Tom wrote:

"Andres, thank you for your explanation of what we do when we read. It 
has helped me fill in some of the gaps in my own understanding of 
reading. I hope it will not be, as you have said, your last statement on

the matter. You make an interesting suggestion that printed words are 
stored as images and recalled instantly in fluent readers. Do you think 
the image for the word, 'book' is stored as a picture of a book, as a 
picture of the letters, b+o+o+k, a sound, or maybe something else? The 
possibilities suggest to me, possible new avenues for instruction for 
people who can't learn to read in the conventional ways."

The word "book" is stored as a complete sign in fluent readers. The sign
refers to the concept book and may be attached to images of books. The
sign as an image requires that we recognize features of the sign. Those
features that we recognize may be individual letters or shapes, etc that
constitute the sign. The fact that in seeing the word "book" we may
recognize individual letters, does not necessarily mean that we
phonetically decode the word book. It simply mean that the letters are
seen as elements in the sign. A longer word that we are unfamiliar with
may require phonetic decoding, as Andrea suggested. This is only while
we are unfamiliar with it. So, for example, the word
"othorhinolaryngologist" (technical word for an ENT) may require that we
decode it phonetically the first time we see it. When an ENT sees this
word, he doesn't decode it every time he sees it. He already can
visualize it by picking up certain features of the word. So, for example
if he saw: othorhinlaryngoligist or othorhoniloringaligist, he will
right away see the word referring to an ENT. If he decoded these words,
he would realize that the words do not mean anything. Yet, since he is
not rapidly decoding phonetically, but relying on visual cues, he will
pick them up as the same. A great place to see how much we rely on
visual identification rather than phonetic decoding, is a chat room. In
a chat room, half of the words written are misspelled. If we rapidly
decoded them phonetically, we would not be able to make any sense of
most of them. Instead, we are visually picking up clues that we
associate with words.  

 
"I have a student now, 45 years old. He never learned to read beyond the

primer level. He has very little ability to decode words phonetically, 
even simple words. He seems to have something that just blocks his 
ability to remember even just a few rules of letter/sounds. For example,

we have worked for days on the sound made by '-ight.' He can tell me the

rule; he can read light, might, night, fight, etc. and then five minutes

later, he can't remember it.or he doesn't see it.

I am convinced that no amount of additional phonics instruction is going

to make any difference for this individual, but maybe there's another 
sensory pathway that will help him burn an image of a word into his 
memory. Maybe some of us on the list could write in sensory and image 
pathways they have used with learners and we could compile a very useful

list. Would you please say more about the nature of the word images you 
touched on."

Regarding your student, I would assume that if he can visualize words
without relating them to sounds, he may be able to remember them.
Imagine that he is deaf. You wouldn't be able to have him associate the
sound of the word "book" to a book. Yet, a literate deaf person can see
the word "book" as a sign that is associated with an actual book. If you
are convinced that there is no way that he can remember phonemes and
associate them to letters, you should try to have him learn words as
signs that represent actual meanings w/o associating the signs to
phonics and decoding. 

I remember when I was a kid, I would always make mistakes between the
words father and mother. I would write father and mather or fother and
mother. I would write in cursive. My mom, trying to come up with a
visual explanation told me that the father is the one that brings the
money. Therefore, he has an arm and a hand with which he hands the money
to the mother. The extension of the letter "a" in cursive was the
father's hand and arm. This is how I learned to spell "father"
correctly, and "mother" was the opposite. My mom used to come up with
all these visual devises to help me with spelling. She worked in a
school with LD children and would come up with different ways to teach
kids. She wasn't that familiar with the theory, but had great
pedagogical instincts. Of course, her suggestion was very non-feminist.

Thinking of the same approach, the word right points to the right. The
"r" in the word also points to the right. You can say that the "r" is a
tool for pointing to the right. Just a silly suggestion paying homage to
my mom.  

BTW, if we are phonetically decoding rapidly, how do we decode these
words: hope, hot, hoot, hour, hook, honest, house, hoist, honey, horse,
horizon. If we were rapidly decoding, we would never be able to get
through the list quickly.  

For those who are interested in understanding reading, the most
comprehensive and well annotated book on the subject that I know is:
"understanding Reading" by Frank Smith. 

Andres

Muro, Andres wrote:


> Ok, I'll give up. This is my last response to this discussion. Anita: 

> when you say experts, who do you mean? Do you have scientific articles



> that show this, or are you quoting self-serving unscientific articles 

> with no footnotes or bibliography?

