| Author |
Message |
    
Marie
| | Posted on Monday, March 5, 2001 - 1:24 am: |     |
Later on, however, the NRP deduces that a "causal link between increasing vocabulary [knowledge] and an increase in [reading] comprehension has not been demonstrated" experimentally. Despite that disclaimer, the panel feels it necessary to devote nineteen pages of its report to a description of "vocabulary instruction," and to citations of studies made about it.
It is apparent that the NRP's "assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction" leaves some mixed messages about teaching reading comprehension and fluency. Nevertheless, its overall impact is clear. The document clearly signals the necessity of a return to DES reading teaching that is based on experimental research findings, rather than on ideological ruminations about this instruction. Thus, in many ways the NRP report constitutes a direct confrontation to the now popular Whole Language approach to this teaching.
It is highly unlikely, however, that advocates of the Whole Language approach will react passively to the NRP's challenge to their present eminence in the field of reading teaching. Educational organization that recommend Whole Language teaching, such as the International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English, doubtless will remonstrate that the NRP report is not believable since leading members of the Whole Language movement were not selected to participate in its proceedings. The fact the panel exclusively examined scientific findings, and not qualitative evidence, also probably will be viewed with alarm.
A preview of the mode of attack upon it that the NRP report subsequently will face is found in the "Minority View" of it written by a single panel member, Joanne Yatvin. This defender of Whole Language reading teaching is a school principal from Boring, Oregon, a small suburb of Portland.
The NRP report is not credible, Yatvin unconvincingly contends, because the panel "has not fulfilled" its "obligation" to "settle the 'Reading Wars'," by "determining which of the many [reading] teaching methods used in schools," that are "of the highest interest and controversy in the public arena," are the ones that "really work best." In short, the NRP report does not adequately "address the key issues" involved in the ongoing reading wars, Yatvin complains.
It is true, as Yatvin asserts, that the NRP report does not comment directly nor at length on the competing "theoretical models of reading" instruction. However, what the NRP did do, which is far more practical than to mull over theories, was to determine how closely the methods of instruction that these theories recommend conform to the available scientific evidence.
Particularly distressing to Yatvin in this respect are the NRP's resolutions that direct and systematic instruction of children's phonemic awareness, phonics skills, reading comprehension, and reading fluency are corroborated by experimental evidence. She also protests the importance that the panel places on children's understanding of word meanings, ability to read words accurately and fluently, and reading to learn. By doing so, however, Yatvin reveals little more of significance than her exasperation with scientific findings on these matters.
In a further attempt to disparage the NRP's report, Yatvin resorts to making accusations against it that have no foundation in fact. For example, the report does not testify in favor of separating "work pronunciation from work understanding." Nor is it opposed to the development of students' self-motivation to read, or to reading teachers "getting students to understand the main idea of a short story." The report does not downgrade the need for students to "perform multiple [mental] operations in dealing with text," and to use special "strategies in dealing with more difficult text," Yatvin's views to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Therefore, unwarranted is Yatvin's pessimistic opinion that the NRP report, which "Congress intended to be a boon to the teaching of reading, will turn out to be a further detriment" to reform of this instruction. To the contrary, the panel clearly met its assignment to single out the most prominent aspects of children's reading development, and to try to determine how experimental data indicate they are taught the most effectively. These issues are not "the only topics of importance in [children's] learning to read," the panel admits. But, the panel explains, the "sheer number of studies" on reading and its instruction "precluded an exhaustive analysis of the [experimental] research in all areas of potential interest."
I predict that most Americans (and people from other English-speaking countries) who gain access to the NRP's report will appreciate it. There thus should be widespread acceptance and application of the NRP's recommendations in reading instruction programs in our nation's public schools. Society must make sure that the changeover away from Whole Language teaching, that the panel's report recommends, actually occurs. The demonstration of society's civic responsibility in this regard will be the true test of the merit of the time, effort, and funds expended by the NRP to institute a return to scientific reading instruction.
Patrick Groff is professor of education emeritus at San Diego State University. |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Monday, March 5, 2001 - 8:44 am: | |
For more facts and more conclusive evidence, the anti-grammarians might peruse http://www.nrrf.org/research.html
It includes in a thirty year study, funded by the feds.
Or, to understand Whole Language subterfugistas, try http://edexcellence.net/library/wholelanguage/moats.html
By the way, our Superintendent and our Language Arts bosses are WL believers, (most dangerous in K - 8, where the truth is in the "curriculum.")
www.DWM.html |
Cbbk
| | Posted on Monday, March 5, 2001 - 9:57 pm: | |
I have read the curriculum, I am extremely active within the school, I do not dismiss problems because I am frustrated with the in class teachings. I find ways on my own to ensure my children are learning what they need. I do believe that in the age of technology, our children are deprived of using their brains. In math, why are 1st & 2nd graders taught to use calculators. I have seen 4th & 5th graders not be able to make change for a dollar, unless they have a calculator. Sorry, this is unacceptable. Many in the district preach creative thinking, does that only apply to Language arts? How about using those brains for math operations and not using a calculator.
