Moderators: Debbie Hepplewhite, maizie, Lesley Drake, Susan Godsland
- Posts: 4973
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
- Location: Exeter UK
http://communities.canada.com/VANCOUVER ... dents.aspx
The Primary Program: A Guide for Teaching (2010), includes "the latest research and best practices to support children's learning and development."
The document says:
"Children who are not developing phonemic awareness by the middle of Grade 1 need to be identified and offered intensive programs of support. However, researchers who have conducted re-analyses of the experimental research on phonemic awareness caution that, "we do not have adequate evidence that phonological awareness treatment programs are valid and effective in classroom environments."
And later: "Although children's facility in phonemic awareness has been shown to be strongly related to later reading achievement, the precise role it plays in these early years is not fully understood. Training studies have demonstrated that phonemic awareness can be taught to children as young as age five . . . Yet, whether such training is appropriate for younger children is uncertain. Other scholars have found that children benefit most from such training only after they have learned some letter names, shapes and sounds and can apply what they learn to real reading in meaningful contexts. Even at this later age, however, many children acquire phonemic awareness skills without specific training but as a consequence of learning to read."
It goes on to say: Debates about the best ways to help children in the early stages of learning to read stem from differing views of reading. Phonics-first advocates consider reading to be word identification or decoding; those who propose a more comprehensive approach (of which word identification plays a part) view reading as a meaning-making process.
"The latter approach informs the BC English Language Arts Curriculum and the Primary Program. Direct-instruction phonics may produce higher initial scores on phonemic awareness and word attack skills and sometimes on comprehension tests, particularly with children labeled at risk or reading disabled, when they are tutored one-on-one in very small groups. However, this advantage seems not to last very long, particularly for comprehension tests."
And it quotes the International Reading Association (IRA) in saying that "Teaching phonics is an important aspect of beginning reading instruction. However, effective phonics instruction is embedded in the context of a complete reading and language arts program. Classroom teachers value and teach phonics as part of their reading programs. Rather than debate whether phonics should be taught, effective teachers of reading and writing ask when, how, how much and under what circumstances phonics should be taught."
- Posts: 1859
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:41 pm
Where on earth did this come from:
However, this advantage seems not to last very long, particularly for comprehension tests.
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:18 am
There is still much confusion over how beginning reading should be taught and some of this confusion is a deliberate attempt by the anti- phonics lobby to muddy the water. Young children really don’t need to understand a lot about the skill of comprehending in the initial stages, as long as they can decode they will understand. Their listening comprehension skills will usually far exceed anything that they will have to read. Learning to decode is essential and during this time children can and should be introduced to more challenging texts by being read to. In this way they can be taught the necessary comprehension strategies they will be able to use for themselves as their decoding becomes more automatic and allows them to read more complex texts.
Comprehension skills do need to be taught to young children but I just feel that all to often comprehension is being used as a smokescreen to confuse and promote a so called balanced approach that is little better than the now defunct National Literacy Strategy or the discredited three cueing system.
- Posts: 3121
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
- Location: N.E England
- Posts: 1859
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 7:41 pm
Maizie - it's very easy to leave a message beneath the article ..
- Posts: 736
- Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:58 am
- Location: Melbourne Australia
Linda Siegel (Professor, Dorothy Lam Chair in Special Education, University of British Columbia, firstname.lastname@example.org
) has sent this request for help.
I have just discovered that the BC Ministry of Education has released a draft of its new Primary Program. Responses and comments are due Friday.
Briefly, it is full of whole language drivel. Actually, I think the whole document should win the Educational Drivel of the Century Prize.
I am writing to you to ask you to post a comment if you can. Pages 83,85, 112 and 125 are particularly offensive.
You may feel that British Columbia should stew in its own whole language juices. Who would blame you? But if you can take the time to make even a brief comment, it might help. If you do make a comment, please send me a copy if you can.
Even if you submit something that you have written before, that would be helpful.
Here is the link
Read the above link at your own risk. I am not responsible for any increase in your blood pressure.
thanks for even considering it
PS feel free to distribute this to anyone you want and post it on any relevant list serves
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 1:59 am
I think another word for the BC article is: gobbledygook. What drivel!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests