e:\doc\web\99\06\earlwrit.txt
From:           	Rovarose@aol.com
Date sent:      	Tue, 30 Mar 1999 18:54:39 EST
To:             	arthurhu@halcyon.com
Subject:        	learning to read


It is well known that certain "predictors", such as the ability to

recognize letters, or to isolate the individual sounds in words, correlate
with later success in learning to read.


I believe the best predictor of all is inadequately appreciated.  It is
the ability to copy or recite a series of random alphabet letters, such as
"zbgfc", after a brief, approximately one-second glance.   Good readers
can do this, problem readers cannot.   The trick then, is to find a way to
develop this skill.    If a person cannot recall the letter sequence
constituting a written word during the time interval immediately after
one's eyes have left it, fluent reading and comprehension are impossible.


If a sequence of five complex Chinese ideographs is shown briefly to a
literate Chinese, he will be able to name or to reproduce them.    A non-
Chinese would "see" them just as well, in one sense of the word, but would
by unable to reproduce what had just been seen.


Why?   Because the Chinese is fluently FAMILIAR with the ideographs, and
we are not.


How does one become "fluently" familiar with written symbols, so there
exist some sort of facile "engrams" in the brain that, as an element of
memory, are able to quickly and effortlessly recognize them, and associate
them with the things they are conventionally associated with?


There are only two possible ways to learn written symbols.   One is by
seeing them, the other by writing them.  There are parallel connections
between different sensory modalities.   If an object looks round, it will
feel round. The mind integrates these different modalities into an
efficiently cooperative team.


It is possible that kinesthetic (actually, proprioceptive) sense is more
prominent in the learning process than has been realized.   It has
recently been noted, for example, that young cats carried through their
environment, rather than being allowed to navigate it themselves, fail to
develop normal eye-body coodination.


Similarly, it has been suggested that human writing may be viewed as
"frozen gestures".


At a pragmatic level, many children APPEAR to be able to learn to read
without actually "writing" letters or words.   It is impossible to know,
however, to what extent such children have actually learned that letters
are formed by following certain trajectories.   Such proprioceptive
information could be mastered by eye muscle motions, or by imagined
writing, as well as by hand motions.


However, as stated, seeing and writing are the only possible way to become
fluently familiar with written letters.   If learning by seeing lags, an
attempt at learning by the feel of the moving hand is only logical.


Words are not just sequences of letters.  They are sequences of the common
and specific letter pairs, and pairs of letter pairs, that are
characteristic of the syllables of our language.


The writing of the pertinent letter groups that characterize almost all
English syllables can be learned to fluency by the fluent learning of
somewhat over only 100 specific words.


Therefore, it is unwise to teach the basic skill essential to literacy by
choosing target words randomly from a child's large vocabulary.


The trick is not to teach kids to "read", or to "write" in a generic, or
general sense -- the trick is to have them write these specific words, or
words which resemble them, over and over again, until it can be done
effortlessly and without thinking.  Like figure-skating, playing the
piano, or riding a bike.


A child should say, out loud or to himself, the sound that each letter
represents as he writes a target word.   Eventually one achieves the
subliminal illusion that the pencil actually seems to be resonating
silently with the harmonic overtones of each phoneme as it writes the
corresponding grapheme.  Writing each word then just becomes a different

way of "saying" it. With practice, it becomes automatic, just like aural
speech.


It is to be noted that in this way the child will learn "phonemic
awareness", "letter-sound correspondences", and the all important concept
of "blending" simultaneously, and via the shortcut of learning concrete
examples of words that exemplify what must be learned.


This is not, in my opinion, in conflict with the concept of "direct
instruction", which is the common-sense proposition that it makes sense to
tell kids what you want them to remember.


However, the direct instruction of abstract concepts of phonology and
grapheme-sound symbol association building is not only unnecessary;   it
may actually be a confusing waste of time.


This essay was written by Bob Rose, M.D.,  rovarose@aol.com, of Kennesaw,
GA., who doesn't mind if it is passed around.