[senco-forum] Re: How many rules?

Well said, Tim!  Experiencing and enjoying are essential to learning.

A few years ago I read an article by Michael Rosen, bewailing the fact
that NLS was stifling, if not actually killing, creativity; I was ready to
cheer by the end of it.  I can also recall one of the "Soundbites" from
the TES (at about the same time) sent in by a supply teacher:

In a Y2 class the first child to complete all the Literacy Hour tasks
before time was up asked what to do next.
"Would you like to read a book?" asked the teacher.
The child replied, sounding horrified, "Oh no, this is Literacy.  We're
not allowed to read books!"

In Wales, NLS was never compulsory, so most schools adapted the structure
and used books and poems, not bits of this, that and the other for a few
minutes at a time.  Much more enjoyable all round!

Regards

Jean

S Wales
 The most efficient way to 'grasp' literacy is to experience it.
>
> Those children who are 'lucky' enough to be able to work out the rules on
> their own and actually become fluent readers by doing the process of
> reading, and there are many, are the lucky ones. Our job as facilitators
> of
> reading, writing and spelling should not be bogged down my having to drill
> rules and laws into the children in our care. Our job should, rather, be
> about giving them the opportunity to experience literacy in all of its
> forms.
>
> For those who have difficulty accessing Literacy then we need to find ways
> of alleviating that stress and, yes, some rules are important for doing
> this. If you start nailing literacy into the box of rules then you might
> as
> well nail on the lid and bury it six feet under.
>
> Literature is not a science, it is an art. It demands imagination and
> creativity. Let's find the best ways for the children to find their own
> enjoyment with literacy. Bogging them down with rules is not the way.
>
> I know that I was probably lucky in my education, but I only discovered
> some
> of these rules that you are talking about when I went into teaching after
> 25
> years of being an avid reader. Some of them came as a total surprise to
> me.
>
> Tim Rupp.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Maggie Downie" <maizie2004 at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "Biff Crabbe" <ba at biffc.vispa.com>; "Philip MacMillan"
> <P.Macmillan at exeter.ac.uk>; "Amanda" <amandavh at btinternet.com>; "Phil"
> <pmacken1 at bigpond.net.au>; <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Re: How many rules?
>
>
>>
>>
>> Biff Crabbe <ba at biffc.vispa.com> wrote: Not a piece of research
>> published
>> in a learned journal, but personally I'd
>> recommend Bill Bryson's 'Mother Tongue' as an excellent and eminently
>> readable book about the English language.  Populist rubbish in some
>> circles
>> I'm sure.
>>
>> It's apparently encouraging that the number of 'rules' in English is
>> finite,
>> albeit with more exceptions to rules than is comfortable.  But if you're
>> having to learn how to read and spell via those rules, you're probably
>> not
>> showing promise of being a 'natural'.
>>
>> I'm not quite following your reasoning here, Biff.  How can one learn to
>> read and write *without* being taught how reading and writing 'work'
>> (i.e,
>> the 'rules', if you insist on being rule bound)?  Reading is not a
>> 'natural' process, therefore no-one can be 'a natural' at it...
>>
>> Surely, those who are slower to learn have a far better chance of
>> learning
>> 180ish 'correspondences', and how to apply them to decode & blend words,
>> than they do of learning 250,000 words as discrete entities?
>>
>>
>> Those people lucky enough to just
>> learn to read and spell fluently without particular difficulty very
>> often
>> can't articulate the rules, or even recognise that there is a rule
>> governing
>> something that they know how to do (as Jean has attested).
>>
>> So while we might be comforted by the finite number of rules to be
>> learned,
>> we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that those who need to learn in this
>> way
>> are already at a comparative disadvantage.  And it's certainly not the
>> most
>> efficient way to grasp literacy.
>>
>> So, what is the most efficient way to 'grasp literacy'?
>>
>> Maggie
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by Netintelligence
> http://www.netintelligence.com/email
>
>