We Can Do by Moshe Kai with guest Robert Levy discussing Saxon Math.

[Korrale4kq]

Agreed!! It is about finding the happy medium.

Here is the Po Bronson article about Carol Dweck and praise for those who are interested. And his book is NurtureShock  and not Outliers. Sorry.

http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/

[Robert Levy]

Interesting.  Like I mentioned before, I do remember some things from my early grade school years.  One thing was always being told the following, time after time on my report card:  "Robert is doing well, but should be doing better".  For years I would read that and try to figure out how the teacher would know what I was capable of, as I felt that I was doing as well as I could.  I had no clue where that comment came from - but I learned later that they had access to my standardized tests (some were like IQ tests).  I always did well on those tests and they were judging me against them.  I'm still angry to this day that they were doing that.

[Robert Levy]

Hi people,

As an FYI, here is a study that was done in Scotland to assess what's called "Synthetic Phonics" versus "Analytic Phonics".  The form of phonics that I used is what is called "Synthetic Phonics", although I had never heard of either term at the time.  I think the word "Synthetic" means "synthesized", as in putting together sounds to make words (rather than meaning artificial, as there's nothing artificial about it).  Basically you teach a few sounds, and then start blending them into easy words, and then build up from that (the report explains it well).

Analytic Phonics appears to be an approach in which the kids use words to try to learn sounds.  Like for the letter "c", they would give the kids "car", "cake", "candle", etc.  Not as direct, and much slower.  They say in the study that the kids are taught one letter per week...which means that they just might get through the alphabet in an entire school year.  I remember they were doing that at David's pre-school (pre-K) and it seemed like a very long, slow, process (obviously it didn't affect David though).   I suspect this approach is used more commonly here than Synthetic Phonic.

In the study, it's not even close, Synthetic Phonics (the way I taught it) wins hands-down - which is no surprise to me - but somehow these studies don't make it into our educational system.


Here's the study:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20682/52383

Here's the easier-to-read PDF version: 
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/933/0044071.pdf

[sonya_post]

Thanks for this!

[Robert Levy]

You're welcome.  I was just reading up on this stuff and I remembered reading about that study several years ago.  I always thought of phonics as monolithic, but it's not - there are fast ways and slow ways to teach it.  In that study, they only spent 16 weeks with the kids (age 5 at the time, I think) and got them reading.  Then they left them alone, other than checking up on their progress.  Most impressive to me was that boys actually did better than girls...which may be why real phonics is so despised by the establishment.

[sonya_post]

I'm not sure how this translates when teaching a 2 year old, but when I began teaching my oldest child to read at age 3.5 - he was a motivated reader and I was a horrible teacher. I used too many letters at once. It took a good year to get him reading well. He didn't make the jump to reading like an adult until middle of first grade. He was still way ahead of his peers but in reading this I can see where I made my mistake. I like to introduce a lot and confuse little kids.   

[Kerileanne99]

Synthetic phonics is really, really popular in Scotland and the UK in general.  One of the most popular programs, being taught in schools is the Jolly Phonics program.  We have many Jolly Phonics materials we have brought back from there (hubby is from there and we make regular trips back to visit family). It is VERY child friendly and is well suited for very young kiddos! We have a fantastic Jolly Phonics storybook reinforcing the letter sounds and other phonemes.

http://jollylearning.co.uk/overview-about-jolly-phonics/

[nee1]

Very informative article. Thanks for sharing.

[seastar]

I think the word "Synthetic" means "synthesized", as in putting together sounds to make words (rather than meaning artificial, as there's nothing artificial about it).  Basically you teach a few sounds, and then start blending them into easy words, and then build up from that (the report explains it well).

Analytic Phonics appears to be an approach in which the kids use words to try to learn sounds.  Like for the letter "c", they would give the kids "car", "cake", "candle", etc.  Not as direct, and much slower.  They say in the study that the kids are taught one letter per week...which means that they just might get through the alphabet in an entire school year.  I remember they were doing that at David's pre-school (pre-K) and it seemed like a very long, slow, process (obviously it didn't affect David though).   I suspect this approach is used more commonly here than Synthetic Phonic.

I think this is a key factor in the phonics vs whole word debate. The type of phonics instruction varies greatly depending on the country you live in and even on the particular school you attend. Many people who are anti-phonics are thinking only of analytic phonics, when clearly the research points to synthetic phonics as the only phonics approach to take. I have been recommending Reading Bear to anyone who will listen to me as it is an excellent example of synthetic phonics.

One aspect of that research I loved is the speed at which children progressed. The fact that they learned to both read & spell one word ('pat') in their first lesson was fantastic & must have done so much to boost the children's reading confidence & their interest in subsequent lessons.

Keri - Jolly Phonics is pretty popular here in Ireland too, although it is not used in every school with many still using analytic phonics unfortunately.