As far as Grammar is concerned, I don't think constant drills will assist any child, but children should learn the difference between nouns, verbs, pronouns, adjectives, etc.
A couple of years ago I received a letter from the school stating: "In school, teachers expand what has been taught and learned at home."
I have been told that this is not the case, but from what I can see and have experienced, it is true!
So I will continue to teach my children what they need at home, because the school just has not been able to do that!
cbbk |
Cbbk
| | Posted on Monday, March 5, 2001 - 10:03 pm: | |
Marie
Thank you!!!!! Hopefully things will change for the better.
cbbk |
Nan
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 - 7:39 am: | |
Marie,
I see this blizzard has inspired you to create a little blizzard of your own! I thought we went over the NEP report earlier in this thread? Oh well, I guess we are headed for another exercise in futility. Before you know it we will be back to whole language versus phonics again (I see DeadWhiteMale has already cut and pasted the links!) Maybe when the spring comes we can switch over to gardening topics where we might have a ghost of a chance to find common ground!.
Anyway, rather than cut and paste what I wrote before, I will try to summarize, and address specific items in your post. The NEP report has many problems and does not make a sound case for reversing reading programs back to the dark ages (i.e. when I was in grade school!). Your admission that no whole-language experts were picked for the panel is an understatement. This group was so "hooked on phonics" we are talking twelve-step program here! One of the more bizarre conclusions that they reached was that reading was not an effective method of improving reading! They devoted a bulk of the report to your favorite topic, phonemic awareness (ability to distinguish the separate sounds in words), and very little to reading itself (6 pages on reading, 66 on PA). By the way, the dissenting minority view, which you dismiss as not convincing (guess what? I found her report insightful, balanced and riveting!) was the only one of the group to have had a career in an elementary school!
Specific problems with the report include accusations of sloppy research and overlooked studies. They emphasized short-term studies over long-term, where a greater gain for other reading models over phonemic awareness training is found. Another problem with the report, which you mention, is the lack of qualitative research (research where the data are verbal and the analysis is accomplished verbally-opposite of quantitative research where data are numeric) which makes it incomplete. The omission of one specific type of qualitative research, ethnographic research (used to describe human behavior and interactions within social groups) renders the report about useless for our curriculum planning purposes.
The NEP's report on the effectiveness of phonemic awareness misses the boat on comprehension (my favorite topic). According to Prof. Stephen Krashen, an expert on phonemic awareness, the NEP report does not prove that emphasis on PA produces an improvement in reading comprehension :
"I have published two reviews of phonemic awareness research. I concluded that phonemic awareness training has a clear effect on tests of phonemic awareness, a smaller effect on reading words, and practically no effect on reading comprehension. In other words, the more nonsense on the test, the greater the impact of PA training. In other words, PA training helps children read nonsense."
In another critique of the report, Constance Weaver points out problems with studies that show that PA produces higher test scores in the early elementary grades: "·such research does not prove that teaching these skills is the chief causal factor in early reading achievement (as measured by test scores). For example, this research does not consider the importance of reading to children and discussing the text with them as they follow along, which is documented by other research, the National Reading Panel did not consider such other factors, either." She also points out that "·the research also FAILS to demonstrate that teaching such skills in isolation has a lasting effect, even just on tests of these skills. Typically, the effect does not last beyond the primary grades, if that long."
A few final thoughts: the NEP report completely ignores an investigation into "balanced reading instruction" which is the implementation of language arts in our schools, and what I am always vigorously championing on this board. No one on this board is calling for a pure whole-language curriculum (something DeadWhiteMale seems to have trouble understanding), however your assertion that whole language strategies (here we are again!) are not based on solid scientific research is an out and out lie! Here is a link to an overview of the research: . http://www.heinemann.com/code/template.ghc?direct=search_titles&dw=view&book_id=1178#facts
Also, here is the link for the discussion above: http://www.ncte.org/HyperNews/get/forums/nrp_report/ . Additional links are mentioned in my earlier post on this subject within this thread. |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 - 10:13 am: | |
Dead White doesn't cut and paste.
He reads, considers what you live ones might appreciate, and informs.
Read at your own peril.
DWM |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 - 12:38 pm: | |
I erred, although to err is human, and I am dead.
Whole Language Lives On is to be found at (don't forget the http://
www.edexcellence.net/library/wholelang/moats.html
DWM |
Nan
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 - 1:33 pm: | |
Dead,
Retyping is the slow version of cut and paste. But you are right to warn people to be wary about these links:
The National Right to Read Foundation gets its funding from the Gateway foundation, the people who produce "Hooked on Phonics"
The Fordham Foundation is basically a conservative think tank.
Here is a link for an in-depth review of one of their "research" projects: A Review of "The State of State Standards" by Gerald W. Bracey.
