Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i12HcCI18222; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:38:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:38:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <102.3dca02f6.2d4fe3d4@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: MWPotts2001@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2664] more on reading research X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Status: O Content-Length: 12101 Lines: 213 Colleagues, This message was posted to another list in response to the questions about scientifically-based reading research. This is a most interesting perspective, and the bibliography is quite valuable. Thanks to Ann Murr. Janet Isserlis asked: “What are these ‘studies’? What passes for research that informs our work, what research ‘counts’ to legislative people?” I’d like to briefly summarize the research that has informed our work at the Drake University Adult Literacy Center, where volunteers offer one-to-one tutoring for adults who enroll in order to improve their reading and writing proficiencies. I am a practitioner-researcher and have been in the adult literacy field for six years. After just a year of tutoring adults who struggle to learn to read and training volunteers to tutor, I discovered that learning progress was not happening when using authentic text which required word recognition through memorization, guessing, and guided phonics instruction. Instruction in word structure while writing letters to pen pals was very “hit and miss.” This instruction did not have the systematic intensity which learners needed to address their learning struggles. I began reading the research on why children fail to learn to read – because the adults we serve failed to learn to read as children. This is what I have found in my reading of quantitative, i.e., scientifically-based, reading research: Groundbreaking work in neuroscience informs educators about cognitive processes involved in translating speech to print and print to speech and how these mental processes do not become automatic for one in five learners (Shaywitz, 2003). Research has identified the differing cognitive processes of children and adults who fail to reach levels of functional literacy. Beginning with Isabella Liberman in the late ‘70s and continuing with Shaywitz, Paulesu, Richards, (see accompanying bibliography) and others, brain scan technology reveals that persons who struggle to learn to read have brain activity patterns that differ from the brain activity patterns of competent readers. This brain-based difference manifests itself in the lack of perception of the speech sounds of which words made, i.e., a lack of phonemic awareness, and great difficulty in combining and segmenting these sounds (phonological processing skills). Their brains are truly “not wired” to learn to read. Quantitative researchers are able to separate distinct factors which influence learning, i.e., verbal and nonverbal I.Q., family educational background and income, ethnicity, age and sex. Through this process, scientifically-based research has determined that children and adults who lack adequate phonemic awareness and phonological processing skills do fail to reach competence in literacy. Pratt and Brady (1988) looked at the reading skills and performance of good and poor readers in 3rd grade and in ABE classes. They found that both child and adult poor readers “display deficiencies in phonological processing.” In fact, the adults scored more poorly on the “sounding-out” tasks than did the children. Read and Ruyter (1985) found similar results when investigating good and poor readers in 5th grade and adults in a Wisconsin prison. While the adults had more extensive banks of memorized non-decodable sight words, they performed more poorly than the children on tasks measuring phonological processing skills. Read and Ruyter concluded that “ the only hope seems to be in teaching these skills.” (p. 51) Four years ago at the Drake University Adult Literacy Center we began an informal screening process to determine each adult learner’s level of phonemic awareness and phonological processing skills. Every adult, regardless of education or incoming reading level, has demonstrated the lack or phonological processing skills identified in the scientific research. (This is our qualitative, observational research.) Several had already earned a GED but stated emphatically, “Take me back to the very beginning. I’m tired of feeling dumb with words!” We began using direct, systematic instruction which activates learning with multisensory, hands-on learning of the sounds of our alphabetic language and then in the structure of how sounds and syllables combine as text. Minimally-trained volunteers have the materials and structure to address the learning challenges that face persons who have failed to learn to read through more traditional methods. My background and previous teaching experience was as an early childhood educator. When I began studies in an adult learning masters degree program, I addressed the issue of whether or not adults and children learn in different ways. My conclusion was that we all learn best in the context of “doing”, through hands-on experiences in a meaningful context. Developmentally-appropriate instruction is necessary at ALL ages, not just for young children. If an adult does not know how sounds correspond to letters, it IS appropriate to teach that adult the sounds (phonemes) and how they combine into words. I have observed that adults in our Center immediately transfer that information into decoding (reading) text at work, on street signs, and in books that they read to their children. They have the background knowledge and experience to apply what they are learning within the structured tutoring setting to the broader context of their lives. One of the women I tutor has a cleaning business. She is now able to read the notes left for her by her employers so that she can clean exactly what they want her to. Her tearful comment when we began working on multisyllabic words was: “You mean I don’t have to be afraid of the big words anymore?”