queriquita, the way I see it, the word "reading" has two senses: decoding (i.e., being able to say out loud the words that appear on the page) and making sense of the text. It is absolutely true that neither memorizing words by rote nor decoding them through phonics will, all by itself, enable the child to make sense of the text. So, sure, you're right--merely being able to sound out words phonetically isn't reading in both senses unless the child also grasps meaning. Certainly there are some phonics learners who, in the beginning stages, are taxing their faculties just to be able to decode. Getting meaning from the text they've decoded requires extra attention and energy they just don't have yet. In fact, this is exactly where E., who is now 2, is now. He can actually decode the first five readers on Starfall. But I am very skeptical that he is understanding what the sentences mean, so I also repeat the whole sentence to him in an ordinary tone, and point at pictures and explain. It's what I understand teachers call "scaffolding." Of course, all of this can be said of whole language learning. Some learners who have not yet managed to figure out the phonetic patterns, and who are simply trying to recall what each whole word means, might be using all their mental energy just to do that recall task--and then they just can't put it together and understand the sentences they've read.

I don't know, I think the whole language vs. phonics war, as a policy dispute, is alive and well, and still very relevant, I'm afraid. There is just one main area of dispute when it comes to policy, I think: should we or shouldn't we teach a complete program of systematic, synthetic phonics--not half-measured, not "balanced literacy," not other euphemisms to mislead parents into thinking their children really are learning phonics--to all children in school? Notice, this doesn't speak to other, related issues of whether all children, period, should be taught phonics, whether children who seem to have figured out the phonics rules by themselves should be taken through a phonics program, etc. I'm not sure about those questions. The question I am sure about is the big one: as a matter of policy, as long as we're talking about a standard approach to teaching children to read (not that I think standardization is a good thing--but most school systems sure do!), a program is simply incomplete and potentially harmful to children (i.e., it can actually induce dyslexia) if it lacks phonics.

Depending on how large a set of "sight words" we're talking about, I think teaching a few sight words is OK and even necessary. After they can confidently read individual words phonetically, I think it's a good thing for children to be able to start reading very simple sentences. I did this with H. and have started doing it with E., on Starfall and Literactive too. In those early readers there are lots of words that are not CVC words or are unphonetic, words like "a," "the," "in," "does," "was," etc. I agree, and I think most phonics advocates would as well, that some such list of words is fine to have children memorize either in context (as I've done with both H. and E.) or with flashcards (which we never bothered doing, because it's so easy to pick up the words through copious repetition in reading).

You say, "once a word is learned, at least for me and those i've asked, phonics isn't used to read anymore," and I guess that's true as far as it goes, but I don't think this is the full story. Sure, you don't use phonics to sound out every word. But does that mean that you don't use phonics at all? That doesn't follow. There was at least one study that showed that proficient readers do still pay attention to the internal structure (spelling) of words. Someone trained in phonics sees the spelling (and easily sees misspellings. This is why phonics-trained readers make better spellers and are generally more proficient with the language. I was the best speller in the 7th grade, probably because my Mom gave me a phonics workbook to go through when I was five, and it was 1973, at a time when many classrooms (like the ones I was in) used a whole language or "mixed" method and did not really teach phonics. Similarly, H., when he was 3 and 4, was constantly correcting me when I misread anything--I distinctly remember that he would even correct me if I said "toward" when "towards" was written. He also always noted British spellings. He was also a really excellent speller right out of the gate.

The word psychologists use is "automaticity." Experienced readers--like anyone who has learned a skill very well--can read with "automaticity." You can drive with automaticity, without paying attention to what your hands and feet are doing. You just think, "Slow down and take a right at the light." We don't pay attention to the details of our cognitive tasks like reading; we go straight from the squiggles on the page to the meaning, without noticing anything that's going on in between. But the fact that we don't notice these automatized processes no more means that there's nothing "phonetically complex" going on. You might just as well conclude that our obliviousness to our hearts beating and lungs breathing means that no complex cardiac and respiratory stuff is going on. Anyway, the whole language advocates look at the mature, automatized process of reading and conclude--ridiculously--that children should be directly trained to read by modeling the adult reading process. It's not unlike teaching someone to drive by telling a rank beginner to get on the highway and not think about what they're doing. Dyslexia is the name of the accident that happens when we teach some of our children this way. There are very, very few dyslexic children who have been taught phonics properly. Remedial reading programs are typically very phonics-heavy; basically, you're sending them to the driver's training they were denied when they were told to get on the highway without learning the elements first.

