Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g8CNvxX05481; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:57:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 19:57:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <001301c25ab8$1c1f70a0$09150785@fedu.fukuiu.ac.jp> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Charles Jannuzi" <jannuzi@edu00.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:7987] Re: Second Thoughts on Phonemic Awareness? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2362 Lines: 57 John I've read other stuff by some of the same articles. A lot of the argument parts (that's right, even 'objective' researchers and academics are making arguments) are needlessly tendentious and mischaracterize whole language education. As for the research, IT DOE NOT clearly support a combination of phonemic awareness and phonics. There just isn't that much research about phonics in the same sense that there is about phonemic awareness. They are just making a connection to match their agenda. As for phonemic awareness, I agree it is certainly fairly well delimited and results in a lot of reports (though some of the differences in the conceptualization that holds across researchers are quite inadvertently hilarious, a post-modernist field day in aporia). The problem is, the concept(s) underlying the research is nonsense. I've said it how many times, I'll say it again. Whole language offers the most for the bilingual and ESL educator. Why? Because phonics can be reconciled with WL and subsumed under the WL umbrella. Not vice versa. As for the Bush administration, just as it did in Texas, it is going out to get research to support its agenda. That isn't science. Charle Jannuzi Fukui, Japan ----- Original Message ----- $BAw?.<T(B : "John Nissen" <jn@tommy.demon.co.uk> $B08@h(B : "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> $BAw?.F|;~(B : Friday, September 13, 2002 6:26 $B7oL>(B : [NIFL-ESL:7983] Re: Second Thoughts on Phonemic Awareness? > Hi Charles, > > Have you read the whole article? It is very balanced, and not > a propaganda sell for phonics fanatics. What it is saying is > that there needs to be SOME phonics (as defined very simply > and clearly in the article) in the teaching. Using a > "whole language" approach to the exclusion of phonics can > be disasterous. "Phonics" boils down to a combination of > (a) phonemic awareness (so you become aware of the structure of > your own spoken words), and (b) the rules of translating sounds > into graphemes and vice versa. Actually it's common sense. > But it's also backed up by some very convincing linguistic > research. And the article mentions some major US investigations > to support their findings, so that "the Bush administration is > now promoting the inclusion of phonics in reading programs > nationwide". > > Cheers, > > John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:44:20 EST