Ran into a little headwind when I said phonics beats Look Say, but this is also worth a look.
Teaching reading is cumulative–I agree.
I still say, even with its quirkiness English and the Latin languages require a basic phonetic approach.
I never said that was it, I just reject the idea that a word is a hieroglyph–no,it is a representation of a sound.
I Can’t say that is always the case, but usually, mostly, almost always.
Just cause goofy things happened on the way to the paper, doesn’t change that basic rule.
This essay goes farther into the teaching reading thing.
Some things here are commented on by our friends in reaction to my assertions about phonics.
http://www.city-journal.org/printable.php?id=9937
Agreed. Embedded phonics is the only way to go, since we are an alphabet language people.
Points on latin, and other studies to improve language and reading skills are all pertinent. I knew when i read your longer explanation that we really didn’t disagree.
Incidentally i have no idea how someone screwed up the basic idea of learning to read a language that is oral converted by inconsistent rules to written could every be taught other than as a sound language.
My problem is that when i took the speed reading I was still stuck on the sound. My wife is a visual reader, and as a result is a remarkably good speller. I stuck hearing the words. I am hearing what i am typing on this screen right now.
After a weekend of consideration I’ve come to the conclusion that we were likely debating unrelated topics. I failed to properly define my terms in my first post. Obviously the basic sounds of letters in certain situations are necessary, and are included in whole language curricula in a manner described as “embedded phonics”. What I was decrying is phonics only instruction, analytical phonics and synthetic phonics methods which focus solely on the convoluted rules of phonics without context, syntax, or semantics. These are the programs that suggest children shouldn’t be taught the names of letters. They teach 6 sounds per week and discourage children from being exposed to any word that doesn’t follow rules they’ve already been taught. Consequently, since “the” contains a consonant combination it isn’t introduced until after all single letter sounds have been taught. What really bothers me is the assertion that memorizing sight words is actually bad for children. I’ve seriously read posts from panicky parents asking how to stop their children from reading “the wrong way” because they’re scared it causes dyslexia.
The nonsense words specifically cited in the article are part of the problem of false metrics that cause people to think phonics is better. If a child is taught a phonics intensive curriculum then they will be better by phonics-based standards. During my second child’s brief stint in school he tested 6 years above his grade-level in every aspect of reading except “nonsense words”. Even if you’re using real words, the ability to pronounce words in isolation isn’t a good metric for reading comprehension. For instance, how do you pronounce “bow”, “present”, or “close”? If a child has been raised on whole word or whole language methods, they will stumble when asked about words in isolation because they have been taught that you can’t truly know what a word means, and thus how to pronounce it, unless it appears in context.
The hieroglyph metaphor is a false characterization of whole language, and whole word methods. When a capable reader encounters a word they know, they process the group of letters as a single image. It’s similar to reading the number 773 as a whole quantity rather than thinking 7 hundreds, 7 tens, and 3 ones. Even in synthetic phonics programs children are required to memorize the sound associated with four or more letter combinations because of graphemes like “ough”. How is it more difficult to remember that “tion” sounds like “shun” than it is to remember what “some” sounds like without resorting to rules about vowel-consonant-e patterns and then realizing that they don’t apply to this situation? I’m reminded of an old trick from elementary school where the mark is asked “what does t-w-a spell? What does t-w-e spell? What does t-w-I spell? What does t-w-o spell?” The fact is “two” can only be read by recognition of the whole word as a unit.
I agree about much said in this new article (though I would say that reading is a skill which benefits from practice), but most of the points therein still point away from phonics only curricula. Again the article alleges that the science is settled and phonics won. I’m still waiting for someone to cite a source for this declaration.