Phonics vs Whole Word

johnsuth · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 44

I am an analytical person, so employing the tools of etymology and phonics to
attack words seems a good way to go.

However, I have been rereading "Why children can't read and what we can do about
it" by Diane McGuinness, and consolidating her various tables of phonemes and
graphemes for vowels and consonants, and I have concluded that:-

It seems logical for students to learn first to encode their own stories (you
can't argue about the relevance of those) to text before learning to decode
other peoples' stories to speech.

Because English has multiple graphemes for each vowel phoneme, it is necessary
to rote learn not only the regular grapheme for each phoneme, but also the
exceptional graphemes, and the word families which employ them. Knowledge of
etymology and phonics will increase attack skills for speaking unknown words,
but ultimately it is necessary to remember the whole word with its associated
sound and meaning.

If the student cannot remember and recall whole word pattern, sound and meaning,
then he will not be literate.

Archived from group: aus>education

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

wrote in message $0Mg@PC1.ACENET.COM.AU...
>
> I am an analytical person, so employing the tools of etymology and phonics
> to
> attack words seems a good way to go.
>
> However, I have been rereading "Why children can't read and what we can do
> about
> it" by Diane McGuinness, and consolidating her various tables of phonemes
> and
> graphemes for vowels and consonants, and I have concluded that:-
>
> It seems logical for students to learn first to encode their own stories
> (you
> can't argue about the relevance of those) to text before learning to
> decode
> other peoples' stories to speech.
>
> Because English has multiple graphemes for each vowel phoneme, it is
> necessary
> to rote learn not only the regular grapheme for each phoneme, but also the
> exceptional graphemes, and the word families which employ them. Knowledge
> of
> etymology and phonics will increase attack skills for speaking unknown
> words,
> but ultimately it is necessary to remember the whole word with its
> associated
> sound and meaning.
>
> If the student cannot remember and recall whole word pattern, sound and
> meaning,
> then he will not be literate.
>
# I don't quite know what you're getting at, but infants aren't uni
students, so it is necessary to go from simple to conplex, eg. CAT, before
CATASTROPHE, which is where a Primer is needed - "the cat sat on the mat"
etc - corny though it seems. Believe me, it is quicker in the long run.
One-to-one correspondence first, options and exceptions later. Boring? Not
necessarily.

person · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

On Apr 8, 3:04 pm, "Don H" wrote:
> wrote in message
>
> $0Mg@PC1.ACENET.COM.AU...
>
>
>
>
>
> > I am an analytical person, so employing the tools of etymology and phonics
> > to
> > attack words seems a good way to go.
>
> > However, I have been rereading "Why children can't read and what we can do
> > about
> > it" by Diane McGuinness, and consolidating her various tables of phonemes
> > and
> > graphemes for vowels and consonants, and I have concluded that:-
>
> > It seems logical for students to learn first to encode their own stories
> > (you
> > can't argue about the relevance of those) to text before learning to
> > decode
> > other peoples' stories to speech.
>
> > Because English has multiple graphemes for each vowel phoneme, it is
> > necessary
> > to rote learn not only the regular grapheme for each phoneme, but also the
> > exceptional graphemes, and the word families which employ them. Knowledge
> > of
> > etymology and phonics will increase attack skills for speaking unknown
> > words,
> > but ultimately it is necessary to remember the whole word with its
> > associated
> > sound and meaning.
>
> > If the student cannot remember and recall whole word pattern, sound and
> > meaning,
> > then he will not be literate.
>
> # I don't quite know what you're getting at,

But that won't stop you will it ?

> but infants aren't uni
> students, so it is necessary to go from simple to conplex, eg. CAT, before
> CATASTROPHE,

No it isn't.

> which is where a Primer is needed - "the cat sat on the mat"
> etc - corny though it seems.

No, cat, sat and mat are homophones, not a sentence you would use in a
basal primer. Stick with what you know mate.

>Believe me, it is quicker in the long run.

You don't even know what you are talking about.

> One-to-one correspondence first, options and exceptions later. Boring? Not
> necessarily

Garbage. A mixture of phonemic words and sight words are used.

