Thanks for your note, Renee.
I don't think we disagree. I offered that "teaching phonics CAN be a very
useful thing to do," but, from a connectionist view, it's not essential and
can be counterproductive if it's use serves to discourage engaged
participation in broader literacy practices.
David
"renee hayes"
<rhayes@UDel.Edu To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> cc: (bcc: David H Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
Subject: RE: FW: Lteter Oerdr?
09/21/2003 12:38
PM
Please respond
to xmca
David wrote:
"Thus, to bring this back to the whole language/phonics debate, clearly
correlation of phonetic signals is a very important element in the
literacy.
Thus teaching phonics can be a very useful thing to do, just so long as one
doesn't reduce the acquisition of literacy to just (or even
mainly) phonics, in which the multiple and variegated experiences new
readers need are curtailed."
I think that while it is certainly true that there is some element of
"phonics" recognition to reading, it doesn't necessarily follow that
phonics
instruction is therefore a good way to teach reading. Knowing and learning
and teaching can be conflated. It seems that there are lots of things that
we do well that involve knowing discrete information and recognizing
complex
patterns (birdwatching, as in Gee's example, second languages with their
complex grammatical structure, reading, of course) but we lean them
successfully without explicit direct instruction of these discrete pieces
of
information.
Not to bash phonics and enter the literacy wars, but just to tease apart
knowing and teaching/learning a bit. Actually, my own concern about
phonics
is that it may alienate/bore some kids by removing purpose of reading from
instruction about reading. Like if Gee's birdwatchers were asked to learn
about birdwatching the way kids are sometimes expected to earn about
reading, we might have a lot fewer birdwatchers, I think.
Renee Hayes, Ph.D.
University of Delaware
203 Willard Hall
Newark, DE 19716
-----Original Message-----
From: David H Kirshner [mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu]
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 11:06 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Lteter Oerdr?
Hi Judith.
I have a connectionist perspective on the function of explicit rules and
other explicit guidance that I owe to John St. Julien on this list, as well
as James Gee, Carl Bereiter, and other theorists. According to this view,
cognition is governed by pattern matching and generating functions that
bear little relation to explicit formulations of the domain in question.
Rather, cognitive skills are trained through attending to feature
correlations far below the level of consciousness. In this respect, most of
what it is we say we know constitute "folk theories" that serve largely the
social/political function of rationalizing our practices in a way that
indicates appropriate group membership.
The folk theory is simply a rationalization of the practice. It turns
out, as we will see below, that the part of the mind that constructs
such folk theories does not have access to the part of the mind that
directs the practice of which the folk theory is a theory (P. S.
Churchland, 1986; Gazzaniga, 1985). (Gee, 1992, p. 84)
Bereiter (1991, p. 14) agrees:
Harré's theory about the social nature of rationality (1979, 1984)
provides an illuminating way to think about this question and more
generally about how the classical rule-based view relates to cognition.
When people try to give a retrospective report of their mental
processes, what they tend to do instead is provide a justification of
their actions (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Rationality, according to Harré,
originates in this essentially social process of justification. What we
call logical reasoning, and attribute to the workings of the individual
mind, is actually a public reconstruction meant to legitimate a
conclusion by showing that it can be derived by procedures recognized as
valid.
Gee (1992) goes through an extended example in which he discusses the folk
theories of bird watchers ("birders" in their own vernacular) about the
location and distribution of bird species. He notes how being able to "talk
the talk" of bird watching is vital to being legitimated as a central
participant in the subculture of birders. However, he also finds a
utilitarian function: the rational level can help us focus our perceptual
apparatus on elements within the experiential field that correlate
importantly with the skills to be developed:
Folk theories can also affect practice by telling new birders where and
how to focus their observations. This, in turn, helps determine which
aspects of new birders' experiences will get into their networks of
associations, and thus helps determine (though by no means fully so) the
nature of their mental networks. (p. 87)
Thus, to bring this back to the whole language/phonics debate, clearly
correlation of phonetic signals is a very important element in the
literacy. Thus teaching phonics can be a very useful thing to do, just so
long as one doesn't reduce the acquisition of literacy to just (or even
mainly) phonics, in which the multiple and variegated experiences new
readers need are curtailed.
Hope this helps.
David
Bereiter, C. (1991). Implications of connectionism for thinking about
rules. Educational Researcher, 20, 10-16.
Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice
. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Judith Vera
Diamondstone To:
"'xmca@weber.ucsd.edu'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<JDiamondstone who-is-at C cc: (bcc: David H
Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
larku.edu> Subject: FW: Lteter Oerdr?
09/21/2003 09:54
AM
Please respond
to xmca
Hi David,
This may seem like a silly topic for extended conversation, but it keeps
raising questions for me. Are you suggesting from the below that
the utility of the beginning and endings of words for word recognition
is
part of the
"logic-like algorithm of sequential phonemic decoding"
that is "under executive control?"
It would seem otherwise to me -- it's more like "wired" into English
language learning
I guess the question that persists for me in this exchange is whether
some folks think that phonemic processes are not at issue at all (which
seems silly) or that they are in play in a way that doesn't matter/ it's
all "whole" language all the time, as if we were wired for literacy.
Eugene, does your history with dyslexia lead you to that conclusion for
reasons I'm too dense to get or am I overgeneralizing and
overinterpreting some (nonexistent) voice in this exchange?
Judy
-----Original Message-----
From: David H Kirshner
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: 9/21/2003 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: Lteter Oerdr?
John, Don, et al.
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.
But we know of a logic-like algorithm of sequential phonemic decoding,
and
we attribute our own competence with word forms to this executively
controlled process. The Lteter Oerdr phenomenon leaves us laughing at
our
own naivete. It is a metaphor for life. We think of ourselves as
controlling and guiding our engagements in the world, but perhaps we are
more like twigs bubbling and dancing down the stream of life.
David
_________________________________
Hi David,
It is a great thing. Just an index of how little of the pattern you
need to recognize an instance. Notice that the letters and the
lengths are also part of the pattern. My bet would be that this is to
some degree learned. We have to read mangled texts all the time. I
would therefore theorize that teachers would be better at this than
members of other professions. (Except, perhaps, professional
secretaries.) :-)
John
>No idea about the research base, Don.
>But it strikes me as so funny, I'm forwarding to select friends.
>Thanks.
>David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Cunningham,
> Donald James" To:
><xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> <cunningh who-is-at indian cc: (bcc: David
>H Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
> a.edu> Subject: Lteter
>Oerdr?
>
>
> 09/17/2003
>10:39
>
>AM
> Please
>respond
> to
>xmca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Has anyone ever come across the actual research on this?
>
>"Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
>in what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is
>that the first and last ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be
>a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. This is
>bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the
>wrod as a wlohe."
>
>Don Cunningham
>Indiana University
-- 401 St. Charles St. Lafayette, La. 70501Land Line: (337) 269-0150 Cell Phone: (337) 739-6118
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PDT