NP - "What's the question about your question that you dread being asked?

[alice wellintown]

Well said. It takes time. And speed is not a human virtue. We are slow
learners. We are slow, period. The smartest students are not not quick
studies. But we want everything done at light speed. Smart is a Smartboard,
a Smartphone, a Smart-gadget. We test students by the clock. How else to
weed out the slow ones, right? Sure it takes time. So does excellent sex.


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Bekah <bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Studies have shown that about 70% of the common English words are
> phonetically regular.  This means that 30% are not.   Phonics is nice for
> "sounding out" new words and for spelling,  but its use is very limited
> when it comes to deriving meaning.  Phonics also falls short of helping
> with those 30% of words -
> (These are words like:  eight,  read (past tense),  could,  said,  climb,
>  you, light, tough, school, etc. and homonyms (foul/fowl,  to/too/two,)
>  more and more as you go up the grades.)
>
> Eventually the real point of both methods is to have thousands of words
> memorized for just plain old sight reading with comprehension.  The problem
> is how to get there.
>
> What happened was that in the 1970s and '80s researchers found that
> phonics was not enough,  so the swing to whole language was too far (it
> started at the university teacher-training level).  Then more research
> (done by publishing companies mostly) found that  whole language was not
> enough (and older teachers and parents agreed).    The swing back was
> almost reactionary (and political and based on $$ in text book publishing)
> and imo,  went too far.  Taken to their extremes and alone,  neither one is
> preferable - imo.
>
> I think phonics is a good start,  but not enough - elements of whole
> language are also needed for getting those 30% of words which are not
> phonetically regular as well as for learning to get meaning from the text.
>    (I could also say that whole language is a good start but elements of
> phonics are also needed for those who struggle with "new words"  -
> "unmemorized"  words.)
>
> Whole language tends to work best for kids who are pretty bright and have
> a good basis in oral language skills.  These kids can figure out quite a
> lot and make sense of decoding skills almost on their own (my son did).
>  Kids with a very good memory can memorize those new words very quickly
> (and that's the end point),   but kids who don't have such a good memory
> have to "sound it out" or (figure the context) over and over.   Kids who
> aren't quite so cognitive have a very hard time figuring out why every time
> they "read" (repeating and following 'memorized' text) the word "rat" it
> starts with an "r."
>
>  Also,  the kids who don't have a solid basis in oral English have a hard
> time with whole language because they're not so skilled at using context to
> help determine what the unknown word is.   ("Read that again - does that
> make sense?")
>
> Phonics is an incredible tool, but it doesn't make meaning from the text
> and the early textbook stories can be seriously stupid in terms of
> comprehension.  Otoh,  whole language is an incredible tool but it can be
> overwhelming for a learner without a LOT of reading readiness skills (being
> read to,  memorized texts,  solid language base, etc.)
>
> A good teacher will use the best of each method and try to use a bit of
> each as appropriate.  This is feasible using small group instruction -
> direct instruction - but new methods want whole group instruction to get
> more teaching time in for all the kids.    The serious whole language
> people liked indirect (environmental) instruction  -  so that's also a
> problem.   Whole language done well takes a LOT of time - it's better - imo
> - overall  - in the long run - if it has phonics included (why ignore that
> invaluable tool?)   -  but it takes time!
>
> Hope that helps -  (?)  We spent years and years in debate about it.  The
> best reading programs (imo)  now use both,  but the focus tends to be on
> phonics these days again.
>
>
> Bekah
>
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 5:55 AM, Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Interested in your answer. Is it just that the metrics used to measure
> "accountability", "progress", etc. are coarse averages? I mean, for all
> your failing schools you're still the intellectual and scientific centre of
> the world, so you know, something doesn't suck.
> >
> > Also, what do you think of teaching via the "Phonics" method? Had a
> debate re this today.
> >
> > P.
> >
> >
> > On 7 April 2013 21:38, Bekah <bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Why are US schools behind much of the world?
> >
> > This is way more complicated than tax-slashers or "accountability
> experts"  or "higher standards"  folks want to think about.
> >
> > Bekah
> >
> > On Apr 7, 2013, at 1:17 AM, Prashant Kumar <
> siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What question about your field do you dread being asked? Maybe it's a
> sore point: your field should have an answer (people think you do) but
> there isn't one yet. Perhaps it's simple to pose but hard to answer. Or
> it's a question that belies a deep misunderstanding: the best answer is to
> question the question.
> > >
> > >
> http://www.edge.org/conversation/whats-the-question-about-your-field-that-you-dread-being-asked
> > >
> > > Various responses there; any p-listers willing to chime in?
> > >
> > > Prashant
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130407/43023d45/attachment.html>