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 KAA07057; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:35:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 10:35:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19990909143601.006ba810@mail.teleport.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: Sylvan Rainwater <sylrain@teleport.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-fobasics@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-FOBASICS:130] Re: New Moderator -Reply X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Status: OR At 01:25 PM 9/8/99 -0400, Andres Muro wrote: <SNIP> >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. > It seems that most teachers do better with a both-and approach rather than either-or. Certainly, as an ESL teacher, I want to teach communication skills for meaning, and in meaningful contexts rather than a list of grammatical rules and verb tenses. But there are times for the grammatical rules. It can be too heavily emphasized, I know, since I learned a lot of Spanish grammar (which I enjoy and feel comfortable with), but came out of 2 years of college work being unable to speak (though I could understand a lot, and read and write fairly well). Finding the right mix of contextualized instruction for meaning and breaking down the decoding process, teaching the parts, nuts and bolts, is part of the art of teaching. If you add practice (all of my students tell me they want more practice with speaking and pronunciation) and consider it maybe another component (i.e., you read a chunk of text for meaning, and then break it down into parts, focusing on grammar and pronunciation, and then put it back together again), then you've added to the complexity. I wouldn't presume to figure out what percentage of time "should" be spent on each component, and assume that they will be integrated with each other and support each other. To say that we should use only one approach or method seems limiting. In my teaching I find that it demands everything I know, everything I feel, everything I am, and everything I can possibly find out, and then a little bit more. I try a little of this, a little of that, see how it works, and keep learning from my students. They are gracious enough to be my guinea pigs, and keep putting up with me. We all learn something from each other. Sylvan Rainwater . Portland, OR USA . sylrain@teleport.com --------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 11:03:58 EDT