Comments

It all ties together

-- KDeRosa - 04 May 2006

I frequently tutor young children from the public school district. All are not learning to read through the balanced literacy approach favored by this district. (I've been in the book rooms in these schools. A book room is where all the guided reading books are kept. These schools have thousands of books ordered from most predictable with the most pictures and few words (good for guessing) up to novels) I once asked to see the books that used controlled vocabulary and a phonics approach. They had zero!) Anyway, I use a phonics approach and either use Phonics Pathways or Phonics for Reading. I spend a very long time reteaching these children not to guess and convincing them that the books we use together require reading, not guessing. I also teach them to spell what they are learning to read, since our district uses the horrific Rebecca Sitton Spelling Program. Magnetic letters stored on a cookie sheet make this less tedious for little kids. In difficult cases, where kids can't stop themselves from guessing, I cover up the pictures! My favorite student was so avoidant he would gaze at the ceiling when asked to read. When we would partner read he would gaze at the ceiling. I finally had him put on a fake fingernail from Halloween and forced him to look and follow the text. He loved that fingernail. The poor kid was 10 years old, his fluency rate when we started was 33/wpm due to all the errors from guessing and a complete lack of attention to suffixes, and he was at the end of fourth grade reading at a first grade level when he wasn't guessing. He had learned to compensate for being illiterate by avoidance and listening. The school had just decided he need a "phonics intervention"!

-- LoneRanger - 04 May 2006

I was googling Henry and Mudge and found this guide how to use the balanced literacy approach to reading. It is quite possibly the most ridiculous, overly complicated thing I've seen. To boot it is on the Success for All site.

-- KDeRosa - 04 May 2006

Ken it does, doesn't it?

The other thing I realized today, cruising all the constructivist writing books, is that whole language isn't remotely 'student-centered.'

It's teacher-centered.

It's incredibly narcissistic stuff.

I'll post examples tomorrow.

-- CatherineJohnson - 04 May 2006

Lone Ranger

horrifying that they have ZERO phonics books

-- CatherineJohnson - 04 May 2006

unbelievable story

topost

-- CatherineJohnson - 04 May 2006

Lone Ranger

do you think it's possible whole language causes dyslexia??

(Joe Orton apparently believed this)

-- CatherineJohnson - 04 May 2006

Lone ranger - it's lovely that you're teaching that 10 year old boy. And it's nice that the school finally recognised what was going on, although obviously it would be far better if they'd introduced phonics in the first place. they'd not introduced phonics at all. (How did I write the first version?)

-- TracyW - 04 May 2006

"The school had just decided he need a "phonics intervention"!"

At our public schools, they use "balanced literacy", which is simply Whole Language plus some other stuff (onset and rime or something like that). They don't use the term Whole Language because they know it's a red flag for many parents. The solution? Call it something else.

However, after reading this line above, I remember at one school open house being told that (in effect) direct phonics instruction is used as a remedial method; a last resort. It's not as if phonics is a "balanced" equal partner to whole language. It's a last resort.

-- SteveH - 04 May 2006

I think whole language causes many children to become utterly confused about reading and appear to have a disability. Then the problem compounds itself as the child begins to feel stupid and then stops trying. I think many children are suffering from poor instruction not dyslexia. I believe that becuase once these students experience systematic explicit instruction they are cured. The young teachers here also were taught as children with whole language and do not have any background with phonics. Colleges of Education also favor balanced literacy. These teachers are mystified when a child cannot learn to read using balanced literacy and speak with reverence of the savior, "Linda Mood-Bell" This phonetic approach is saved for Special Ed kids in 4th or 5th grade, when all else has failed. "All else" includes Reading recovery which is whole language applied one-to-one. It's infuriating to me because I believe it is educational malpractice and waiting until 4th or 5th grade is too long as the damage has been done. I had another little guy in 3rd grade and his Mom came to me in tears. She reported that the school said her son would never learn to read. I realized immediately that the little boy was brilliant. He knew many things about the world and his vocabulary was incredible. He couldn't read at all. We started with Phonics Pathways, a white board and my magnetic letters and worked on consonants combined with short vowels.. sa, se, si, so ,su etc. In 3 half hour lessons he was starting to read the BOB books. This was due to the explicit program I used, not me. It is not rocket science to teach someone to read, but it sure is rewarding. Too bad our school system can't seem to get it right.

-- LoneRanger - 04 May 2006

I think whole language causes many children to become utterly confused about reading and appear to have a disability. Then the problem compounds itself as the child begins to feel stupid and then stops trying. I think many children are suffering from poor instruction not dyslexia. I believe that becuase once these students experience systematic explicit instruction they are cured. The young teachers here also were taught as children with whole language and do not have any background with phonics. Colleges of Education also favor balanced literacy. These teachers are mystified when a child cannot learn to read using balanced literacy and speak with reverence of the savior, "Linda Mood-Bell" This phonetic approach is saved for Special Ed kids in 4th or 5th grade, when all else has failed. "All else" includes Reading recovery which is whole language applied one-to-one. It's infuriating to me because I believe it is educational malpractice and waiting until 4th or 5th grade is too long as the damage has been done. I had another little guy in 3rd grade and his Mom came to me in tears. She reported that the school said her son would never learn to read. I realized immediately that the little boy was brilliant. He knew many things about the world and his vocabulary was incredible. He couldn't read at all. We started with Phonics Pathways, a white board and my magnetic letters and worked on consonants combined with short vowels.. sa, se, si, so ,su etc. In 3 half hour lessons he was starting to read the BOB books. This was due to the explicit program I used, not me. It is not rocket science to teach someone to read, but it sure is rewarding. Too bad our school system can't seem to get it right.

-- LoneRanger - 04 May 2006

horrifying that they have ZERO phonics books

Go to a book store and try to find a real phonics book, not just one labelled phonics. There aren't many.

-- KDeRosa - 04 May 2006

do you think it's possible whole language causes dyslexia??

Many say it does

-- KDeRosa - 04 May 2006

DI actually has a special program Corrective Reading for kids who have been mistaught to read as opposed to kids who were never taught. Supposedly, it's more difficult to teach kids how to read who have been mistaught.

-- KDeRosa - 04 May 2006

"This phonetic approach is saved for Special Ed kids in 4th or 5th grade, when all else has failed."

This is exactly what our school does. I wish I could remember the name of the system they finally use.

"It's infuriating to me because I believe it is educational malpractice and waiting until 4th or 5th grade is too long as the damage has been done. "

Do schools and teachers have no ounce of pragmatism in their souls? What do the experienced teachers think? My son's first grade teacher (in her 60's) once talked about how the first grade teachers got together to look at the kids' writings and see which ones had "voice". In first grade! Forget spelling, vocabulary, and putting down meaningful sentences that relate to each other. They want voice. But they don't even teach it! Education is like ... magic.

No Skills Reading.

No Skills Writing.

No Skills Math.

Education Without Skills.

Education Without Work.

I agree with LoneRanger^?. This is not rocket science.

-- SteveH - 04 May 2006

I LOVE IT!

Can Guess & Check Reading do as much damage as Guess & Check Math (w.r.t bridges falling and all)?

Hmm... Guess & Check pilot manuals?

-- CarolynJohnston - 04 May 2006

I know two teachers who have jumped off the balanced literacy bandwagon.

Teacher 1 : For the first seven years of her teaching career, she taught k-2 grades. She preached balanced literacy. We would get into heated debates over this topic. She went on to get her master's and is now a Reading Specialist. She has ditched balanced literacy for phonics instruction. She has used the same workbooks (Explode the Code), borrowed many from my homeschooling library (including Phonics Pathways) to remediate the kids that are in the "pull out" programs at her school.

Teacher 2: Taught 1-3 grades for many years. She too bought into the balanced literacy approach. She decided to homeschool her own three children when they were in 2,3 and 4 grades for health reasons. She realized that her oldest (4th grade) hated to read and was struggling. Retaught her oldest to read using phonics. She has said that she could never go back to teaching using "balanced literacy" as she has seen first hand the results. If she returns to teaching, it will most likely be as a reading specialist where she can use phonics.

-- NicksMama - 04 May 2006

whole language is guess and check reading.

Who said you had to check?

Off topic: There is a problem posted below. I'm having difficulty explaining it to my class in grade 8 speak. Help would be appreciated.

-- SmartestTractor - 04 May 2006

Do you want an alternate wording for the problem or suggestions for explaining how to solve it? If the former, how about:

"Each of these rectangular boxes can be covered with the same amount of wrapping paper if we assume that the paper has no overlaps. The missing dimensions are in whole numbers of centimeters*. What are they?"

If the students understand the problem but can't figure out the answer, you might try "unfolding" each box. This may allow you to make the calculations more obvious. Then:

Set up the expressions for each surface of each box.

Add up the expressions.

Set up the equation.

Solve the equation.

HTH

* SI spelling seems only appropriate. 8-)

-- DougSundseth - 04 May 2006

Doug, Thanks for the quick response.

Thanks for looking out for my spelling, but in Canada we spell it with the 'r' before the 'e'. Oh those silly French.

The group draws nets to solve all surface area problems. 4(4xw)+2(4x4)=2(10x2)+2(10xl)+2(2xl) 16w+32=40+20l+4l 16w=8+24l

-- SmartestTractor - 05 May 2006

I hate to be a wet blanket on the theory that difficulties with learning to read are only whole-language based.

My district paid some lip service to whole language concepts (get kids writing early and the like), but their school was very phonics based. Kindergarteners made great strides and many were reading well at the end of K. Same with first grade -- they knew their letter sounds, their blends, etc.

And then the problems began. Some of the kids were very fluent readers, reading material far above grade-level. Others continued to sound everything out. They never achieved fluency. Looking at the pictures didn't seem to help out either.

They never made that leap from reading as an activity to reading to learn and it only became more pronounced in 2nd and 3rd grades.

I will say that there were definitely different socioeconomic groups here too, and that it split along exactly the same lines you would expect. The kids who have parents that read, who have books at home and who are from well-to-do families did fine.

If only phonics were IT.

Jen

-- KtmGuest - 05 May 2006

" ... difficulties with learning to read are only whole-language based."

"only"? I don't think anyone said that.

"They never made that leap from reading as an activity to reading to learn and it only became more pronounced in 2nd and 3rd grades."

It depends on what you call reading and how you define this secondary problem; vocabulary? practice? Is this a reading issue or a learning issue? Are you saying that you do not see these issues with a Whole Language approach?

"If only phonics were IT."

It isn't. Direct instruction in phonics is not education, but it's a really, really good way to learn how to read. Whole Language is not.

-- SteveH - 05 May 2006

And then the problems began. Some of the kids were very fluent readers, reading material far above grade-level. Others continued to sound everything out. They never achieved fluency. Looking at the pictures didn't seem to help out either.

The problem you are describing is a vocabulary and syntax issue that plagues low-SES kids and you're right phonics can't remedy this deficit, but then again neither has whole language. Whole language brings with it the additional problem that it causes many low-SES kids to become poor decoders.

I've written about this problem here and reference this study.

The kids who have parents that read, who have books at home and who are from well-to-do families did fine.

This is correlation, not causation.

-- KDeRosa - 05 May 2006

Jen

I keep thinking - based entirely in my own experience - that we need to be teaching syllables.

I should try to find those original posts about Christopher.

I think Christopher was taught using phonics.

He "taught himself" to read in Kindergarten, and apparently 10% (NOT FACT-CHECKED) of kids who are given systematic phonics instruction suddenly burst into reading without further instruction.

He was one of those kids.

One week we were told by his teacher that he was at risk for reading problems because his handwriting was so poor (this is a valid correlation).

Two weeks later he was reading.

Then, at the end of 4th grade, he stopped reading.

He's high-SES, and had a large vocabulary. But suddenly he didn't want to read, and basically wouldn't read.

By happenstance I had done a lot of research on spelling programs, and I came across the finding that kids move from letter-sound correspondence to reading syllables around age 10 (I think).

I bought Megawords mostly for that reason, and we got to work.

Within a month or so he was reading again, and he was reading books with many, many polysyllabic words.

When he started 5th grade he had the Brilliant Ms. Duque. She had the kids read syllables! She'd have them use their fingeres to cover up everything in a word except for the syllable they were reading.

I really don't think we're talking just vocabulary & syntax.

I'd bet money we're going to find that there is a 'second stage phonics,' which is teaching kids to decode syllables.

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

It's true, though, that we don't know much about the next stage of reading instruction after phonics. Reid Lyon has said so (AND HE IS RIGHT! APPEAL TO AN AUTHORITY WHO IS LIKELY TO BE CORRECT!)

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

"Thanks for looking out for my spelling, but in Canada we spell it with the 'r' before the 'e'."

I've been mildly abused by Europeans for using the wrong measurement system and by British and Commonwealth citizens for using incorrect spelling. I just thought it piquant to turn that around a bit. No offense meant.

8-)

-- DougSundseth - 05 May 2006

from the Megawords NCLB marketing material:

Readers acquire the ability to recognize likely spelling patterns gradually but systematically (Adams, 1990). “. . . [I]t is during the fourth grade that the adult ability to perceive syllables as units emerges; at this point normal readers begin to perceive syllables more quickly and accurately than single letters” (p. 125). Recognition of this developmental reading/spelling growth of middle school learners underscores the value of a continuing word study program such as Megawords that emphasizes systematic and explicit teaching of reading and spelling skills for multisyllabic words.

Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

Smartest Tractor

Who said you had to check?

You'd be a good magazine editor.

I knew that flaw in my logic was there, but I was hoping to get away with it!

(A really good magazine editor picks up EVERY logic-flaw AND MAKES YOU REWRITE)

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

HEY!

I wrote a whole page on "second stage phonics" awhile back.

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

boy, I better go back and read this website....

here it is again

(this is probably the best anecdotal account if an anecdote about a good reader turning into a poor reader in 4th grade is useful to discussion within school districts & for homeschoolers...)

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

I really don't think we're talking just vocabulary & syntax.

Certainly decoding issues may still be present and may need to be taught. But, we do know how to teach these advanced decoding strategies. Although, many programs don't do them or don't do them right.

But, at this level you can have kids who are good decoders but poor comprehenders, and that is mostly a vocabulary deficiency issue.

-- KDeRosa - 05 May 2006

Would we know whether the child is a good decoder if he or she is having a problem with syllables?

I don't know whether it would have been obvious what Christopher's problem was, but I suspect that he would have looked like a good decoder and a poor comprehender.

He was a couple of years ahead of his age level on standardized reading tests.

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

Jenny D posted some research contradicting the idea that the problem was vocabulary....but I don't remember what it was.

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

Do schools and teachers have no ounce of pragmatism in their souls? What do the experienced teachers think? My son's first grade teacher (in her 60's) once talked about how the first grade teachers got together to look at the kids' writings and see which ones had "voice". In first grade! Forget spelling, vocabulary, and putting down meaningful sentences that relate to each other. They want voice. But they don't even teach it!

Plus.....when you've got a kid who does have "voice" you bring down the wrath of middle school language teachers on your head.

Christopher developed voice in his writing under Ms. Duque's instruction in 5th grade.

In middle school it was a huge liability with Mrs. R & the principal.

This has also been a HUGE issue with the writing of a middle schooler I know who wants to grow up to be a writer....

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

I'd love to get my hands on a copy of the Corrective Reading program.

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

hey Carolyn - that's my question exactly!

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

guess and check pilot manuals!

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

Just read Jen's comment closely - yes, that looks like a vocabulary issue....although I do wonder about the kids who were still sounding out words.

That can't be strictly a vocabulary issue, can it?

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

---

Nick's Mama

How do kids manage to learn through whole language??

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

---

Do you have any idea?

-- CatherineJohnson - 05 May 2006

---

See Vocabulary Acquisition: Synthesis of the Research.

Would we know whether the child is a good decoder if he or she is having a problem with syllables?

There are tests that measure word attack strategy, which is what decoding of polysyllabic words really is.

-- KDeRosa - 05 May 2006

---

How do kids manage to learn through whole language??

Technically there is nothing preventing kids from learning how to read. Better students can pick figure out the game even with bad instruction.

In fact, some people can actually become proficient sight word readers. I read somewhere that Wes Becker, cited in the article above, was a a proficient sight word reader. He could read apassage fluently at 180 wpm and suddenly stop because he didn't know a word.

-- KDeRosa - 05 May 2006

---

This is just a guess, of course, but I've always thought that the kids who manage to learn through whole language end up "inventing" phonics in their own minds. I think they figure out the patterns (and exceptions -- English is a pain!), and then apply them to novel words. The brain is quite good at figuring out language, I imagine this is why whole language isn't more of a disaster than it turns out to be.

Ken's example above, though, refutes this as a complete answer...

-- StephanieO - 05 May 2006

---

I "taught myself to read" and I think I did this before I'd had any phonics instruction. (I think this must have occurred between Kindergarten & first grade, because I went into first grade knowing how to read.)

I assume this means I learned to read through sight reading, but I don't know.

-- CatherineJohnson - 06 May 2006

---

I've always thought that the kids who manage to learn through whole language end up "inventing" phonics in their own minds. I think they figure out the patterns (and exceptions -- English is a pain!), and then apply them to novel words. The brain is quite good at figuring out language, I imagine this is why whole language isn't more of a disaster than it turns out to be.

What do we know about hyperlexic children?

I assume I had some hyperlexic qualities, given that I now have 2 autistic kids....but in fact I have no idea how hyperlexic kids do what they do.

Are they doing some kind of pattern recognition?

-- CatherineJohnson - 06 May 2006

---

You have to love it that the entire world is Differentiated Instruction now, but it's still not OK to Differentiate out of whole language and into phonics for kids who aren't learning to read.

-- CatherineJohnson - 06 May 2006

---

The irony.

-- KDeRosa - 06 May 2006

---

hey - I just talked to one of my neighbors - this is a woman who has a Master's from Harvard School of Ed

She met a woman who did the original copy-editing (I think it was) on Piaget

The copy editor said a lot of the translation was WRONG

So not only is all of edu-land based in a debunked psychologist, the texts they're using aren't even accurate translations of his work

-- CatherineJohnson - 06 May 2006

---

"In fact, some people can actually become proficient sight word readers."

I would say that all mature (i.e. expert) readers are "sight word" readers. By "sight word" reading here I mean the rapid visual recognition of a word. Phonics is an efficient path that leads to eventual visual recognition. Phonics is transitional and is no longer needed (except when unfamiliar words are encountered) once visual recogntion takes hold.

It's one of the misconceptions of whole languagists that readers brought up on phonics are doomed to sound out forever.

-- CharlesH - 06 May 2006

---

I would say that all mature (i.e. expert) readers are "sight word" readers. By "sight word" reading here I mean the rapid visual recognition of a word

I remember back when Bill Honig discovered his mistake in supporting whole language, he wrote about research showing that even very fluent readers still see words in pieces.....we just do it so incredibly quickly that it looks as if we're perceiving whole words. (That was supposed to be one of the fallacies in whole language. Whole language advocates' naive perception of proficient readers told them that we recognize whole words - that's the normal way of reading.)

I have no idea whether this is true, however, or whether it's still considered true. (Given what I've read about research into spelling I assume that if we do break words down, we probably break them down into syllables, not letters. In other words, we've done some 'chunking.')

I am coming to think that one error in constructivist thinking is to assume that students should imitate the behaviors of experts.

If experts read whole words, then children should read whole words.

If experts use calculators, then children should use calculators.

If experts revise their essays and books a zillion times, then children should revise their essays and books a zillion times.

More and more, I'm thinking this should be seen as a fallacy-with-a-capital-F.

Given the amazing improvement Ed saw in his college students' papers this semester, I'm not going to use "process writing" with Christopher.

-- CatherineJohnson - 06 May 2006

---

"I am coming to think that one error in constructivist thinking is to assume that students should imitate the behaviors of experts."

This is so true. Educationists want to skip the intermediary stages.

-- CharlesH - 06 May 2006

---

yeah.....I'm starting to think this is one of those "Grand Schemes" - an organizing principle that helps you understand what you're seeing.

Susan left a comment saying that you can sort everything into "whole" versus "parts" (I think that's how she put it) - and that works, too.

The more I think about learning to write well.....the more I'm starting to believe that Revising-with-a-capital-R is a skill that probably develops a bit later on.

I remember years ago reading this incredible factoid about Mozart. Someone had found one of his original manuscripts (if that's the word). Mozart had revised the composition 72 times (IIRC - it was definitely in the 70s).

When I read that I thought the definition of genius is being able to still hear the one wrong note after 71 drafts.

Probably writers, as they develop and improve, also improve their ear for their own writing.

-- CatherineJohnson - 06 May 2006

---

Another data point: my editor at NEW WOMAN once told me I was the best self-editor she worked with.

That was pretty interesting, and I've thought about it a lot over the years. Until the moment she said that I had no idea that editing one's work was or could be a skill separate from just being-a-writer.

If "writing" and "revising" are separate.....then the best & most efficient way of teaching writing may be simply to go for "guided quantity" at first.

I don't mean "journaling."

I mean that the most effective & most efficient means of teaching writing may be to have students write lots of very short sentences, paragraphs, and papers until they reach a point at which they're producing fairly polished rough drafts & it's time to move on to revision.

It's a possibility.

-- CatherineJohnson - 06 May 2006

---

"Educationists want to skip the intermediary stages."

This is more than hyperbole. Educationists can be heard prattling about "young historians" and "young scientists" who create new knowledge when referring to pupils who still lack foundational knowledge. To educationists, having babes create illusory "new" knowledge is more important than assimilating old knolwledge. It's another justification for their anti-knowledge mentality.

-- CharlesH - 06 May 2006

---

Educationists can be heard prattling about "young historians" and "young scientists" who create new knowledge when referring to pupils who still lack foundational knowledge.

you're right!

It also ties in with the real-world meme.

I've now seen several books & articles on writing saying that real writers revise many times, so beginning writers should revise many times, too.

I had the standard reaction one has with a lot of this stuff - this assertion seems simple and obvious when you first encounter it (or, at least, when I first encountered it).

It's not 'til you stop to think that the unstated leaps in logic become apparent.

-- CatherineJohnson - 06 May 2006

---

I should add that I don't know whether process writing is good, bad, or neutral.

It's just that I've suddenly realized "it's not the only way."

-- CatherineJohnson - 06 May 2006

---

But I must say....I'm starting to think I wouldn't be at all surprised if "Process Writing" is as hard for kids learning as Whole Language is for kids learning to read.

You should see the Graphic Organizers my neighbor's son has had to deal with.

I couldn't even read through it myself. If I had to write books using a Graphic Organizer, I wouldn't be a writer.

-- CatherineJohnson - 06 May 2006

---

ok, I can read through this.....

but when I tried to help my neighbor figure out how to use this thing, my brain shut down

-- CatherineJohnson - 06 May 2006

---

Regarding Whole-to-Parts or Parts-to-Whole, here is The Well Trained Mind on the subject:

"Second, most whole-language teachers will insist that they don't rely on look-say alone; they also teach something called 'incidental phonics.' If, for example, the child has seen the words smile, smoke, small, smog, and smith over and over again, the teacher will finally point out that sm makes the same sound every time. Incidental phonics teaches the connections between words and sounds only as the child runs across them in texts. Which means that a child who doesn't encounter many words ending in -ough could get to sixth grade or so before finding out that ough makes an f sound."

"This guessing game is labeled 'developing phonemic awareness.' It's also called 'whole-to-parts phonics instruction' because the student is given the 'whole' (the entire word) and only later is told about the 'parts' (the letter sounds) that make it up."

(snip)

"Whole language teachers want to saturate children with language; the classical education requires it. Yet whole-language philosophy collides with the philosophy of classical education. Whole-language teachers put the highest priority on the child's mental process, not on the information that is on the page. If the child is constructing a meaning while reading, that's good enough. It doesn't matter if the meaning may not correspond to what's in front of them. Guessing (whole-language teachers prefer to call this 'predicting by context') is perfectly all right."

(snip) She says much more, but wraps it up with this:

"Whole-to-parts instruction requires analytical thought, an ability that is developed later (in our experience, around fourth or fifth grade). And whole-to-parts teaching assumes a certain knowledge base that untaught children don't yet have."

The Well Trained Mind, pp. 232-236

Once you realize that this is what is going on (what Steve calls the "top down approach") then much of the edu-jargon out there starts to make sense.