! Experimental research also has investigated the effects of structured, direct instruction for children who are failing to learn to read. Children in the successful Reading Recovery program made greater reading gains when receiving direct instruction in phonological processing skills (Iverson and Tunmer, 1993). An intensive investigation into literacy learning in Title One reading classes found that the only children whose reading scores improved were those who received direct, systematic instruction. (Foorman, et al., 1998) There is a dearth of research on the effect of instruction with adults. We are collecting data in our Center and hope to have it compiled in the near future. For those whose brains are not “wired” to process words efficiently, we have observed that it takes much time for structured, multisensory practice in order for adults to internalize word structure information. Memorization alone just doesn’t compute. We who teach most often learned to read effortlessly; we have strengths in verbal intelligence. Until we witness the struggles of those who have invested great effort in learning to read but have failed (to this point in time), we think that given appropriate text and context, these adults WILL learn to read. However, persons who have very low verbal intelligence but who are skilled in visual-spatial, mechanical, inter or intrapersonal, or kinesthetic intelligence will continue to fail to reach functional literacy competence without instruction that is informed by science. Reading problems are not caused by low intelligence, by a literacy-deprived environment, by lack of motivation to learn or by emotional turmoil, although learning is certainly affected by all these factors. Science has identified the root cause of reading problems as neurological. Educators are challenged to act on this evidence. Certainly literacy learning must occur within the context of meaningful text and life application tasks. Literacy is more than the learning of discrete skills. But adults who failed to learn to read as children will continue to struggle to become fully literate until they learn the basic structure of our alphabetic language. They must internalize the knowledge that words are constructed from sounds and that those sounds correlate with letters. When we do not act on the evidence from science, we undermine the effectiveness of our instruction. I will close with this anecdote: During his third tutoring session with me, a college student (who was tested as reading at the 6th grade level) tapped out 3 sounds /f/ /a/ /d/. After several attempts with saying the discrete sounds but not perceiving how the sounds combined into a word, he finally exclaimed, “Fad! That’s how you spell ‘fad’? I wouldn’t spell fad that way! It’s a damn-ass shame I never learned the little words before!” Later he declared, “This is productive! Learning is fun!” Instruction which is informed by science IS productive - and empowering for all of us as learners. Anne Murr Coordinator Drake University Adult Literacy Center Des Moines, IA 50311 Bibliography Bell, L. & Perfetti, C. (1994). Reading skill: Some adult comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 244-255. Bradley, l. & Bryant, P.E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read— a causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421 Bus, A.G. & van IJzendoorn. (1999) Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educationa.l Psychology, 91, 403-414. Byrne, B. & Ledez, J. (1983). Phonological awareness in reading-disabled adults. Australian Journal of Psychology, 35. 185-197. Felton, R.H., Naylor, C.E., Wood, F.B. (1990). Neuropsychological profile of adult dyslexics. Brain and Language, 39, 485-497. Foorman, B., Fletcher, J., Francis, D., Shatschneider, C., Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Education Psychology. 90. 37-55. Iverson, S. & Tunmer, W. E. (1993) Phonological processing skills and the reading recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112-126. Liberman, L. & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 8-17. Paulesu, E., Démonet, j.-F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., Cappa, S.F., Cossu, G., Habib, M., Frith, C.D., Frith, U. (2001). Dyslexia: Cultural diversity and biological unity, Science, 291, 2165-2167. Perfetti, C. A. & Marron, M.A. (1995). Learning to read: Literacy acquisition by children and adults. National Center on Adult Literacy, Technical Report TR95-07. Pratt, A.C., Brady, S. (1988). Relation of phonological awareness to reading disability in children and adults. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 319-323.Read, C. & Ruyter, L. (1985). Reading and spelling skills in adults of low literacy. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 43-52. Read, C., Zhang, Y., Nie H., Ding, B. (1986). The ability to manipulate speech sounds depends on knowing alphabetic writing. Cognition, 24, 31-44. Richards, T., Corina, D., Serafini, S., Steury, K., Echelard, D., Dager, S., Marro, K., Abbott, R., Maravilla, K., Berninger, V. (2000) The effects of a phonologically-driven treatment for dyslexia on lactate levels as measured by proton MRSI. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 21, 916-922 Shankweiler,D., Liberman, I., Mark, L., Fowler, C., and Fischer W. (1979). The speech code and learning to read. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 531-545. Shaywitz, S. (2003) Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., Pugh, K., Fulbright, R., Constable, R.T., Mencl, W.E., Shankweiler, D., Liberman, A., Skudlarski, p., Fletcher, J., Katz, L., Marchione, K., Lacadie, C., Gatenby, C., & Gore, J. (1998). Functional disruption in the organization of the brain for reading in dyslexia. Neurobiology, 95, 2636-2641.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:23 EST