As an aside, I learned to read using the whole word approach (Doman) as a toddler. I am using both synthetic phonics & whole word approaches with my toddler - she is definitely learning far more quickly using phonics than whole word. I think this difference may be partly due to learning style - I am a very visual learner & she is not.

[Robert Levy]

Nice replies.  I did a bit more looking around to see what others said about the study.

It seems that the people that were shooting down the Scotland study did so because it wasn't up to the standards they demanded and also because the kids were only 9 months ahead in comprehension (versus 3.5 years in reading otherwise).  It was kind of amusing to read - the implication seemed to be that there was some way kids could be several years ahead in comprehension without being able to read - LOL.

So, regarding the scientific rigor test - it's real easy to shoot down a study by saying that it didn't control this or that - but it's plain-as-day when they don't bother mentioning their own controlled studies (which probably never existed) to prove their system works.

As to the comprehension aspect, one thing that wasn't always clearly stated about the Scotland study was these kids were about as disadvantaged as they get in the UK, so getting their comprehension even up to grade level was a major accomplishment - not to mention getting the rest of their reading capability way beyond that (as they got virtually no help from their parents).

I guess the bottom-line for parents is understand that everyone now at least gives lip-service to phonics - it's just been proven hands-down.  Teachers can no longer get away with saying that Whole Language is better, and that phonics doesn't work and shouldn't be used.  Parents, even the ones that don't drink this stuff, know that's a non-starter.  But "the establishment" attitudes don't change, so they tell parents things like "no one-size fits all" and we use the "best of both methods".  Just beware, because those are generally code-words for telling you that they don't take synthetic phonics seriously, but they may teach a sound or two when the kids are really stuck.

[Robert Levy]

I like what I see of the Jolly Phonics, it seems to be right in line with the way I taught David.  Just the sounds, no fluff.   I probably would have bought something like that if I knew it existed back then...but it was still common sense to me.  If you want a kid to learn to read "cat", you teach him "ca", "aa", "ta".  No need to have him singing songs or doing other stunts.

[TeachingMyToddlers]

I see your point, but on the flipside, I taught my kids all of their basic letter sounds (with short vowels) by ages 15 and 13 months old. This was done easily by playing a selection of about 3 youtube videos 2-5 times a day which they ADORED (each about 1-2 minutes long?). It took them each about a month and a half to learn all their basic letter sounds if I remember correctly. During this time, I continued to teach whole words through Little Reader and I also practiced blending CVC words on a regular basis, along with a few other things.

So, I admire your "no fluff" approach (which clearly worked well with David) but when working with very little kids, I think those recommendations can be bent a certain amount. We're not talking about first graders or even kindergarteners here, but rather babies and toddlers for the most part. They are in such an absorptive state and if music can better engage them and get them reading by 15-18 months as in the case of my kids, then the "fluff" was well purposed. I just don't want any parents here to draw conclusions from this conversation that may not be as applicable to the youngest BrillKids learners. And whole words/intuitive phonics are an entirely different animal when used to introduce literacy to a baby versus when used as a sole instructional method for 3-6 year olds.  Just my 2 cents!

[PokerDad]

Letter sounds and CVC words seem a lot like synthetic phonics to me. It's basically readingbear.org - other than the site words, doesn't sound like you deviated too much TmT.

As for "only" 9 months ahead in comprehension: Advancing in comprehension is far more of a job than simple decoding. It requires, aside from decoding mastery, a lot of background knowledge. That knowledge is often factual or even simple vocabulary. I recommend E.D. Hirsch's stuff for further reading about on the topic.

For this reason, I plan on adopting a memory strategy for facts and more advanced vocabulary when the time is right. If you build those two things along with the decoding skill, you will wind up with a child that far surpasses a year's reading placement, IMO. This is maybe the biggest thing (other than math, ha ha) that I plan on doing and cannot wait to implement

[TeachingMyToddlers]

Letter sounds and CVC words seem a lot like synthetic phonics to me. It's basically readingbear.org - other than the site words, doesn't sound like you deviated too much TmT.

My explanation was in reference to the quote below, because we chose to teach through cartoon music youtube videos

"No need to have him singing songs or doing other stunts."

With very young children in particular, I think learning through music can be very effective because it easily captivates a 1 year old,  making the process not just painless, but enjoyable.

[arvi]

For this reason, I plan on adopting a memory strategy for facts and more advanced vocabulary when the time is right. If you build those two things along with the decoding skill, you will wind up with a child that far surpasses a year's reading placement, IMO. This is maybe the biggest thing (other than math, ha ha) that I plan on doing and cannot wait to implement

PokerDad, you seem to have a great plan. Can you elaborate your plan on facts memory strategy and advanced vocabulary. What tools and resources are you planning to use?

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214769
• Latest: Meobi

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 435
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 404
• Total: 404