>

> Words as sounds are processed in the Wernicke's and Brocca's area of 

> the brain, as you said, on the left side, temporal and frontal lobe's 

> respectively. Wernicke's is sensory and Brocca's is motor. That does 

> not mean that they are decoded. When I hear the word potato, I' don't 

> need to decode it to know what it means. When I see the word potato I 

> associate with the sound. This is the reason the Wernicke's area is 

> activated. However, the idea that we need to decode sounds to learn 

> words is bologny.

>

> When children learn to speak, they learn all kinds of words that they 

> associate with sounds. There is no decoding going on. Again, children 

> are associating sounds to visual images. Because these sounds are 

> processed in the left temporal lobe, this area is associated with 

> language processing. However, there is little to no decoding going on.



> When we start teaching kids to read, a natural process that takes 

> exposure to visual signs that are associated with objects and 

> concepts, we start breaking the signs into smaller components. We do 

> this as common sensical adults that think that if we break signs into 

> little pieces, children will be better able to grasp the signs easier.



> It is kind of as if I taught you that this leg, plus these other three



> legs, plus a head, plus a tail, plus fur, plus meow = a cat. Again, we



> don't need to break things down to children for them to figure what a 

> cat or a dog is.

>

> Again, children don't learn like that and neither do adults. As I said



> before, decoding is a useful tool when we run into unknowns. If you 

> see a strange entity, then, you may try to decode it. You'll see that 

> it has four legs, a torso, a tail, and a head and then you may 

> conclude that it is an animal. If you see the words "deoxyribonucleic"



> or "othorhinolaryngologist" and you've never seen them before, you may



> try to decode them. Better yet, you may simply ask someone to tell you



> what they are. Once you see the word three or four times in context, 

> then you'll have an image and you'll stop trying to decode them.

>

> Andres

>

>

>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

> *From:* learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of Anita

Landoll

> *Sent:* Sat 10/21/2006 9:41 AM

> *To:* The Learning Disabilities Discussion List

> *Subject:* [LearningDisabilities 699] Re: one-size-fits-all

methodology

>

> Experts say that they are finding that all words, irregular as well as



> regular, follow the same decoding pathway in the left side of the 

> brain. So I think we need to help our learners make sense of any word 

> they need to know in order to read the text they need to read, by 

> helping them find the sound spelling within the written spelling of 

> the word. Using multi-sensory techniques, of course.

>

> Anita learntoreadnow

>

>

> ----- Original Message ----

> From: John Nissen <jn at cloudworld.co.uk>

> To: The Adult English Language Learners Discussion List 

> <englishlanguage at nifl.gov>

> Cc: Jennifer Chew <jennifer at chew8.freeserve.co.uk>; The Learning 

> Disabilities Discussion List <learningdisabilities at dev.nifl.gov>; 

> Debbie Hepplewhite <debbie at syntheticphonics.com>; John Rack 

> <jrack at dyslexia-inst.org.uk>; focusonbasics at nifl.gov

> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 4:04:54 PM

> Subject: [LearningDisabilities 697] Re: one-size-fits-all methodology

>

>

> Hello Bonnita,

>

> Welcome to this discussion. You raise an interesting point about

> comprehension and a suitable initial vocabulary. The jury is out on

this

> one. My own view, for what it's worth, is that one should start with a

> small vocabulary of regular words - CVC or VC words - where the sound

to

> letter mapping is one-to-one, and using only the short vowel sounds.

>

> However you raise another point about the harmless absorption of sight



> words

> like MEN and WOMEN. Now here the jury is back with a guilty verdict on

two

> counts! What the research shows is that sight words should be avoided

and

> also that one should start with lower case letters. The learning of

sight

> words actually discourages the employment of decoding skills. The

> scientific explanation is that the learning of sight words develops 

> pathways

> in the brain (as for the dyslexic slow reader) that are different from

the

> pathways used by the fluent reader who employs rapid decoding skills.

>

> On your last point, about the learning of consonants in conjunction

with

> vowels rather than the learning of phonemes in isolation, again the 

> jury is

> back, but this time with a majority decision for guilty. The main

> distinction between analytic and synthetic phonics is that the former

> teaches sounds in context and the latter teaches sounds in isolation.

