It's part of the mythology (?) of the Whole Word method, that - learning to read should be as easy as learning to speak. Because every baby learns to speak by an apparently haphazard process of listening to parents and others.
Thus learning to read should be equally as "easy". But is learning to speak (1) easy, and (2) haphazard? It is no doubt true that the average infant is quite astute, and learns very rapidly at such young age. It is also true that exposure to words is, on the parents' part, unplanned and seemingly random. Presumably psychologists have done some research into this; they have with chimpanzees, so why not with human infants? A child soon learns words: Mum, Dad, and associates sound with image ... Simple sentences to describe wants provide some grammar. There is also a constant parenting correction process (done in kindly fashion, of course) whereby childish errors are rectified. The whole business of learning to speak, and understand others, is, I suspect a gradual process of building knowledge from *simple to complex* - much the same as SHOULD be done when learning to read. It is just that the emotional goo-gooing and diddums, which goes on, tends to obscure the reality. (Don H.)
A teacher I met said that, "Phonics alone can only take a person up to about 4th grade level, in reading. Then its by sight and contextual (when encountering a new word.)" This strikes me as very bizarre. I know when I encounter a new word I do attempt to sound it out. Has anybody else heard this, and do you know the source of the dogma? (Jayne)
I am a teacher working in a smal private school in England and I am always on the lookout for new resources to help my pupils. Recently I cam across a particularly effective one from the DofES (it's free!). It's called "Playing with Sounds" and it is a supplement to "Progression in Phonics". It is interactive software designed for the Foundsation Stage that tells a story using cartoon characters. I hope that others will find this useful. (Janet M.)
I have just taken an excellent workshop that takes the best of whole language and phonics and combines them into an excellent process. I found the information on this workshop and many others on the homepage of Erickson Learning. (L.S.)
I'm curious exactly what the combination amounts to. As far as I can tell, either you teach phonics or you don't. Just dribbling in a few phonetic principles here and there is *not* to teach phonics. When you teach it, the children have a much better chance >of learning how to read at a relatively early age, like their European and Asian counterparts. (R.T.)
1)
Teaching phonics alone is not the same as teaching reading. It's the same as teaching
... phonics.
2) Some children learn to read well without phonics. I still
advocate the use of phonics, but I went to grade school in the early 60's when
whole word/look-say was used and learned to read quickly. My daughter's early
years included very little phonics instruction and she is also an excellent reader.
My son is very different. He needs phonics. But until just about *now* (second
quarter of first grade) he has not been skilled enough to handle even phonics
instruction. Things are finally starting to click. Let the show begin...
3)
The workshop described does a disservice as phonics should not be separated from
whole language in the first place. (Andy)
I'm also curious. Exactly what you take "whole language" to mean -- in concrete, practical terms, not in further jargon. You see, if it involves "whole word" learning or the "look-and-say" method at all, I have to say that evidently the phonics part of the combination is not done well. Once a child knows how to read using phonic principles, there is no need for any of this "look-and-say" stuff, feeding them a few new words to recognize each lesson, and so forth. They're off and running. (Mary T.)
I have also just taken a brilliant workshop founded on similar principles. It was called Animated Literacy by Jim Stone. He has merged latest research from the fields of teachning, reading and speech-language pathology. He incorporates alot of phonological awareness training with print in an fun music filled curriculum that is surrounded by reading from great literature. It was so much fun and he is getting great results. I'd be interested in hearing more about your experience. (JPETORCH)
It's been my experience that about two school years of intensive phonics is what is necessary to produce truly competent readers. That's what I found out teaching the total nonreaders in middle school. On the average, if phonics is done intensively, kids should be independent before or by third grade in reading. (S.L.)
One cannot teach sounds and expect the child to figure out how they go together. My kids are developmental and ESE (special ed) and get five words a week that are related to their sounds. Those words are also used to help kids write sentences and express themselves. They can keep them in their "dictionary" to use in their creative writing. The words used in a phonics program almost totally relate to whatever sound they are learning at the time. Doing this also teaches kids word patterns which, in turn, help them figure out unknown words. (P.P., Calif.)
I am a kindergarten teacher and use a synthetic phonics approach - the Jolly Phonics scheme. Our range of reading materials for home reading are really out of date, tatty, boring schemes. I am desperalty seeking a really interesting scheme which builds on the children's phonics knowledge taught in class. Other schemes I have seen so far look to be quite dull. Most of my children are Afro-Carribean boys and Ii need something to really appeal to them! Any ideas gratefully received' (Jane R-W.)
like the Nelson Thornes 'Sound Start' books. The children really like the story lines. The illustrations are fun and they begin with easily decodable text, e.g. character names Pen, Rob, Ben etc. One of the things that I like about them is that it isn't easy for the children to guess at the words, they have to work them out for themselves.
We have just purchased the Jolly Phonics books. I like them but they are not simple enough for our very early readers. We have just sent off for a copy of the very early Jolly Phonics books but I think they only have single words per page. I have also got a copy of some of the Jelly and Bean books. They have good clear decodable text and pictures, but the text in the earlier books are too predictable, e.g. the word 'cat' with a picture of a cat; 'cat in the hat' with corresponding picture etc. In the early books as soon as you have gone through the book once with the child they remember it rather than reading it. (N.N.)
I have found the CD-ROM Wordshark 3 very useful for the dyslexic children that I work with. The games are exciting, encourage concentration skills and boost the child's confidence as he successfully completes a task. The children are full of enthusiasm as they are learning phonics and do not realise that they are still doing 'work!' (Karen B.)
My school uses the Macquarie phonics programme (from Australia)with the infant aged children we work with. I am interested to hear from anyone who has used or uses this and their thoughts on it. I would also be grateful to hear from anyone else who uses a different phonics intevention programme. Thanks.' (S.M.)
My school uses the MacQuarie phonics programme (from Australia) with the infant aged children we work with. I am interested to hear from anyone who has used or uses this and their thoughts on it. I would also be grateful to hear from anyone else who uses a different phonics intervention programme. Thanks. (Carrie S.)
My son is 7 years old. He has problems reading and with his phonics papers. He does wonderful in math, and spelling is a B average. His father is dyslexic, and I believe my son is too. The school tells me he's too young to diagonose. They want to hold him behind, but give him no help. I do not see how this could benefit him. How do I get my son tested? He has begun not to like school,and I'm afraid the school is making it worse. Please help! (Tammy H.)
My 9-year old daughter has been homeschooled (grade 3), as well as in public school (grade 1,2). Prior to attending school, we taught her how to read using phonics exclusively. While she reads rather well (occasionally reversing words), her spelling is quite good, except for reversing letters occasionally -- then correcting them on her own. Where she has the most difficulty (reversing numbers and then correcting them) is in math -- all levels, addition through to division.
Can a child be dyslexic in math and still be a proficient reader and speller? Her father and grandmother are dyslexic, but still manage to love to read despite it being somewhat difficult for them. I also notice so many of the characteristics in terms of her daily living. She will simply shut down when she has had too much information thrown at her; she becomes overwhelmed at the thought of organizing her homework, and cannot handle more than two instructions at a time. Your insight, please. (Tina)