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 NAA10710; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:26:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <s7d63644.014@nmail.epcc.edu> 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: Andres Muro <AndresM@nmail.epcc.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:122] Re: New Moderator -Reply X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Status: OR George, et al: Let me try to share my limited knowledge about the subject. I am not very familiar with back to basics models. According to linguistic theory, children go through 5 stages of literacy acquisition (note that much of the research in education has been done with children so it does not necessarily apply to adults). During the first two stages, children learn basic rules and are able to decode words. The third stage is critical. It is during this stage that children jump from their ability to decode, to their ability to read for meaning. It is during this stage that it is important to have children read meaningfully. It is also at this point where many people get stuck. Stages 3 to 5 progress in reading for content to reading critically and abstractly. In the US, most adults can decode words. However, while those who score in the lowest two levels of the NALS may be able to decode words, they cannot read for meaning and make sense of print. They need to acquire the ability to read critically, for meaning, and they need to learn to enjoy reading. As I understand it, "back to basics" does not refer to reading critically (reading the word and the world) but on discrete components of reading such as decoding words. However, a focus on basics is simply displacing pedagogical energy where it is not needed. The failure in literacy is not in the basics. Andres >>> "GEORGE E. DEMETRION" <gdemetrion@juno.com> 09/08 7:33 am >>> Good evening: Allow me to be so presumptuous to steal Ralph Silva's thunder by a day or so. :) I've been thinking about something for a while but haven't found the forum, so perhaps the Focus on Basics listserv is as good as place as any. In my neck of the woods, the greater Hartford CT area, there has been a back to basics phonemic revival linked in part to the Wilson Method, developed I believe by Barbara Wilson. I really don't know much about this method except that it has a strong phonetic focus. I'm wondering if someone (Barbara Wilson, perhaps) can lay out the theoretical presppositions of the Wilson and if possible some empirical evidence upon which it is supported. I am less interested in citations per se than a concise and coherent articulation of key points. That in turn, may provide an opportunity for a stimulating dialogue/debate on the reading process as well as the relationship between "reading" and "literacy." In certain respects, this is a somewhat old discussion, but given the renewal of the phonemic revival throughout our great land, which in some quarters has taken on evangelistic-like proportions, it might be quite germain. I remain firmly embedded in the whole language camp, although do not dispute the usefulness of contextually-driven basic skill work. However, if one accepts the schema theory that we learn in meaningful chunks, then reading mastery is facilitated as well, if not more so, by comprehensible units of print than by decontextual consonent and vowel sounds. Moreover, I view the different ways in which we learn as methodology. What is of ultimate importance are the contexts of learning. Thus, in my view, an adult literacy program that does not link instruction to important life contexts as identified by students, but one that instead stresses a back to basics decontextual skills focus, is seriously flawed. These views are perhaps old hat to the progressive literacy left, probably most of the readers on this list. However, given the importance of the phonemic revival as a practical phenomenon that strongly influences many programs, both the pedagogy upon which it is based and the broader politics of literacy (such as legislation mandating phonemic awareness in federally funded ABE and literacy programs) through which it has emerged, deserves a close examination. There are a variety of ways to enter into this discussion. I'm partial to a close look at the Wilson System given its impact in programs too close to home. George Demetrion Executive Director LVA-Connecticut River East
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 11:03:57 EDT