Re: Reading instruction

["L. Cirincione" <lindac15@MINDSPRING.COM>]

I totally agree with Monty. I learned to read on my own at 4 y/o. I might
have agreed that this works, except for the fact that my son still cannot
read well at age 10 - despite 2 wall units of books that are HIS, despite my
reading to him every single night for all of his life, despite the fact that
he uses an impressive vocabulary correctly, despite constant phonics AND
whole language instruction.....
Could it be the need for Vision Therapy since his eyes have been tested by a
specialized process & they do not focus at a level capable of more than a
1st grade reading ability? Could it be the existence of Learning
Disabilities? The fact that his learning style is visual/kinesthetic & most
teachers teach to logic-learners & do not know specialized techniques like
Lindamood-Bell that work wonders with other learning styles? Could his
inability to write perhaps be traced to problems with fine motor control
rather than lack of motivation or writing skills?
Sometimes I really think that academics who get so involved in debates like
the phonics vs whole language "issue" because it's easier than identifying
the real problems in the real world that the rest of us have to live in (&
far easier than actually finding a solution for them - god forbid!).
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Monty Neill" <monty@FAIRTEST.ORG>
To: <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Reading instruction


> I think that is true for some children indeed - they do get it by
> "osmosis" - being read to, etc. Not all. We thought our son was reading
the
> books we had read to him (he loved to be read to, etc) - but he had
"merely"
> memorized them word for word exactly by hearing them (something I could
> never do), but he really had lots of trouble with actually reading - why I
> do not know, this was now many years ago and I knew little about reading.
>
> Of course, some folks have trouble learning to speak as well, but it seems
> far less prevalent than problems in learning to read.
>
> I think Chomsky has proven pretty persuasive on the hardwiring in the
brain
> for language facility, tho there remain many details on this that are
> debated, yet to be proven etc. I would think that capacity would spill
over
> to writing and reading - but that these skills probably involve other
> capacities of the brain than does speaking (which of course means the
> capacity is there, which fact does not speak to how easy or hard it is in
> general or for particular people to learn to use this capacity, or to take
> advantage of its' latent existence, or -- formulation of this?). Perhaps
> someone on the list has studied this far more thoroughly than I have.
>
> In earlier saying that what I read (Frank Smith, mainly) did not persuade
me
> that learning to read was in fact the same as learning to speak. To the
> extent they are different (and I do not know that extent), then it <may>
be
> that different things might be required -- for some if not all children -
to
> learn to read.
>
> Another question that comes up is, what about all those kids who were not
> read to very much? They arrive in school, and school is supposed to do for
> them what in many cases parents have done for other children, which is
> prepare them to read if not actually get them to read. I think one of the
> reasons people go for didactic approaches is the hope that it will do in a
> compressed period of time what some children get through their
environment.
> So, if a child comes to school with little literacy experience, the
didactic
> approach, esp. but not only phonics, is intended to help them catch up.
> Again, I don't think there is good substantial evidence it works; and
there
> quite possibly are all sorts of philosophical - ideological - political
etc
> reasons why some folks gravitate toward didactic that leads them to want
to
> believe it beyond any actual evidence.
>
> In many ways, the real question of phonics is whether it will work for
kids
> for whom the "natural" process either did not work or was essentially not
> present. Of course, the carried-away version will insist on phonics for
kids
> who don't need it.
>
> Again, a parallel with testing: test proponents have a really hard time
> making any serious case that the "standards based" tests really will lead
to
> improved education for kids now getting a good education, and indeed it is
> easy enough to see how it will narrow, dumb-down, etc, their education.
The
> case promoted by Ed Trust, Rod Paige, et al is that this testing push will
> cause real improvements in schools serving poor kids. Lack of evidence is
> not problem to them, I don't know how much they even believe what they are
> selling, or maybe it is that they define education differently for
different
> groups or children -- etc. But, like the oversell of phonics, it lacks
> evidence and reason and there is lots of evidence it causes plenty of
> damage.
>
> Monty
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Crump <ecrump@INTERVERSITY.ORG>
> To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU <ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU>
> Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 4:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Reading instruction
>
>
> >*Are* we wired to speak? Who says? How did they discover that to be true?
> >Do human children, raised in isolation, spontaneously speak?
> >
> >Or is what's *wired* a tendency to learn whatever skills the environment
> >suggests will enhance the ability to thrive? We learn language skills
> >because humans are social animals that require communication skills to
> >survive.
> >
> >I have seen three children (mine) learn to read and write quite as easily
> >and with the same degree of "instruction" (almost none) as they learned
to
> >speak. All three learned to talk because they were surrounded by talk. It
> >became evident to them that talking was a useful method of getting along
> >in the world of our household. Same with reading and writing. We have
> >loads of books. We read to our kids daily from the time they can sit up.
> >They have not needed instruction in phonics or anything else. When they
> >have questions about words, we answer them. They have questions, too! But
> >they also learn much on their own, just by being constantly *engaged* in
> >the process of reading, which seems to them to be a normal part of
getting
> >along in the world of our household.
> >
> >One of my favorite quotes:
> >
> >"If we taught children to speak, they'd never learn."
> >--William Hull (qtd. by John Holt)
> >*How Children Fail*
> >
> >I can't point you to any studies (though perhaps others can). But I can
> >tell you that my observation of three ordinary human children suggests
> >that learning reading and writing is not *functionally* much different
> >from learning to talk.
> >
> >--Eric Crump
> >---------------------------------------------
> >Interversity Teaching & Learning Co-operative
> >http://www.interversity.org
> >
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> >to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
> to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the ARN-L list, send command SIGNOFF ARN-L
to LISTSERV@LISTS.CUA.EDU.