[NLA] reading instruction and policy advocacy

Wed Sep 11 10:18:53 EDT 2002

Art:  Sometimes you scare the daylights out of me, which I guess is a
backhanded compliment.  I hope we never see the day when policy steps into
the idea of REQUIRING any methodology in adult education, and in places
where this is already the case, I mourn the situation. The very idea runs
contrary to the ethos of working WITH learners and not ON them, according
to INDIVIDUAL learning styles and preferences, on goals that are
learner-defined.  In other words, the entire approach of learner-centered
instruction.  Repeat after me:  There is no silver bullet in methodology
that guarantees success. When I am asked about the role of phonics, which
is often, my reply is that phonemic awareness is essential to the
development of fluent readers, but many learners simply cannot reach even a
functional level if this methodology is stressed, never mind required.
Whole language approaches, and every other methodology, also has its
limitations.("Whole language" is not about memorizing word
lists,incidentally, with comprehension thrown in on the side.)  In our
training and inservice program, our focus is on equipping tutors with a
variety of tools, and to foster the judgement necessary to choose the right
tool at the right time for the right reason, all according to
learner-defined need.  It would be much easier to require that every
learning pair utilize this or that methodology, or mix of methodogies, and
be done with training and program design lickedy-split.  In fact, that's
what we used to do years ago.  

In his related post, Archie Willard posed the challenge of helping adults
deal with the burden of discouragement and poor self-esteem that many must
overcome to find motivation.  Whether or not it is the role of adult
educators to accept this challenge we can debate.  However, at least we can
agree, I hope, to do no harm that can be avoided!  In a well-meaning search
for "best practices" and in an age of unreasonable accountability
pressures, I worry that somewhere, in some way, some policies and practices
do more harm than good.

Efforts to research and apply methodology, where such efforts become the
engine that pulls the train, have failed and will continue to fail in every
case where the content becomes paramount over the adult learner as a
respected, no, EQUAL contributor to the learning process.  And there iks
such a thing as a "learning process".

Should local systems be "allowed" to determine what works?  How about
"allowing" the learning process to uncover what works?  Often, the policy
that need to be promulgated is to get out of the way.  

I think I've become Art LaChance's "loyal opposition".  Debbie Yoho

> [Original Message]
> From: Art LaChance <arthur at ellijay.com>
> To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
 > Date: 09/11/2002 9:16:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [NLA] reading instruction and policy advocacy
>
> Eileen,
> I agree with several of your points here but I have discussion on one or
two.
> 
> If the student has no ability to "sound-out" unfamiliar words the
"reading"
> capability is limited to memorization of words, and certainly no meaning
will be
> transferred from those unfamiliar words.  But it seems to me that as a
child
> grows and they experience more and more verbal language from the
environment
> they become associated with larger vocabularies so that when they reach
the
> point of being able to sound out the unfamiliar they can make a
connection as to
> meaning.
> 
> I have great reservations as to allowing "local systems" to develop what
they
> think "works".  I believe that's why we have the problem we have now in
local
> education.  Additionally, my understanding of the phonics issue is that
when the
> local system (read as GA) began using whole language exclusively the
colleges
> and universities stopped teaching teachers how to teach using phonics, so
now
> there is a large group of "certified" teachers and administrators who
know very
> little about phonics.  I don't say that lightly either.  I know this to be
> absolutely factual for this rural community in particular and adjacent
> communities are quite similar.
> 
> I believe the case for phonics vs whole language has been made, and quite
> clearly.  The question is: has academia and administration listened ? 
Those of
> us in the adult literacy classrooms see the results of both daily and
realize
> fully that both are required, not recommended, and again - that's
'required', in
> order for any person to become fluent readers of the language.  If they
can
> read, like your daughter, they picked the capability up from somewhere,
it does
> not happen automatically.  If it was an automatic function, we wouldn't
have to
> deal with the monster we have now.
> 
> Another reading issue is 'how' does the student read?  One word at a time
?
> Complete sentences ?  One of the primary problems stemming from 'word
lists' is
> that some students never move beyond reading 'lists'.  They may read
> horizontally, but in effect all they're doing is reading a word list,
albeit
> quickly in some cases.  "Context" doesn't happen unless the student is
taught to
> read in complete thoughts.  They may remember some of the primary issues
but to
> 'understand' what they read more completely they must be taught to read
for
> comprehension.  That is a separate issue from phonics and whole language.
Some
> arguments may support the idea that this IS whole language, but my
experience is
> that it's not being addressed by the teaching staff so I can't believe
that it's
> being taught to teachers.
> 
> art
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eileen Eckert wrote:
> 
> > Thanks, Tom Zurinskas, for your NRP summary. I'm responding to your
> > statement, "I hope the NLA rallies behind the National Reading Panel."
> > Relating this discussion to policy issues, what does it mean to rally
behind
> > the NRP? Is that like saying, "Please mandate that everyone do what I
think
> > is right, even if they're not convinced by my arguments, even if what
> > they're already doing works"?
> >
> > Tom, you haven't convinced me that your blanket statement, phonics is
best,
> > is true. Rather than rallying behind the NRP, I think we should be
> > advocating for local control of methodological decisions.
Accountability can
> > come from answering the question: How do you know that what you are
doing
> > works? rather than from answering the question: How did you comply with
the
> > requirement to teach phonemic awareness?
> >
> > By the way, I'm not against teaching phonemic awareness. I believe it is
> > <part> of learning to read for most people. However, also consider
these two
> > anecdotes.
> >
> > First, my seven-year-old daughter's only schooling in reading (or any
other
> > subject) has been in Spanish. She has had some informal phonemic
instruction
> > in English from me, but nothing systematic. She reads well above "grade
> > level" in Spanish <and> English (in fact, she reads somewhat better in
> > English, and she does not sound out words using the Spanish phonemes).
She
> > is being raised in a very "print rich" bilingual environment. Whatever
you
> > say about the lack of methodologically rigorous research, you cannot
> > convince me the evidence of my eyes and ears is wrong. Instilling a
love of
> > reading helps people become better readers.
> >
> > Second, consider the following exchange between my niece and nephew.
Luke:
> > What are those books you're talking about? Would I like them?
> > Shannon: You wouldn't like them, they have too many big words.
> > Luke: I can read big words, I just don't understand them.
> >
> > My point: The case for phonics vs. whole language (or for the proper
> > balance) has not yet been made conclusively. Policymakers should leave
the
> > decision about reading instruction to local programs, and support
further
> > development of local-level expertise to evaluate the research and make
the
> > best judgment about how to teach.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> > http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> > LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> > http://literacytent.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> http://literacytent.org

Deborah W. Yoho
Moderator, NIFL-Health Discussion Group
Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
921 Woodrow Street  Columbia, SC  29205
803-765-2555    dwyoho at earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org