Print

Print


Christophe Grandsire scripsit:

> You are the one who claimed top-down methods were the best to teach everyone
> spelling.

Not at all!  I claimed they were a workable method of teaching writing, at least
when properly applied, and I certainly never meant anything I said (except for
the remarks about Friere) to extend past English/U.S.

> Your only argument in favour of the top-down method, that it works with adults,
> is already weakened by the fact that it's proven that children and adults have
> completely different approaches to learning,

"Different" is not "completely different".  My real argument is against
over-generalizing, not for or against any specific result.
I am not against rote learning for children, nor against systematic teaching
of particular points.  I do think that people, children or adults, learn better
when the subject-matter is connected to their concerns.

> Do you have any interest in raising the level of illiteracy among
> American children?

Certainly not.  Illiteracy is a huge social cost.  For example, it
prevents one from enjoying such .sigs as the one attached to this message.

--
Her he asked if O'Hare Doctor tidings sent from far     John Cowan
coast and she with grameful sigh him answered that      www.ccil.org/~cowan
O'Hare Doctor in heaven was. Sad was the man that word  www.reutershealth.com
to hear that him so heavied in bowels ruthful. All      [log in to unmask]
she there told him, ruing death for friend so young,
algate sore unwilling God's rightwiseness to withsay.   _Ulysses_, "Oxen"