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 WAA20041; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:47:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:47:13 -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 Status: OR 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 11:03:57 EDT