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

"person" wrote in message@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 8, 3:04 pm, "Don H" wrote:
> > wrote in message
> >
> > $0Mg@PC1.ACENET.COM.AU...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I am an analytical person, so employing the tools of etymology and
phonics
> > > to
> > > attack words seems a good way to go.
> >
> > > However, I have been rereading "Why children can't read and what we
can do
> > > about
> > > it" by Diane McGuinness, and consolidating her various tables of
phonemes
> > > and
> > > graphemes for vowels and consonants, and I have concluded that:-
> >
> > > It seems logical for students to learn first to encode their own
stories
> > > (you
> > > can't argue about the relevance of those) to text before learning to
> > > decode
> > > other peoples' stories to speech.
> >
> > > Because English has multiple graphemes for each vowel phoneme, it is
> > > necessary
> > > to rote learn not only the regular grapheme for each phoneme, but also
the
> > > exceptional graphemes, and the word families which employ them.
Knowledge
> > > of
> > > etymology and phonics will increase attack skills for speaking unknown
> > > words,
> > > but ultimately it is necessary to remember the whole word with its
> > > associated
> > > sound and meaning.
> >
> > > If the student cannot remember and recall whole word pattern, sound
and
> > > meaning,
> > > then he will not be literate.
> >
> > # I don't quite know what you're getting at,
>
> But that won't stop you will it ?
>
> > but infants aren't uni
> > students, so it is necessary to go from simple to conplex, eg. CAT,
before
> > CATASTROPHE,
>
> No it isn't.
>
> > which is where a Primer is needed - "the cat sat on the mat"
> > etc - corny though it seems.
>
> No, cat, sat and mat are homophones, not a sentence you would use in a
> basal primer. Stick with what you know mate.
>
> >Believe me, it is quicker in the long run.
>
> You don't even know what you are talking about.
>
> > One-to-one correspondence first, options and exceptions later. Boring?
Not
> > necessarily
>
> Garbage. A mixture of phonemic words and sight words are used.

# So-called "sight words" only become so after first being phonemic. The
number of such words is initially small, those common monosyllabic words,
mainly conjunctions, prepositions, verbs, and a few nouns. Constant usage
makes them sight words. A lot of other words may become so, over the years.
Most words in the English language are polysyllabic, consisting of a
root/stem, plus affixes (prefixes, suffixes). The eye analyses them as it
scans across the page, from left to right, in reading.
Whole Word dogma makes ALL words into sight words, and chucks kids in
the deep end; leading to confusion and loss of confidence.
Phonics uses a progressive introduction to reading and writing: short,
easy, words first - polysyllabic, variants, and exceptions later. Which is
why a Primer is desirable. Those children who are bright can attempt other
books, having quickly grasped the basic principles of analytic/synthetic
reading.
Teach the Alphabet in preschool, and use a Phonics Primer in first grade
at school, and there'd be no "literacy problem" at university level.

person · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

>
> # So-called "sight words" only become so after first being phonemic.

? Historically, which is irrelevant.

> The
> number of such words is initially small, those common monosyllabic words,
> mainly conjunctions, prepositions, verbs, and a few nouns. Constant usage
> makes them sight words. A lot of other words may become so, over the years.

A word such as "know" does not work in ANY phonemic scheme.
And children learn many words that use more obscure schemes (such as
words from foreign languages) as sight words.

> Most words in the English language are polysyllabic, consisting of a
> root/stem, plus affixes (prefixes, suffixes). The eye analyses them as it
> scans across the page, from left to right, in reading.

An accomplished reader only reads the first and last letters and
predicts the word form the context.
This is why basal reading schemes should not be used exclusively
except at the lowest reading levels, because their contextual content
is so sparse.

> Whole Word dogma makes ALL words into sight words, and chucks kids in
> the deep end; leading to confusion and loss of confidence.

Which is why a mixture of approaches are used...

> Phonics uses a progressive introduction to reading and writing: short,
> easy, words first - polysyllabic, variants, and exceptions later. Which is
> why a Primer is desirable. Those children who are bright can attempt other
> books, having quickly grasped the basic principles of analytic/synthetic
> reading.

No, that is not phonics, that is a basal reading scheme (which are not
necessarily phonics-based, the early models in the 1950s (such as "Fun
with Dick and Jane") were based on programmed learning).
They provide only a basic level of reading ability.

> Teach the Alphabet in preschool,

You try it mate !

> and use a Phonics Primer in first grade
> at school, and there'd be no "literacy problem" at university level.

There is no literacy problem at university, and they wouldn't remember
anything from grade one !

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

"person" wrote in message@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > # So-called "sight words" only become so after first being phonemic.
>
> ? Historically, which is irrelevant.
>
> > The
> > number of such words is initially small, those common monosyllabic
words,
> > mainly conjunctions, prepositions, verbs, and a few nouns. Constant
usage
> > makes them sight words. A lot of other words may become so, over the
years.
>
> A word such as "know" does not work in ANY phonemic scheme.
> And children learn many words that use more obscure schemes (such as
> words from foreign languages) as sight words.
>
# "know" has a silent initial letter, and is one of several such words.
They'd be taught as a group in any systematic phonics program. - gnome,
knight, mnemonic, pseudonym - and endings: dumb, lamb - or in the middle:
light, yacht. The so-called "silent e" at end of words, to indicate
preceding vowel is "long" is really pronounced, if, eg. "mate" is spelt
"maet". Why is not spelt thus? Because English is cleverer than we credit
it; so when "mate" becomes "mating", the "e" is dropped, and the "i" takes
its place as an indicator. The converse also works: "mat" becomes
"matting"; the doubled-consonant is the indicator.