In

> the Clackmannanshire study, the analytic phonics group (of 100 

> children) was

> doing so much worse than the synthetic phonics group (of 100 who had 

> started

> at the same time) that they felt obliged to switch to synthetic 

> phonics, for

> the sake of the children! Now some people (notably Torgerson et al.)

> dispute that there is such a clear superiority of synthetic phonics,

but I

> myself am convinced by the McGuinness paper that I have already

mentioned:

> http://www.rrf.org.uk/Torgersonarticle.pdf. The UK government and Tory

> opposition appear convinced also. (The mixed method approach of the

old

> National Literacy Strategy - mixing analytic phonics with sight-word

> recognition and guessing by context - had been such a disaster.)

>

> Let me end on a personal note. Years ago, when I started looking into

> psycholinguistics and the science of how people read, it soon became

clear

> that fluent readers identify individual letters in words and employ 

> decoding

> so rapidly that they are unaware that they are decoding - the sounding

out

> of decoded words is subconscious. But for a long time I remained 

> neutral in

> the battle between the "whole language" and "phonics first" school of

> teaching reading. The software I had developed was also neutral. Only

> later was I converted to "phonics first", and then to "synthetic

phonics

> first", on the evidence of studies such that in Clackmannanshire.

Recently

> I have convinced myself that synthetic phonics is applicable: for any

age

> group, for ESL, for people in prison and for people with LD or 

> dyslexia; and

> I seek any evidence (both here on NIFL and elsewhere) that might be to

the

> contrary. If synthetic phonics is indeed so universally applicable, we



> have

> a means to transform the lives of countless people. Why are we

waiting?

>

> Best wishes,

>

> John

>

> John Nissen

> Cloudworld Ltd - http://www.cloudworld.co.uk 

> <http://www.cloudworld.co.uk/>

> maker of the assistive reader, WordAloud.

> Try WordAloud with synthetic phonics:

> http://www.cloudworld.co.uk/teaching-synthetic-phonics.htm

> Tel: +44 208 742 3170 Fax: +44 208 742 0202

> Email: info at cloudworld.co.uk

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Bonnita Solberg" <bdsunmt at sbcglobal.net>

> To: "The Adult English Language Learners Discussion List"

> <englishlanguage at nifl.gov>

> Cc: "Debbie Hepplewhite" <debbie at syntheticphonics.com>;

> <focusonbasics at nifl.gov>; "John Rack" <jrack at dyslexia-inst.org.uk>;

"The

> Learning Disabilities Discussion List"

<learningdisabilities at dev.nifl.gov>

> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 2:50 PM

> Subject: [EnglishLanguage 777] Re: one-size-fits-all methodology

>

>

> > Morning: I think the debate has been overlooking a

> > very important aspect of teaching reading to ESL

> > students in particular: ESL students come to us with

> > a non-existant or limited English vocabulary. Taking

> > this fact into consideration, from Beginning Literacy

> > through Advanced ESL, we teach our students to read

> > words in context. I don't believe any ESL teacher

> > waits until students have a substantial spoken English

> > vocabulary to begin the "learning to read" process.

> > Nor do we delay reading until ESL students can decode

> > words. For example, literacy level students are shown

> > signs-- "MEN" "WOMEN"--within a context and learn to

> > read those words without phoneme/decoding awareness.

> >

> > To say that a phoneme/decoding approach is the only

> > way to teach reading does not fit reality. I remember

> > my children enthralled by watching Sesame Street,

> > where they learned both a phonetic/decoding and a word

> > in context approach to reading. The music, colors,

> > comic characters and repetition were what did the

> > trick. I was pleased to hear them read the words they

> > learned in books without the original prompts, having

> > transferred the skills they learned. Even if only one

> > approach is taught in school, students learn to read

> > outside the formal process. Phonemic

> > awareness/decoding is one strategy in a teacher's bag

> > of tricks and is only one strategy that students use

> > to read outside of class.

> >

> > I use a phoneme/decoding strategy that is very

> > different from the approach being touted in the US by

> > scripted reading or the approach used in the UK as in

> > Cloudworld, but also shares some aspects of both.