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CERAI/edpolicyproject/cerai-00-07.htm
Believe at your own peril! |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 - 3:02 pm: | |
The father of Rachel Scott, who was murdered in Columbine did not blame the NRA or gun control for the death of his daughter. His speech was very moving coming from a person who must have thought long and hard on his loss. I do not recall in days gone by this type of occurence in schools. In Shakepeare's play, the youths would poison themselves, not others. Maybe it is the partial fault of the media and a way to become famous, like Mark David Chapman. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 - 3:15 pm: | |
Nil, wrong thread? I know it says Open Court but I think that's a reading program not a juvenile justice reference. 
Bacata |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 - 4:46 pm: | |
Bacata- Yes sorry. I meant that to go on the latest shooting thread. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 7:33 pm: | |
EB, I finally got the info on that reading specialist. She had a death in the family and then my friend forgot to pass along the info until just now. Apologies all around. If you are still interested please contact me at nakaille@home.com. She does have time in her schedule and passes through Maplewood on her way home from her day job. So it's probably do-able.
Bacata |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Monday, March 12, 2001 - 5:41 pm: | |
Nan: the truth shall make you free!
NRRF got money from me, and I haven't been hooked on anything, much less phonics.
But, if you have no facts to use, try guilt by association, albeit association with Hooked on Phonics is not bad, you could try hooked on our curriculum, for success.
DWM
dwm |
Nan
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2001 - 10:08 am: | |
Dead,
If I felt it was necessary for my child to learn explicitly taught phonics I would go to Drug Fair and buy a workbook for $2.49. This, and a few books from the Dr. Suess beginning reader series borrowed from the library, would provide me with more than enough material to get the job done. I would not shell out big bucks ($300) to a company that employs classic snake oil marketing techniques to brain-wash parents (many of whom may not be able to afford it) into purchasing a product they do not need.
Since the Right to Read Foundation functions as the "scientific" research base for this product, and also relies on it as the major source of its funding their credibility is damaged by a serious conflict of interest |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2001 - 9:47 am: | |
Anyone catch Richard Rothstein's comments on the reading wars in today's NYT? Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/14/national/14LESS.html
Seems timely for our discussions here. I think this is generally the argument that Nan has been making.
Bacata |
Nan
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2001 - 7:25 pm: | |
THANKS for posting this, Bacata!!!!!! This is EXACTLY what I have been trying to say!!!! |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Friday, March 16, 2001 - 5:24 pm: | |
Nakaille,
Thank you
eb |
Teach66
| | Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 9:37 pm: | |
Wow, you've got to admit that Nan's got stick-to-it-ness! I thought by now she'd be off of this flaky learning nonsense and back to her job, her family or a therapist - to work out some of her anger! Well if Open Court has this much to talk about then wouldn't it make you think that it may be something to take a look at? I'm sure glad my kids are out of school and not victims of all this experimentation. |
Tip
| | Posted on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 1:38 pm: | |
Nan,
I don't have time to read all the posts regarding the open court method (there are way to many). Would you kindly summarize in just a few sentences why you are so opposed to Open Court. I have talked to many teachers who think it is very effective. The only negative thing I could get any of them to say is they hate it only because it requires alot more work and effort on the teachers part. One of my children is in kindergarden and is reading and he is only 5. The areas that I feel open court is lacking in (I think someone mentioned comprehension) I am addressing at home. My daughter is in 3rd grade and has learned via Open Court and she is an unbelievable reader. She even surprises me sometimes! |
Nan
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 8:03 am: | |
Tip,
I may not be a big fan of Open Court, but I am also not a big fan of Reader's Digest! And like you, I am also a busy person and do not have the time to summarize my ideas every time someone tells me they "don't have the time" to read them fully. I hope you will understand and not be offended.
The Open Court post is not falling off the flat end of this message board anytime soon. You can read it at your leisure in small daily doses.
To get you going, here is one SHORT summary of statistics showing a poor statistical outcome for Open Court in a recent study.: http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/faculty/mmousta/Executive_Summary.htm
For early grades it seems to run neck and neck with unscripted programs. The disadvantages of Open Court become most evident in the higher grades. It seems the longer one stays in the Open Court program the worse one fares. |
Lisat
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 3:13 pm: | |
Anyone else catch the NPR segment on reading, which included Open Court and the method/style that Nan seems to prefer? It was very interesting and suggested both approaches can work equally well if the teachers using them are in the good to excellent category. Better teachers tended to supplement the Open Court program with more creative fare. |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2001 - 8:47 pm: | |
Open Court is in use at Our Lady of Sorrows, so far away.
Nan has a lot to say, as do our student grades.
Never, never, never let logic interfere with a hearty diatribe.
Just try reason, applied liberally (I love that word), to the curricular debate, and, oh yes, maybe find out what the district's official policies are, how they are implemented, their strenghts and weaknesses, and, then, and only then, will you know that the truth is out there.
DWM |
Wharfrat
| | Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2001 - 7:58 am: | |
Dead,
Have you just awaken from a twenty-year slumber? Your post rehashes (to what purpose?) many of the issues the Open Court advocates have supported, and a number of people have ably refuted. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page