The phonics debate

[jemjem]

Thanks DadDude!

How would you be able to know that your son already knows a certain word?

My son sometimes doesn't want to repeat after me.  He hates to be tested from time to time. THat's why I very seldom test him.

[DadDude]

It was my daughter, sorry I didn't make that clear. She had problems reading because of a confidence issue. This issue was created by phonics.

But that's an assumption--maybe it wasn't created by phonics.  Maybe it was created by the method used to teach phonics.

She was overwhelmed with all the rules. Yes, in one afternoon I turned everything around for her. Her teacher was amazed.

Well done!  But on your account it seems obvious that it wasn't phonics, because phonics per se doesn't require that you throw a whole bunch of confusing rules at kids; and it is impossible to teach anyone to learn to read from zero in one afternoon, which means your daughter had to have been learning something from her lessons.  You just gave her confidence and a new perspective.

Phonics requires only that you go through the rules systematically and explicitly.  I have rarely if ever taught phonics rules to my boy.  I have simply shown him a bunch of related words, like all the CVC words with short A.  He figures out the rule with no problem.  It's still "explicit" in that we sound out the words letter by letter, and we don't move onto another rule (i.e., word set) until we've mastered one.  It's pretty foolproof, really.

One thing my Science and Math background has taught me is that all children do not learn the same. That different methods should be utilized. That confidence has a lot to do with learning. The other boy had the same problem.

It's true that different children learn in different ways, but exactly how to cash out this commonsense truism is difficult, as your scientific training would also indicate, I'm sure.  There are a zillion different ways to teach phonics (even systematic, intensive, explicit phonics).  The fact that we call phonics a "method" and whole word another "method" does not imply that, in fact, one method in general will definitely be better for some, and the other will be better for others.  It could still be true that the best methods, for all children, involve the use of a comprehensive, systematic phonics.

Actually, I think phonics is as much a general subject and skill as it is a method.  As such, there are many ways to learn it.  Some will work for some children, and those methods won't work for others.

[DadDude]

Thanks DadDude!

How would you be able to know that your son already knows a certain word?

My son sometimes doesn't want to repeat after me.  He hates to be tested from time to time. THat's why I very seldom test him.

Well, we've been doing this since he was 22 months or so.  So we just ask him to say it, and he does.

It could be that your son is just tired of the cards.  My son has gotten tired of the cards from time to time, so we just take a break for as long as a month.  No big deal, he's learning a lot in other ways--he doesn't forget--especially because I read a lot to him with my finger underneath the words as I say them.

I recommend you teach him how to say "That's enough" or "I'm tired of this."  Then when he says "That's enough," you stop and take it as an indicator that you should turn your attention to something else for a while.

[Nikita]

Personally, I taught myself to read before going to school, just by looking at books with a picture on one side, and the word on the other.  I didnt have a lot of books, but I did have those, Dr Suess beginner books, and Golden circle books from memory.

When I went to school, I was extremely frustrated and bored, and I could not understand why we had to read these READERS so SLOWly, sounding everything out painfully. I didnt realise that that was because they didnt know I could read already, and I didnt have to read in such an unnatural manner.  And I didnt know they didnt know I could read... so I would read like that at school, wondering why reading was so difficult and boring, and then go home and read Enid Blyton books (3 a night at times).

I believe in teaching kids before school, but I dont want my kids going to school and suffering like I did, being taught as if they DONT know how to read. (I was so frustrated I actually would get up and walk out of class and leave the school grounds... the teachers thought I was a problem child, and probably dumb).  It wasnt until the work got harder that I took interest, and stayed in class.

I believe teach the sight (look and say) method first... it's natural, and teach the RULES later on.  Most phonics only method people I know save learning to read until 6 or 7 when they can understand the rules, which sideswipes the years the brain is growing at a phenomenal rate and most learning can be done. And thus does NOT optimise intelligence possibilities.

My son is now being taught "is this word a monograph? A digraph? A quadgraph?"  If he had started school on this method, being unable to read anything at that point (as most kids arent), how thrilling would reading seem?  He luckily was taught it when it replaced Letterland at the school, when he was in Grade 3, and he was absolutely bored by it. He was grateful he wasnt in the lower grades when it was brought in.

[jemjem]

THanks again DadDude for your time explaining and sharing your experience. 

[Cristofori]

I agree with Nikita -- just show the words.  When a young child has seen and learns enough words, they will have figured out the rules themselves and be able to read anything.  We started out showing our baby words like "chiropractor," "chocolate," and "cheerfully" all at the same time -- the rule and the exception.  She learned those words right away and at a very young age could sound out any complicated new words you showed her -- most of the time correctly. 


Teaching sets of words that are phonics related may help young children learn faster, but I don't think it is necessary by any means.

What I do think phonics is helpful for us teaching kids to spell.  Some kids have a memory for spelling and others don't.  For those that don't phonics is a great way for them to become good spellers.

[DadDude]

My son is now being taught "is this word a monograph? A digraph? A quadgraph?"  If he had started school on this method, being unable to read anything at that point (as most kids arent), how thrilling would reading seem?  He luckily was taught it when it replaced Letterland at the school, when he was in Grade 3, and he was absolutely bored by it. He was grateful he wasnt in the lower grades when it was brought in.

