2008 is starting well for eSpindle: A few days ago we received a Learning Magazine’s 2008 Teacher’s Choice Award for the Family.

Isn’t it pretty? 😉

At the same time the membership report came in. Overall, our membership revenues increased by 270%, and we fulfilled our goal of giving away 5,000 eSpindle scholarships to disadvantaged students in 2007.
These scholarships, once established, are kept live for as long as they are used by the student, giving an unparalleled tool for personal improvement to those struggling with vocabulary.

The most significant news for me personally was that the ratio of members who renewed beyond their first year term increased by nearly 9%; an improvement that is quite impressive, considering that even last year the majority of members decided to renew after the first year.

A big thank you to all those who have been part of building eSpindle – those who volunteered, contributed, provided feedback and believed in this unique project, especially those who provided precious support when eSpindle was nothing but a vision.

Every once in while we meet people who respond to us with a peeved “how can you be a nonprofit, you act like a business!” The next line tends to be – “if you’re a nonprofit, why aren’t your services free?”

Unfortunately “free” simply does not exist, not even for nonprofits. What’s “free” to you is free at the expense of someone else – a sponsor hoping for positive publicity, a foundation channeling funds to serve its intended purpose, a government agency distributing tax dollars, a donor hoping to make a difference, a volunteer committing time and sweat. And the more “free” services nonprofits offer, the more dependent they become on the charity of these participants.
There is a saying in German - “Only death is free, and it will cost you your life.”

eSpindle is aiming to create a self-sustaining system that empowers our public benefit mission without depending on donations and grants.The business-nonprofit hybrid model you see at work in eSpindle is also commonly referred to as social entrepreneurship.

As you can easily imagine, the development effort behind eSpindle was tremendous.
Custom editing a 100,000 word database (including live recording single words and about 20,000 sample sentences), developing a refined and now patent-pending technology to provide the highly differentiated instructional technology, and building a name in the world of education, all required and still involves a team of brilliant people contributing their unique talents along with lots of time.

Honoring this effort we decided, from the start, to accept the challenge of growing and sustaining the organization by “real world” rules – the rules of the market place. And fortunately, our unique application allows us to do this because it is of value to a diverse audience – both those who can easily pay $80-100 for a year of tutoring, and those who can’t.

By incorporating both for-profit and non-profit best practices we believe that eSpindle will be a stronger organization in the long term, than if we allowed reliance on the comfort and protection of charity grants.

Contrary to common perception, nonprofits are free to do anything a regular business does – including selling products and services, licensing, collaborating with both for-profit and non-profit ventures, etc.

The main difference is that nobody at eSpindle owns the company or any surplus created. Every effort we undertake is focused on our mission:

To empower people by helping them build a broad vocabulary as a foundation for critical thinking, confident communication and success in life.

From the start we have committed to match every paid membership with a free license to a disadvantaged student, and our current ratio (of which we are very proud of) is six scholarships per paid membership.

These free licenses are given to other nonprofits, literacy organizations and title 1 schools who approach us for help, and if you have ever seen the challenges that students in underserved neighborhoods face, you will know why we are delighted to support teachers who dedicate themselves to making a difference for these students.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of this message:

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mind!

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh?
Yaeh, and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

People of the let's-not-teach-spelling variety are still sending it to me, mostly because of the triumphant "Yeah, and I always thought spelling was important!"

Is this really what it means? That spelling is not important?

 

Why it works

-   we do not read letter by letter. If we did, we could indeed not read this text unless we went through lengthy decoding. The brain is far more creative and powerful. It does not simply unravel words going from left to right, letter by letter. Instead, it is a powerful pattern processing machine, which enables it to produce useful results even with minimized cues.

-   the human brain uses Mental Orthographic Images (MOI) not only to write ("looks right"), but also to accelerate reading ("looks like").

-   the text uses a lot of short words, so even jumbling them does not produce a big obstacle.

-   function words (the, be, and, you etc.) stay the same - mostly because they are short words. If the grammatical structure is preserved, there is a framework for meaning. This makes the context more predictable and words easier to read.

-   many of words are not jumbled. Oh, you didn't notice that? That's because readers don't consciously notice these short, high-frequency words when reading. (That's why tools like Grammarly are so valuable for catching duplicates that might slip into your copy and that your brain won't detect).

-   exterior (first and last) letters of words play a larger role in getting the word right than do middle letters. That's a fact confirmed in research.

The shortfalls

The example is "rigged" in multiple ways. It also has much less to do with the subject of spelling than the email suggests.

-  Weak readers have severe trouble decoding the meaning, and typically give up after a few words. Readers can manage abstraction only for words for which they have full automaticity.

-  reading jumbled text takes substantially longer than reading conventional copy.

-  try reading these sentences (translation at the end of blog), provided by Matt Davis, to understand that words get harder to decode the longer they are.
1-  Big ccunoil tax ineesacrs tihs yaer hvae seezueqd the inmcoes of mnay pneosenirs.
2-  A dootcr has aimttded the magltheuansr of a tageene ceacnr pintaet who deid aetfr a hatospil durg blendur.

As another example, try reading this comment at bisso.com:

3-  Iltnsegnetiry I'm sdutynig tihs crsrootaivnel pnoheenmon at the Dptmnearet of Liuniigctss at Absytrytewh Uivsreitny and my exartrnairdoy doisiervecs waleoetderhlhy cndairotct the picsbeliud fdnngiis rrgdinaeg the rtlvaeie dfuictlify of ialtnstny ttalrisanng sentences. My rsceeerhars deplveeod a cnionevent ctnoiaptorn at hnasoa/tw.nartswdbvweos/utrtek:p./il taht dosnatterems that the hhpsteyios uuiqelny wrtaarns criieltidby if the aoussmpitn that the prreoecandpne of your wrods is not eendetxd is uueniqtolnabse. Aoilegpos for aidnoptg a cdocianorttry vwpiienot but, ttoheliacrley spkeaing, lgitehnneng the words can mnartafucue an iocnuurgons samenttet that is vlrtiauly isbpilechmoenrne.

-   Richard Shillcock and colleagues, propose that when recognizing words, the brain splits each word in half, probably because the brain splits the information received by each eye between the two hemispheres when we read. when we read. So, keeping letters in the appropriate half of the word reduces the difficulty of reading jumbled text. (Shillcock, R., Ellison, T.M. & Monaghan, P. (2000). Eye-fixation behaviour, lexical storage and visual word recognition in a split processing model.Psychological Review 107, 824-851.)

-  in the viral example the letters often simply switch places with their immediate neighbor, like in "istlef".

-  if the letters can form multiple words, the results can be totally confusing (just like with incorrect spelling). This example is taken from Matt Davis' blog:

"The sprehas had ponits and patles"

This might come out as...

The sherpas had pitons and plates... The shapers had points and pleats... The seraphs had pintos and petals... The sphaers had pinots and palets... The sphears had potins and peltas. (palets: paleae (a part of a grass flower), peltas: shields, pinots: grapes, potins: copper alloys, sphaers, sphears: both old form of 'spheres')

-   the cna yuo raed tihs text is fairly predictable. Jumbled texts that convey unexpected information or associations will take the reader on a much more difficult path.

-   maintaining the order of vowel sounds aids the brain substantially. If that additional cue is jumbled, the processing difficulty increases. This is why jumbled text works in most languages but is much harder in those that omit vowels from writing, like Hebrew or Arabic.

 

What it really means

Spelling convention serves multiple purposes. Among other things, it makes reading faster, clearer, and more effortless.

The fact that we can read misspellings does not mean that they're a good idea, or that spelling is not important. A statement like that is  a very superficial conclusion.

The only thing this text proves is the vast potential of the brain.
People tend to respond to this email saying "I didn't know I was that smart," "seems like I'm a genius," or "I would have never thought I could to this."

Why do people go through school not learning this basic truth - that their mental capacities are so vast, nearly limitless? When will our students be taught to understand that they do possess the tools to do anything they want, if only they dedicate the time and energy to develop the skill required?

Translations of jumbled text above:

1-  Big council tax increases this year have squeezed the incomes of many pensioners.
2-  A doctor has admitted the manslaughter of a teenage cancer patient who died after a hospital drug blunder.
3-  Interestingly I'm studying this controversial phenomenon at the Department of Linguistics at Aberystwyth University and my extraordinary discoveries wholeheartedly contradict the publicised findings regarding the relative difficulty of instantly translating sentences. My researchers developed a convenient contraption at http://www.aardvarkbusiness.net/tool that demonstrates that the hypothesis uniquely warrants credibility if the assumption that the preponderance of your words is not extended is unquestionable. Apologies for adopting a contradictory viewpoint but, theoretically speaking, lengthening the words can manufacture an incongruous statement that is virtually incomprehensible.

 

 

eSpindle started out as a program strongly focused on spelling.
Now a more advanced tutoring module is available as well that challenges you to find of the right word first.

After selecting "advanced word tutor" on the preferences page, the quiz will no longer provide instant audio for the word in question.

Instead you're simply presented with the number of letters the word contains, and may then request the first and last letter of the word.

These clues, along with the definition and sample sentence will challenge you to actively find the right word without actually hearing it.
You can then click the "hear word" button to verify your answer.

We hope you'll enjoy this version as well and let us know what you think, please!

Thank you to Michelle for forwarding an article by Washington Post writer Michael Skube, titled Writing Off Reading.
This quote summarizes the essence of his observations:
"If words are the coin of their thought, they [college students] are working with little more than pocket change."

An interesting read for everyone concerned about declining reading and writing skills. Could the underlying cause be as simple as schools no longer teaching words?

My daughter's school books teach vocabulary via multiple choice. Most school books I've seen operate on a similar basis, and most everyone can get through these exercises without breaking a sweat.
But does this mean that the students will own these words?
Will they know them enough to have them available for both fluent reading and writing?
Are these words going to "come to them" with ease and without slowing down their train of thought?
Is it enough to recognize a word, or is it important to be able to recall it, to know what it means, how it sounds, how it is written?

Recently I had a conversation in a charming little cafe, Coffee Catz, in my hometown, Sebastopol.
A few tables away from mine, an elderly man and a young woman just discovered that they both worked in college education, and both specialized in teaching remedial English.

After they had compared notes about how difficult, even impossible, it was for some students to make the cut, because they were "disadvantaged," and how one had to be satisfied with even little progress, their conversation trailed off, at which point I introduced myself.

"Overhearing your conversation," I said, "and understanding that you are experienced in teaching remedial English courses to college students, I am very interested to learn how much of the problems you are facing are related to basic word knowledge, in your opinion."

When I said "word knowledge" the young woman abruptly turned around in her chair so she no longer faced me.
The older man took on a condescending tone, the one you use to explain to someone ignorant that she has just committed a crime against political/social/overall correctness.

"No...," he said, "I mean, maybe, but we don't teach vocabulary, that is outdated. The only way we teach words is by providing them in context."

"That's great, but what about students who are not served by that? Students, who are in your remedial courses because they simply do not have a sufficient vocabulary? How do you provide further study for words that surface as problematic in the context of your instruction?"

"Oh, they'll somehow get it at some point."

"What if they don't? Do you have a way to know? How do you make sure they get the assistance or tutoring they need? What assistance is provided to students where lack of word skill is indeed the source of the problem?"

"No," he said with a tone that meant you're just not cool enough to get this, "we just DON'T TEACH words!
Well, we tell them simply not to use big words. It's good style anyway to express your thoughts with the small and simple ones. There is no need for all these complicated words anyway. Anything that's important can be said simply."

"Oh," I said. As a matter of style, I happen to agree. But would you want to experience a reduced vocabulary as a limitation in your own life, I wondered?
How much would you enjoy reading academic texts, or even the New York Times laying on your table, if your vocabulary was limited to the simple, short words? How would your own life have evolved if you had to operate on a minimal vocabulary, because your teachers said that was "good enough" for you?

"Plus," he said, a slight smile on his face, "our students are not going to do it anyway, they wouldn't think it's fun. Maybe the Asians, or ESL students, but not our regular English students."

Conversations like these leave me sad and aggravated; I've heard these type of statements too many times:

"We don't teach words."
"We don't require our students to be able to spell."
"We only teach in context." (Or - "We only teach phonics.")
"Somehow they'll be fine."
"Students won't do it anyway."

Oh, what convenient statements!
So much easier than getting down to the nitty-gritty of making sure that students not only carry "pocket change" but a wealth of vocabulary with them into their lives.
Or insisting that they work on building their language foundation, which is truly their foundation in life - regardless of whether they think it's "fun" or not.

Could you, dear reader, imagine living in a world where communication depended solely upon context?
How would it feel to walk around without fluency in your own native tongue?
What are your favorite books? Who are your favorite authors? What would the world be like for you if those questions left you blank and speechless?
If we respond to these questions with a shrug, what will become of this language we love?

If we don't build students' active vocabulary skills, reading and writing skills will continue to decline. ("Duuh!" my daughter said, reading this. How come this is obvious to a 12 year old, but not to our educational system?)

I come from a country, Germany, where books were once burned on a gigantic scale. Fueling the fires was the thought that all people needed to know was what they were told by the system.

In modern society, such drastic steps are no longer needed to keep people from thinking critically and leave them disenfranchised.
Leave the books on the shelves!
Post them on the Internet!
With students who grow up in a culture that tells them learning words is not really important, that they are fine with multiple-choice level vocabulary skills and a spell checker, and that everything is about "having fun," books are no longer dangerous.
Why burn them? Just let them gather dust.