but
But while sounds may be hard to detect from letter combinations for
non-readers, WHICH sounds are pointed out can help the learner
to acquire enough of a phonological pattern to trigger semantic and then
textual sensemaking. it does go both ways, bottom up at times to get top
down
which seems as important for anyone caring to arrange for literacy learning
(that you can help with procedural bits)
as knowing that the process isn't summative...
But am I inferring an argument that isn't really at issue here?
-----Original Message-----
From: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: 9/21/2003 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: Lteter Oerdr?
David, Don, John...... et al
When David writes:
I think what is titillating and unsettling about this phenomenon is that
it
lays bare how deceived we are by the sense of executive control we
attribute to the conduct of our lives. We don't really have
introspective
access to the processes that govern our construction of words from
letters.
In this context, think of the plight of the novice reader of an
alphabetic
script. We are incapable of pronouncing a phoneme in isolation, we learn
the NAMES of the letters of the alphabet and in English we face the
daunting task of dealing with a hybrid language such that any given
letter
of the alphabet represents phonemes differentially given local context
of
surrounding letters.
I had never thought of the issue from this angle before. Thanks for
helping
me make the connection back to our argument that the acquistion of
reading
is a creative process which cannot be directly taught, but can be
arranged for.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT