tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175684769476781639.post4256040180647736380..comments2023-10-31T09:19:18.737-07:00Comments on Organized Chaos: To program or not to program?organized chaoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18050635225751382130noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175684769476781639.post-19381578411092648052012-10-27T08:39:38.578-07:002012-10-27T08:39:38.578-07:00Anonymous- I would love to see the research you ar...Anonymous- I would love to see the research you are talking about. Since I am new to teaching in an intellectual disabilities specific program I am relying on what a lot of veteran teachers tell me and what they keep telling me is that sight word instruction is best. The programs we have available to us are EdMark, PCI, Reading Mastery, and Early Literacy Skills Builder. <br />What programs are from the University of Oregon. I'd love to know more. <br />I've been told again and again that using phonics can slow down my children's ability to learn to read. I would love to see research on the subject.<br /><br />I always want to do what is best for kids, but I personally hate teaching programs. I will do them and I will follow them like I should, but my personal belief is that if you hire quality teachers- teach them how to study children responses to lessons and teach them the fundamentals of how young children learn to read, then put those teachers in a situation where they can collaboratively analyze student achievement and make decisions about how to move forward with instruction- then the actual teaching will be stronger than using a manual. <br />One can argue that this method isn't good for students with ID but I actually wonder if it simply just doesn't work with how we've set up our ID programs. ID programs don't allow for the collaboration and careful analysis of student achievement and progress that general education classrooms have. It is harder to find teachers who will teach in these programs so in some cases it may be easier for a district to trust the program over a teacher's ability to use her professional knowledge. <br />Again, I want to do what is best for kids and if it is using a program then that is what I will do. It's one of the differences I'm struggling with moving from gen ed to special ed.<br /><br />Please share research- I'd love to read it.organized chaoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050635225751382130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175684769476781639.post-29094871352832126372012-10-26T09:21:36.759-07:002012-10-26T09:21:36.759-07:00This post is a little baffling. It has been my un...This post is a little baffling. It has been my understanding, for quite some time, that phonics-based instruction delivered very precisely (some would say in a lock-step script, and for portions of it I wouldn't disagree) is known to be best for children with intellectual disabilities. Not that you don't also do more indivdually-oriented literacy activiteis, but that you use a basis of sound-letter correspondences and are careful to leave no gaps. Of course, you always add sight word recognition if the child shows a real skill in that direction, but the basis has to be phonics (preceded by phonemic recognition) because children with that disbility don't have as extensive a working memory as typical children do, and can't memorize the appearance of as many words. It's strange to hear that there is a scripted curriculum that is based on sight words.<br /><br />The much-maligned Direct Instruction programs from the University of Oregon and other sources were in fact very effective and they were originally designed for children who were far behind (although usually for reasons of family poverty rather than diagnosed disability. They were and are based on the idea that scripting can help teachers avoid presenting material in a way that allows ambiguity or confusion to invade the instrucitonal process -- something that is especially important for children with intellectual disabilities. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com