And don't forget--we've heard from quite a few parents here on BrillKids.com, who have said, "I've been using whole language methods with my child since he was a little baby, and at age 2-3 he forgets lots of words and still can't really read." Yes, there have also been the ones whose children started figuring out the phonics code at 18 months and were reading Dickens at age 2.  :-)  But  who can predict? If you want to be on the safe side, you'll teach your kids phonics. FWIW, E. is following in his big brother H.'s footsteps. His reading path has been remarkably similar to his big brother's--well, he might be a little father ahead than H. was, but that's probably because I started him on Reading Bear and YBCR and LR much earlier than H. Still, the patterns are all the same and we're having lots of deja vu moments.

BTW I am not the sort of phonics zealot who insists on NO sight words, who removes books from their children while they're learning to read because they might be tempted to sight read, etc. My guess is that learning to read by sight isn't going to harm children as long as, soon enough, they are also taught a systematic program of phonics. I also fully admit that some children are able to figure out the code. But on the other hand I deny the frequent assertion that children who learn to read using whole language read faster and with better comprehension. H. reads very fast and with really excellent comprehension, and his training was very phonics-heavy. But what sticks in my mind is that he almost never sounded out words. Instead, at first, I sounded out the words for him, and he put them together. Later, he was sounding out words in his own head and then just coming out with the words. I'm doing the same thing with E. and so far having similar results. For example, he hasn't learned the pluralizing "s" yet (that's Reading Bear #10--we're not that far yet), so in the Starfall "Gus the Duck" story, he reads "runs" like "run-sss," "gets" like "get-sss," and in "The Big Hit" he read "give" as "giv-eee," which are all very reasonable guesses if you haven't been taught the pluralizing "s" or silent "e."

The local Memphis paper gave us some very nice coverage: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/sep/28/web-based-reading-program-targets-young-learners/

Basically, simple cartoons--nothing more fancy than you see on Starfall. They would have to illustrate the sentences very well, so there would have to be that level of detail.

I'm inclined to think we might get help via 99designs or a similar site...right now we're inclined to pursue it, actually. I'm actually at the house of Reading Bear's benefactor. We're going to do a launch party tomorrow at dinnertime. If anybody is in the Memphis area and wants to come, let me know.

Thanks evad3 and all of you for your appreciation and encouragement.

Here is the quickly-written text of a possible e-book for Reading Bear. Are there any decent artists here who can work for cheap? Want an illustrating job...again, if you can work for cheap? Seriously.

Here is a text for "short a." It is mostly decodable...it does of course use words like "was," "a," and a few others, but I'm trying to keep the list of such words to a minimum so that it is maximally decodable. In order to keep the story interesting, there will be slides (in parentheses below) in which background is given. These would be read to the child by the software.

--Larry

The Rat in the Bag
==============
Sam was a man.
Sam was the dad of Pat.
Pat had a rat. The rat was Tam-Tam.
(They decided to take a trip to the beach.)
Pat and Sam had ham in a bag.
(They packed bread and ham for sandwiches.)
They had gas in the van.
(Then they got in the van and left for the beach!)
Sam had a map.
(The map told them how to get to the beach.)
The map was in his lap.
The van ran and ran.
(At last, they got to the beach.)
Sam had a nap and a tan.
(Pat wanted to see the beach.)
Pat ran.
 (While Pat and Sam were gone, the rat climbed into the lunch bag.)
The rat sat in the bag.
The rat had the ham.
(The rat ate up the sandwiches!)
Pat was sad.
“Tam-Tam!” Pat said. “I am mad. You bad rat!”
(Sam got out more bread.)
“It is O.K.,” said Sam. Sam had some jam.
“Pass the jam!” said Pat.
(He made a new jam sandwich.)
“Pat,” said Sam, “the rat is fat!”
 (Then they drove back home.)
The rat sat on a mat in the van.
Pat sat and had a nap.
(Same drove the van home.)
The End

The word lists are based 95% on the ones in Flesch's Why Johnny Can't Read, as you probably know if you were on Don Potter's site. In fact, you ought to ask Don himself, as he would be the man to know (I don't myself) and report back here!