> > This approach recognizes that ESL students who "hear"

> > the sounds that make up words, can then read and spell

> > them. It is based on the fact that consonants are not

> > spoken without vowel sounds that accompany them, so it

> > is logical to teach the vowel/consonant sounds as

> > basic sounds in decoding rather than single letter

> > phonemes. Most consonants have more than one sound

> > and have a different sound at the beginning of a word

> > than at the end. Teaching the consonant-vowel

> > -consonant sounds IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORD, at the

> > beginning, in the middle and at the end of a word,

> > attenuates the students' ability to hear/recognize the

> > sounds in English and to pair the sound with the

> > letters. I teach this pronunciation/spelling/reading

> > strategy in a separate section than Everyday Living

> > Skills, but it is also embedded in the lessons for the

> > day so students learn a strategy of decoding pattern

> > C-V-C sounds and a strategy for recognizing irregular

> > (sight) words in context. This strategy makes sense

> > of patterns of sounds as well as the exceptions to the

> > patterns.

> >

> > I for one am very appreciative of the studies sited by

> > the participants. It helps me stay abreast of current

> > research and is one of the most important aspects of

> > the discussion list. Thanks to all.

> >

> > Bonnita Solberg, Teacher

> > Oakland Unified School District

> >

> > --- Elsa Auerbach <elsa.auerbach at umb.edu> wrote:

> >

> >> I find it interesting that John Nissen has a vested

> >> commercial interest in

> >> promoting the one size fits all methodology through

> >> the Cloudworld products.

> >> This is not unlike what happens in the US where

> >> business interests use the

> >> discourse of scientific/evidence-based research to

> >> promote particular

> >> perspectives which benefit them. See for example the

> >> recent Reading First

> >> scandal which turned out to be about cronyism rather

> >> than science (and also

> >> promoted a one-size fits all agenda, with the

> >> profits going to Bush

> >> cronies).

> >>

> >> I doubt that anyone claims that phonemic awareness

> >> has no place in teaching;

> >> but there is quite widespread agreement among

> >> reading scholars (even those

> >> on the much misrepresented US reading commission)

> >> that this is ONE avenue,

> >> not THE avenue toward reading proficiency. In the

> >> case of ELLs, there is

> >> even stronger reason not to promote this as THE

> >> approach.

> >>

> >> Anyone who claims to be a reading expert and is

> >> unfamiliar with the research

> >> that shows the benefits of a context-specific

> >> approach, should perhaps

> >> enroll in graduate studies. There are hundreds of

> >> studies which support this

> >> view. This is a debate which has been around for

> >> decades, with "scientific

> >> research" on both sides.

> >>

> >> Mr. Nissen, for "research that shows that systematic

> >> phonics is

> >> inappropriate in certain circumstances", you may

> >> want to familiarize

> >> yourself with the work of the National Research and

> >> Development Centre

> >> (Lancaster), the pre-eminent nationally funded

> >> research institute in the UK

> >> looking at ESOL literacy; a text which explores

> >> alternatives to the one size

> >> fits all model is Adult Literacy, Numeracy and

> >> Language (Tett, Hamilton, and

> >> Hillier, Eds), Open University Press. I suggest you

> >> enter into dialogue with

> >> your colleagues in the UK who work at the LLU+

> >> (Southbank University London)

> >> and who have recently published Teaching Basic

> >> Literacy to ESOL Learners.

> >>

> >> I wonder, too, if NCSALL folks are comfortable

> >> having the studies published

> >> in Focus on Basics used to support a

> >> one-size-fits-all agenda (Nissen cites

> >> this publication to support a phonemic awareness

> >> training only perspective).

> >>

> >> Elsa Auerbach

> >> Professor

> >> University of Massachusetts Boston

> >> Boston, MA

> >>

> >>

> >> Elsa Auerbach

> >>

> >> On 10/18/06 5:21 PM, "John Nissen"

> >> <jn at cloudworld.co.uk> wrote:

> >>

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > Hello Sharon,

> >> >

> >> > Thank you for your reply, but I beg to differ with

> >> you about the merits of

> >> > an eclectic approach. Recent research on methods

> >> of teaching reading points

> >> > to the importance of phonemic awareness and

> >> decoding skills. This research

> >> > is summarised here:

> >> >

> >>

> > 

>

http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/html/mcshane/chap
ter4.h

> >> > tml

> >> > where systematic phonics is accepted as a

> >> requirement. Further research in

> >> > the UK suggests both that synthetic phonics

> >> (including phonics through

> >> > spelling) is better than analytic phonics*, and

> >> that a mixture of methods

> >> > (which we have had enshrined in the UK "National

> >> Literacy Strategy") should

> >> > be avoided.

