Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
DT>CB>-Many do not teach children the phonetic patterns and rules of the 
DT>CB>English Language.  Some teachers do not even teach spelling."
DT>CB>==================
DT>
DT>Yes we do...
That seems to be much of the debate, doesn't it?  The research I found 
suggests that many teachers using whole language do not formally teach 
phonics skills and word attack skills.  The fact that there are also 
many who *do* teach those skills does not deny that there are many who 
don't.
DT>Try this phonetically "hear."  You don't need the vowels.  Consider the 
DT>/sh/ sound.  Why does our language spell /sh/ sound as in sugar, or *ti*
DT>as in motion, or *oc* as in ocean, or *se* as in nauseous.  
Although my teaching assignment has always been math, I am certified N-6 
as well as 7-12 mathematics and, in addition to having learned to read 
through heavy doses of phonics, have about 12 credit hours in reading 
instruction - I understand the process. 
DT>The point is that our language is complicated for young children.  
DT>Teaching phonics is important as is teaching sight-word skills.  But the
DT>answer to literacy hardly rests on the shoulders of phonics instruction.
DT>Phonics is an important part but only a piece of a greater puzzle. 
"Reading" is such a broad term that I'm not actually sure what you are 
referring to here.  If you mean that learning to read for understanding 
is an important skill, or that the amount of energy someone needs to put 
into their reading and writing is dependent on the type of work being 
done (technical, pleasure, journal, etc.), then I agree.  However, 
recent research, as quoted in one of my postings, suggests that good 
readers do, indeed, read every letter and every syllable of the words in 
the text.  To not teach reading through the use of spelling and phonics 
skills denies a significant number of children the opportunity to become 
proficient readers.
DT>CB>Of course there are variations in the practice - just as there are 
DT>CB>differences in the way that teachers teach phonics.  I'd say my
DT>CB>position  is, if a teacher is using phonics and word-attack skills as
DT>CB>a primary  means of instruction (not just when a student is totally
DT>CB>lost), then  they are not following whole language practices.
DT>
DT>If a teacher is using phonics and word-attack skills as a *primary* 
DT>means of instruction they certainly are not following a whole language 
DT>approach.  A question I might ask is "To what degree are they teaching 
DT>phonics and word-attack?"  Sounds like you are describing "drill and 
DT>practice."
Yes, I am, though I do think that there's a need for a lot of research 
on the best way to teach phonics.  My belief that learning to do things 
right the first time and then to strengthen those skills through 
practice and reinforcement is unshakable.
DT>These same teachers probably use lots of work sheets in 
DT>their classroom.  Work sheets (IMO) do not teach any skills.
And so, we disagree.  A worksheet is nothing more than a printed 
page...some are better than others, agreed...but I see nothing 
inherently wrong with practicing skills we want to learn.
DT>There is not one skill that work sheets really teach (I think they 
DT>are primarily busy work).
That seems to be the fad-theory of the moment, but can you cite any 
research to back that up?
DT>I am not saying all work sheets are bad...in fact some are 
DT>very good.  But in general (I mean if work sheets are a primary part of 
DT>the classroom curriculum) they are not skill developing tools.  
DT>Busy work yes, skill development -- no.  At best they can facilitate the 
DT>learning objectives of lesson.  But the draw a line from the letter to 
DT>the picture that matches is pointless.  I'd be happy to elaborate if 
DT>someone wants to hear why I believe this.
I am interested.  Please elaborate.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* "I drank WHAT!?" - Socrates
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------