One thing we've been thinking about doing next is writing a series of readers, one for each word list in Reading Bear. Don't hold your breath...it would be a huge amount of work.

Sonya, I actually spent the $50 to download those books...which are in the public domain. I rationalized it to myself by the fact that (1) some of those books might not be readily available via PG or Google Books (er...really? I'm seriously doubting it), and (2) they are nicely formatted. But the bottom line is that it saved me a bunch of time, even if it still did take an hour or two from start to finish ("finish" meaning all of the books being accessible on my iPad).

Great report--good news for those who start later (but are heavy book readers).

I didn't see this until just now: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/08/babyread.shtm

The "Your Baby Can" company settled with the FTC, which is now persecuting Dr. Titzer in court.

I think I'm going to write to my Congresscritters about this one. This is a waste of government time and money, and really an abuse of power.

Nuria - but do Spanish students learn to read using phonics or a whole word method?

I'm not sure I can help but I can commiserate! With H. at homeschool it helps to make a strict schedule, stick to it, and use lots of timers and stars as rewards. I think the solution depends on the child, though. H. just responds relatively positively to structure.

If she's acting this way in school, do you think it might be due to mommy withdrawal? Many children don't want to leave their mothers especially if they got so much attention at home.

I don't know details, but I have read from several sources that more phonetic languages are routinely taught through phonics, of course. German, Russian...I'd assume this is true of Spanish, but I'm sure some Spanish native speaker here can confirm.

English is mostly phonetic...

http://www.psmag.com/education/infant-intelligentsia-46349/

On balance, a good article--we couldn't expect a lot better.

iSwifter does the same thing--I have it installed and have used it a fair bit with Reading Bear. It works almost as well as a regular browser although there is a little more lag than usual. Still, it's very handy!

For whatever reason, I never got H. into the habit of reading to me. Maybe it's just because it was too boring to me, or maybe if we were going to spend time looking at a book together, it was more rewarding for me to read to him, with intonation that helps convey meaning and more control on where we pause so that I can explain things. Oh I remember now: when he was solidifying his reading skills, particularly when he was 3-4, I wanted to switch back and forth reading with him, but he resisted this a lot, and I didn't want to force him, so we didn't do that very much. Later on, I started falling asleep when reading to him, and he would then pick up the book and keep reading out loud, which gave me an excellent nap.

Ever since H. was a baby, I have been in the habit of pausing to explain virtually every word I read to him. When he was younger (like 3-4) he would look expectantly at me if I read an unfamiliar word that I didn't explain. He doesn't do that anymore, but occasionally I'll forget to define some word and he'll just ask me what it means. So, yes, he does ask, but not very often, partly because I automatically define them for him, partly because he doesn't mind not knowing, apparently!

I don't know where he'd be testing on vocabulary, but I can tell you that he can now (at age 6) read Treasure Island without looking up words, and he can still more or less understand and enjoy it, but he still doesn't understand several words per page. (For comparison, I distinctly remember my mother reading Treasure Island to me when I was in 4th or 5th grade, and it while I more less understood it, there were many words I didn't know.) Just 20 minutes ago I started him reading it and he was complaining that he didn't want to look up words he doesn't know, but I insist that he do so, for vocabulary practice.

Between the ages of 2.5 and 4.5 or so we completely read through the Oxford Picture Dictionary. I'm sure that did some good. We've also read three of the "Vocabulary Power" books, like this: http://www.amazon.com/Vocabulary-Power-Grade-Audrey-Carangelo/dp/1602140049/ref=sr_1_1 We've read vocabulary from other sources as well, such as my PowerPoint presentations which introduce quite a bit of vocabulary.

Completely off-topic, I recently bought this grammar video series for H.: http://www.splashesfromtheriver.com/grammar_course.htm I love this lady, and H. liked the sample videos too. I am sure a lot of others here will appreciate certain production features, although it is slow-paced. Well, as a child gets older, I think difficult/abstract information needs to be presented more slowly. It requires mulling. Her explanations are extremely clear and simple, in the sense of being easy to grasp, not in the sense of being oversimplifications.

Impressive!