.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov>
> Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:124] Reading Theories
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 11:03:58 EDT