Why on earth does any kid need to know that?  I don't even know what those words mean.  That clearly isn't a necessary part of a phonics program.  It sounds like that program was created by people who didn't know what they were doing...the same people who came up with "the new math," thinking that you could teach mathematical logic to little kids, complete with the academic jargon, and it would do some good.

You can learn how to read with a simple phonics program, at a very early age (my boy started before age 2), and I continue to maintain that doing that (i.e., if the program really is simple) is going to be easier than any whole word approach.

[Cristofori]

My son is now being taught "is this word a monograph? A digraph? A quadgraph?"  If he had started school on this method, being unable to read anything at that point (as most kids arent), how thrilling would reading seem?  He luckily was taught it when it replaced Letterland at the school, when he was in Grade 3, and he was absolutely bored by it. He was grateful he wasnt in the lower grades when it was brought in.

Why on earth does any kid need to know that?  I don't even know what those words mean.  That clearly isn't a necessary part of a phonics program.  It sounds like that program was created by people who didn't know what they were doing...the same people who came up with "the new math," thinking that you could teach mathematical logic to little kids, complete with the academic jargon, and it would do some good.

You can learn how to read with a simple phonics program, at a very early age (my boy started before age 2), and I continue to maintain that doing that (i.e., if the program really is simple) is going to be easier than any whole word approach.

It gets worse than that, by second grade they spend ages learning the rules for how to break a word into syllables properly.  it is a complete waste of time -- there is absolutely no reason for anyone to know this.

[Nikita]

It must be as extreme phonics as they come, but that's the problem... if one method doesnt seem too successful, there often is an over-reaction in the opposite direction to compensate, which can be just as unsuccessful or worse.

[JCS]

okay i'm tossing my phonics stuff before it's too late- will progress with sight reading yikes!

[patreiche]

I think you need both methods. I think you start with sight reading. Then once the child can read simple books you start teaching phonics. The child will pick up a certain amount of phonics on their own sight reading. By explaining phonics to them you are just assuring they have picked up rules. I agree phonics helps more with spelling then reading, but a child who learns to read early should be able to visualize a word in their head and hence spell fairly well.

I agree with KL's reasoning for picking words. Pick words the child is interested in like animals versus phonics related words. The hardest part at a young age is to get their attention. Phonics can always be taught later.

[JCS]

i gather whole word for kids 3.5 and under and a mix for those older

[DadDude]

We can agree to disagree, of course.  I don't require that anybody believe me of course, I just want the case for phonics made a little better!

I don't think asking children to understand what monographs, digraphs, and quadgraphs are, and learning to divide words into syllables (when they're just starting to learn to read), counts as "extreme" phonics, because it's not a necessary part of phonics training at all.  I've looked at a lot of phonics programs, and I've never seen such stuff included.  That stuff is the jargon that reading specialists use to discuss phonics as a subject in itself; it isn't needed, not at all, for leading kids to grasp the phonetic rules themselves.  My two-year-old knows many digraphs, for instance, without knowing what a digraph is.  He knows what sounds "th" and "ng" make, for instance.

As to what you should start with, it depends on what you mean by "starting with sight reading" or "starting with phonics."  This is very vague.  If you are saying that teachers (parents) should not start, in the very first "lessons" on reading, by sounding out words, all I can say is: why not?  Also, if you are saying that teachers should not present words in phonetic groups (e.g., starting with a bunch of CVC short A words), again I ask: why not?  There's no good reason why not.  Why think that organizing the words you present a la Doman (or LR or PowerPoint) in phonetic groupings, and making a point of sounding out words, will have anything other than a beneficial effect on your very young reader?  And, basically, that's all it takes to teach phonics, and a very intensive, systematic, explicit sort of phonics, too.

Patreiche, if your point is that kids should memorize some "Dolch" words, I'm sure you are right, and no phonics advocate denies this; but, depending on the list (there are many lists of "Dolch" words), some of those words are actually quite phonetic and I would say they are better taught with groups.  For example, he, she, we, be, etc. make a nice phonetic grouping and corresponds to one of those lists (I forget which) on http://www.mediafire.com/Fleschcards .  But, sure, by all means, teach some sight words like one, two, said, any, etc.  In fact, thought, there aren't that many such words to memorize.  You'd be surprised how many "irregular" or "unphonetic" words turn out to be perfectly phonetic.

If you're skeptical on the latter point, or about phonics generally, let me recommend Rudolph Flesch's classic Why Johnny Can't Read.  It's very easy to read, very entertaining, but also as far as I can tell builds a really rock-solid case for phonics.  It was written in the 1950s but it is still in print and it is still absolutely relevant.

[DadDude]

I agree with KL's reasoning for picking words. Pick words the child is interested in like animals versus phonics related words. The hardest part at a young age is to get their attention. Phonics can always be taught later.

I'm not sure where KL said this, and I admit that the argument sounds plausible, but it doesn't match up with our family's directly relevant experience: from age 22 months or so, my boy has been quite interested by the variety and randomness of the words that come up on cards phonetically arranged.

Besides, why not simply make some of the presentations phonics presentations?  It's not an either-or option.  We, of course, do a lot more "content" presentations than "reading" presentations.

[patreiche]

Don't get me wrong, I do not discard phonics. I think that video someone directed us to is the best I have ever seen. I plan to implement what is on that video. But, currently I am lucky to get him interested in reading. I spend my time with anything he is interested in, and I assure you that is not phonics.

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

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214697
• Latest: Kaoricom

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 215
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 94
• Total: 94