This chapter affected me so strongly that I became a religious after-schooler and will continue to do so.

-- SusanS - 07 May 2006

---

"If "writing" and "revising" are separate...."

I think I know (that is, "I've heard, though I don't know where, and it matches my experience") that writing and editing use very different parts of brain. Also, one of the big causes of writers' block is shifting rapidly from writing to editing mode.

It's very common for many writers (specifically including me) to get so involved in getting one sentence or paragraph right that the bulk of the material never gets written. This is especially pernicious, since you can't even really know what words are best until you have a much better understanding of how the entire document flows. And you can't really have this until you finish it.

One trick I've used is to turn off the monitor while composing, so I can't look at what I've just written. I don't do it often, but it has certainly helped me at times.

-- DougSundseth - 07 May 2006

---

Once you realize that this is what is going on (what Steve calls the "top down approach") then much of the edu-jargon out there starts to make sense

I'm going to have to go ahead and spring for that book.

Any piece of writing that changes organizes your perceptions in this way is gold.

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 May 2006

---

Doug

wow

I've simply never thought about this at all

I can't remember if I thought much about revising when I first wrote college papers.....I'm completely self-taught, and I don't remember any of it

I've always done something similar to what you've done, which is to "focus" on each sentence as it's written - although this wasn't a problem for me.

Before word processors, I wrote in longhand, and I wrote in every conceivable form of each sentence as I went. It looked like this:


I went / I walked to the store / to the grocery store / I walked slowly to the store / I walked slowly to the grocery store


That's not the best example, but you probably get the jist.

Most of the sentences I wrote didn't sound like the 'final version' of the sentence, and the different phrasing possibilities would occur to me as I wrote. So I would write down all the different possibilities that sprang to mind, with a slash between each, so I could go back and choose later.

I still do it.

VERY interesting about revising / writing & different parts of the brain.

I wonder whether that's true?

There could certainly be a "hemisphere" jump, based in Elkhonon Goldberg's left-right expertise-trying hard split.

Goldberg says that when you're learning a skill you use the right brain. When you reach automaticity, and the skill can be done automatically, the skill jumps to the left brain.

If that's so it's possible that you (you meaning Doug) force yourself to stay in your left brain to write a first draft fairly quickly and fluently (i.e. analogously to talking).

Then, when you revise, which is effortful and probably never truly "automatic," you jump back to the right brain.

It's a thought....

-- CatherineJohnson - 07 May 2006

---

Catherine,

I'll give you my copy this summer when you swing by. It's the least I can do for all the stuff you guys do here.

-- SusanS - 07 May 2006

---

I don't turn off the monitor much any more, but I keep it in my bag of tricks for when I start feeling blocked. Another trick there is to start by writing the middle of the paper rather than the intro. Once you know what you are saying, you can do a much better job of introducing it.

FWIW, when I was in HS, and writing 3-page papers regularly, I'd usually just write them the morning they were due. (I rode in to the base with my dad, who needed to be there about 90 minutes before school started.) I never really felt much pressure; I always knew that I could finish a pretty decent paper in that time.

This sort of brings us back to a discussion we were having a few days ago (about how it's less painful to fail when you aren't even trying.) With 90 minutes to finish a paper, I just had to do the best job I could in that time, not the best job I could do period. A little-appreciated benefit (and perhaps substantial cause) of procrastination.

-- DougSundseth - 08 May 2006

---

Susan THANKS, I appreciate that.

That book is SOOOOO expensive. I'll either like it so much I'll order my own copy, or I'll read & give it back !

-- CatherineJohnson - 08 May 2006

---

Doug - another great point

I work best under deadline pressure, and I'd never thought about procrastination as a "method" of getting the pressure I need.

I've always thought of procrastination as purely negative. Bad behavior.

Like you, I write pretty welll (maybe even very well) when I have to write fast.

-- CatherineJohnson - 08 May 2006

WebLogForm
Title:	stupid mayor trick, part 2
TopicType:	WebLog
SubjectArea:	AboutCurricula, CognitiveScience, ConstructivistTeaching
LogDate:	200605032036

Attachment	Action	Size	Date	Who	Comment
Problem.pdf	manage	17.3 K	04 May 2006 - 21:54	SmartestTractor