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 i3LKLBm00999; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:21:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:21:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <000701c427da$88852f00$130101c8@workstation1> 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: "George Demetrion" <george.demetrion@lvgh.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2740] More on reading X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2480 Lines: 43 One of our tutors was teaching with a systematic phonics program that we use as part of our instructional approach. The following impromptu adaptation in her work that she used on closed three word syllables was intriguing. Specifically, she asked the students to get from the phoneme "tin" to "lag" while changing only one letter at a time. She also used several other examples. The level of concentration among the students was phenomenal in the high level thinking that went into the effort in moving, say, from tin to tan to tag to lag. The tutor gave a few clues when absolutely necessary, but mostly left it to the students to figure out with just a bit of assistance here and there. While observing the work I became reminded of Jean Chall's call for reading teachers and students to become intellectually absorbed with the mechanics of phonemic mastery. That was certainly the case here as students were required to make complex inferences. Like any other aspect of learning, phonemic work can be an exercise in inquiry-based learning. That got me to reflect further both on reading and the broader concept of literacy, that they are mediated symbolic sign systems of a highly representative order which requires literal and figurative decoding ability. As it is with phonics, so it is with whole texts. Competence requires students having the capacity both to grasp and master the sign systems (the contexts) in which they are embedded. That got me to think further about something I read a long time ago that the purpose of learning to read was to read in order to learn and that this dynamic works in both directions for students at all levels. So, just as it is with a phonemic exercise like the example above, so it is with working with a larger text in which students grapple with the forms of symbolic representation that are on the page. The focus of the work is different depending on the type of text engaged (and a singular phoneme would be a text). What is the same is the need for students first, to engage the work; second, make reasoned inferences in the effort of decoding the text that they are working on. In my view, it is only when one type of text is viewed as foundational or inherently more important than the other, in itself, rather than the contexts that help shape the engagement with it, that the effort becomes problematic in deifying (or to use academic jargon, reifying) one aspect of the reading process. George Demetrion
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:25 EST