1 mars 2012

Voie directe et voie indirecte : l'ambiguïté mortelle des méthodes intégratives de lecture


"Les programmes 2002 distinguent deux voies pour la reconnaissance des mots : 
      - d’une part, la voie dite “ indirecte ” (par déchiffrage) ;
    - d’autre part, la voie dite “ directe ”, encore appelée lecture courante (perception très rapide des lettres, reconnaissance irrépressible des mots).

Si la lecture courante (jusqu’à ne plus pouvoir s’empêcher de lire) succédait au déchiffrage, il n’y aurait rien à redire. La voie directe serait alors l’aboutissement normal du déchiffrage maîtrisé et automatisé.

Mais les programmes laissent planer bien plus qu’une ambiguïté sur ces deux façons de reconnaître les mots puisqu’elles doivent être enseignées simultanément.

En clair (bien que ce n’en soit pas moins énigmatique), cela signifie que les auteurs des programmes considèrent que la lecture courante dès le début du CP, avant même que ne démarre le déchiffrage, est possible. Et le prodige serait non seulement possible mais - instructions officielles obligent - obligatoire.

Qu’on nous permette de ne pas applaudir la “ bonne nouvelle ”. L’ombre de Foucambert, père des méthodes idéo-visuelles, du mot conçu comme une image, abstraction faite des lettres qui le composent, plane encore sur les programmes. Et son Evangile, que l’on fit croire sur parole (de “ scientifiques ”) aux instituteurs, a encore force de loi, en dépit d’inefficaces dénégations."

--------------
Ces phrases sont extraites de l'article de Julien Lachièze que vous trouverez en intégralité sur le site gargantuesque de Michel Delord


Le "garagiste" Dagobert dont parle le texte est la méthode de lecture Je lis avec Dagobert. Il doit faire avec le cahier des charges que lui fournit le "constructeur" des apprentissages : les programmes 2002. A programmes défaillants, services de réparation boiteux et tordus.
Malgré des programmes 2008 un peu mieux conçus et plus axés sur les contenus que les précédents, la question des méthodes de lecture est loin d'être réglée en France. Plusieurs raisons à cela, mais la principale, il me semble, est l'insuffisante rigueur logique des intervenants. Le problème est compliqué non seulement historiquement mais aussi conceptuellement et il ne peut se régler en deux coups de cuillère à pot. Espérons que cet article de Julien Lachièze évapore certains faux-problèmes qui ont brouillé la réflexion ces dernières années.

Voir aussi de nombreux textes (Lurçat, Ouzilou, Delord) : http://michel.delord.free.fr/lecture.html
et la bibliographie spéciale consacrée à la fausse dyslexie, issue d'une pédagogie défectueuse de la lecture en maternelle et au CP : http://ecolereferences.blogspot.com/2011/07/vraie-dyslexie-et-fausse-dyslexie.html

Sujet sur Neoprofs consacré à ces termes (créé le 12-02-2013) :
http://www.neoprofs.org/t57555-voie-directe-et-voie-indirecte

source de l'image : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/6835106/MPs-focus-on-dyslexia-obscuring-reading-problems.html

Children with common reading difficulties are too quickly diagnosed with dyslexia, according to MPs. 

 

MPs: focus on dyslexia 'obscuring' reading problems

Children with common reading difficulties are too quickly diagnosed with dyslexia, according to MPs.

A focus on the neurological condition at school is “obscuring” a wider problem with reading in the classroom, it was claimed.
The Commons science and technology select committee said Government reforms designed to help young suffers had been “led by pressure from the dyslexia lobby rather than the evidence”.
In a report, it insisted that 4,000 teachers being hired as specialists in dyslexia should be renamed as experts in “literacy difficulty”.
The comments will reignite the debate over dyslexia which is said to affect up to 700,000 school-aged children in England.
Earlier this year, Graham Stringer – Labour MP for Blackley and a member of the select committee – described the condition as a “cruel fiction” and insisted it should be consigned to the “dustbin of history”.
He said that to label children as dyslexic was “wicked” and said most pupils were simply “confused by poor teaching methods”. 

The comments provoked fury from the British Dyslexia Association which claim as many as one-in-10 of the population suffer from the condition. 

In the latest study, MPs criticised a recent review of primary education carried out by Sir Jim Rose, former head of inspections at Ofsted. The report – endorsed by the Government – called for £10 million to improve treatment of dyslexia, including funding for specialist teachers. All children under five will also be monitored for early signs of the condition. 

The report described dyslexia as a learning difficulty that undermined children's ability to accurately read and spell. It said characteristic features included difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory and processing speed, adding that it occurred across children with a range of intellects. 

But the select committee said: “The Rose Report’s definition of dyslexia is exceedingly broad and says that dyslexia is a continuum with no clear cut-off points. The definition is so broad and blurred at the edges that it is difficult to see how it could be useful in any diagnostic sense.” 

It added: “There are a range of reasons why people may struggle to learn to read and the Government’s focus on dyslexia risks obscuring the broader problem. The Government’s support for training teachers to become better at helping poor readers is welcome and to be supported, but its specific focus on ‘specialist dyslexia teachers’ is not evidence-based. 

“The Government’s focus on dyslexia, from a policy perspective, was led by pressure from the dyslexia lobby rather than the evidence, which is clear that educational interventions are the same for all poor readers, whether they have been diagnosed with dyslexia or not.” 

In the latest study, the select committee assessed the evidence used by ministers when devising reforms designed to boost children’s reading skills. It focused on a Government scheme designed to improve reading by giving pupils intensive one-to-one tuition. 

But the report said plans were based on “worryingly low” standards of evidence. It said that Wikipedia was more informative than official guidance on carrying out research trials. 

The report also criticised the fact that synthetic phonics – a back-to-basics method of teaching reading – was not a full part of the one-to-one tuition. 

Under the synthetic phonics method, children are taught to break words down into constituent parts and work out how to pronounce them for themselves. 

Ministers have accepted a recommendation from Sir Jim Rose that synthetic phonics should be at the heart of reading plans. 

But the study said: “This is in conflict with the continuing practice of word memorisation and other teaching practices from the ‘whole language theory of reading’.” 

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "It is simply not true to suggest that our dyslexia policy is not evidence based. Sir Jim Rose’s [report] lists 117 pieces of research. 

"Children with specific difficulties such as dyslexia need extra support in their reading. Dyslexia teaching is personalised in terms of the pace of learning and in terms of adapting to specific difficulties the learner may have. Dyslexia teaching courses are accredited by the British Dyslexia Association, giving specialist teachers the expertise and skills they need to meet the unique needs of dyslexic pupils."

Follow on Bloglovin
 

Archives (2011 à 2014)

Vous aimerez peut-être :

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...