> >> >

> >> > The brain research shows that fluent readers

> >> employ a certain parts of their

> >> > brain, whereas dyslexic readers use different

> >> parts. See for example the

> >> > Focus on Basics article

> >> http://www.ncsall.net/?id=278 from 2001. The

> >> > current theory is that intensive training in

> >> phonemic awareness and decoding

> >> > skills can help the brain to develop those

> >> pathways in the brain which allow

> >> > for fluent reading, even for people who may have a

> >> genetic disposition to

> >> > dyslexia.

> >> >

> >> > Can you point to any research which claims to

> >> demonstrate the superiority of

> >> > a mixed method approach? Can you point to any

> >> research that shows that

> >> > systematic phonics is inappropriate in certain

> >> circumstances?

> >> >

> >> > Kind regards,

> >> >

> >> > John

> >> >

> >> > * P.S. The apparent superiority of synthetic

> >> phonics was disputed by

> >> > Torgerson et al, who were in turn rebuffed by

> >> McGuinness in an authoritative

> >> > paper: http://www.rrf.org.uk/Torgersonarticle.pdf,

> >> which should be

> >> > compulsory reading for anybody concerned in this

> >> debate.

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > John Nissen

> >> > Cloudworld Ltd - http://www.cloudworld.co.uk 

> <http://www.cloudworld.co.uk/>

> >> > maker of the assistive reader, WordAloud.

> >> > Try WordAloud with synthetic phonics:

> >> >

> >>

> > http://www.cloudworld.co.uk/teaching-synthetic-phonics.htm

> >> > Tel: +44 208 742 3170 Fax: +44 208 742 0202

> >> > Email: info at cloudworld.co.uk

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >

> >> > ----- Original Message -----

> >> > From: "Sharon McKay" <smckay at cal.org>

> >> > To: "The Adult English Language Learners

> >> Discussion List"

> >> > <englishlanguage at nifl.gov>

> >> > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:26 PM

> >> > Subject: [EnglishLanguage 768] Re:

> >> one-size-fits-all methodology

> >> >

> >> >

> >> >> I have to agree that a variety of instructional

> >> practices should be

> >> >> available to address different learner needs with

> >> respect to reading.

> >> >> If one size fit all, we would have marketed the

> >> Great Reading Solution

> >> >> by now. Each new instructional strategy

> >> contributes to the field but and

> >> >> eclectic approach to teaching reading is still

> >> the best instruction we

> >> >> can offer.

> >> >>

> >> >> Consider our audience which may have first

> >> literacy background in Roman,

> >> >> non-Roman or non-alphabetic characters.

> >> >> Our learners may be literate, semiliterate,

> >> nonliterate or preliterate

> >> >> in first language.

> >> >> They could be very advanced in aural/oral

> >> language acquisition and need

> >> >> help to connect this to literacy.

> >> >> They may be challenged in aural/oral language

> >> acquisition and unable to

> >> >> use any verbal cues to assist in literacy.

> >> >> These differences don't include the myriad of

> >> learnings styles and

> >> >> strategies that have been readily observable in

> >> our students but not

> >> >> easily understood. Brain research may yield many

> >> secrets to reading in

> >> >> the future, but until then, we build what's best

> >> for each situation.

> >> >>

> >> >> I look forward to hearing about any and all

> >> successful reading

> >> >> strategies that you've tried in your classes.

> >> >>

> >> >> Sharon McKay

> >> >> smckay at cal.org

> >> >>

> >> >>

> >> >>

> >> >> -----Original Message-----

> >> >> From: englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov

> >> >> [mailto:englishlanguage-bounces at nifl.gov] On

> >> Behalf Of Lynne Weintraub

> >> >> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 1:03 PM

> >>

> > === message truncated ===

> > ----------------------------------------------------

> > National Institute for Literacy

> > Adult English Language Learners mailing list

> > EnglishLanguage at nifl.gov

> > To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

> > http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/englishlanguage

> > Message sent to jn at cloudworld.co.uk.

> >

>

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Learning Disabilities mailing list

> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

> Message sent to AMLANDOLL at yahoo.com.

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Learning Disabilities mailing list

> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

> Message sent to amuro5 at epcc.edu.

>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-

>

>----------------------------------------------------

>National Institute for Literacy

>Learning Disabilities mailing list

>LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

>To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

>Message sent to WOODSNH at isp.com.

>


----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Learning Disabilities mailing list
LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
Message sent to amuro5 at epcc.edu.