>
> > Most words in the English language are polysyllabic, consisting of a
> > root/stem, plus affixes (prefixes, suffixes). The eye analyses them as
it
> > scans across the page, from left to right, in reading.
>
> An accomplished reader only reads the first and last letters and
> predicts the word form the context.
> This is why basal reading schemes should not be used exclusively
> except at the lowest reading levels, because their contextual content
> is so sparse.

# Yes, I've heard this theory, of first and last letters - any proof that
this is really the case? Dog, dig, cat, cot, mat mut - I'm already
confused IF I don't also read that important vowel.
And read from left-to-right, cos otherwise we get - god, gid, tac, toc,
tam, tum.

>
> > Whole Word dogma makes ALL words into sight words, and chucks kids
in
> > the deep end; leading to confusion and loss of confidence.
>
> Which is why a mixture of approaches are used...

# No, just one is all you need.

>
> > Phonics uses a progressive introduction to reading and writing:
short,
> > easy, words first - polysyllabic, variants, and exceptions later. Which
is
> > why a Primer is desirable. Those children who are bright can attempt
other
> > books, having quickly grasped the basic principles of analytic/synthetic
> > reading.
>
> No, that is not phonics, that is a basal reading scheme (which are not
> necessarily phonics-based, the early models in the 1950s (such as "Fun
> with Dick and Jane") were based on programmed learning).
> They provide only a basic level of reading ability.

# Not if a primer needs endless repetition of the text, so that whole word
memorising is (hopefully) achieved. Nothing coulld be more boring.
Phonics primers use repetition, but it is systematic, and no more than is
necessary.
I refer you to the old Victorian Readers (State of Victoria), now regarded
as quaint relics - but they did the job! Or to the equally efficient
Fitzroy Readers, currently in use. The latter start off with "A Fat Cat" in
#1, and go on to next reader...
Simple, monosyllabic words first; polysyllabic, "long vowels" later.
Elementary to us adults - but not to kids.

>
> > Teach the Alphabet in preschool,
>
> You try it mate !

# I did, at Mrs.Smith's Kindergarten, at age four. No problem.

>
> > and use a Phonics Primer in first grade
> > at school, and there'd be no "literacy problem" at university level.
>
> There is no literacy problem at university, and they wouldn't remember
> anything from grade one !
>

# Well, glad to hear it. So, it's all a fuss about nothing, this need for
literacy?

person · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

On May 5, 8:09 am, "Don H" wrote:
> "person" wrote in message
>
> @y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > > # So-called "sight words" only become so after first being phonemic.
>
> > ? Historically, which is irrelevant.
>
> > > The
> > > number of such words is initially small, those common monosyllabic
> words,
> > > mainly conjunctions, prepositions, verbs, and a few nouns. Constant
> usage
> > > makes them sight words. A lot of other words may become so, over the
> years.
>
> > A word such as "know" does not work in ANY phonemic scheme.
> > And children learn many words that use more obscure schemes (such as
> > words from foreign languages) as sight words.
>
> # "know" has a silent initial letter, and is one of several such words.
> They'd be taught as a group in any systematic phonics program. - gnome,
> knight, mnemonic, pseudonym - and endings: dumb, lamb - or in the middle:
> light, yacht. The so-called "silent e" at end of words, to indicate
> preceding vowel is "long" is really pronounced, if, eg. "mate" is spelt
> "maet". Why is not spelt thus? Because English is cleverer than we credit
> it; so when "mate" becomes "mating", the "e" is dropped, and the "i" takes
> its place as an indicator. The converse also works: "mat" becomes
> "matting"; the doubled-consonant is the indicator.

gnome - phonemic
knight - non -phonemic
mnemonic - in primary school ?
pseudonym - phonemic
dumb, lamb - no silent letter, the ending modifies the pronunciation.

>
>
>
>
> > > Most words in the English language are polysyllabic, consisting of a
> > > root/stem, plus affixes (prefixes, suffixes). The eye analyses them as
> it
> > > scans across the page, from left to right, in reading.
>
> > An accomplished reader only reads the first and last letters and
> > predicts the word form the context.
> > This is why basal reading schemes should not be used exclusively
> > except at the lowest reading levels, because their contextual content
> > is so sparse.
>
> # Yes, I've heard this theory, of first and last letters - any proof that
> this is really the case?

Heaps.

> Dog, dig, cat, cot, mat mut - I'm already
> confused IF I don't also read that important vowel.

Because there is no context. That is what is wrong with basal
schemes.

> And read from left-to-right, cos otherwise we get - god, gid, tac, toc,
> tam, tum.

so what ?
>
>
>
>
> > > Whole Word dogma makes ALL words into sight words, and chucks kids
> in
> > > the deep end; leading to confusion and loss of confidence.
>
> > Which is why a mixture of approaches are used...
>
> # No, just one is all you need.

Rubbish.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > Phonics uses a progressive introduction to reading and writing:
> short,
> > > easy, words first - polysyllabic, variants, and exceptions later. Which
> is
> > > why a Primer is desirable. Those children who are bright can attempt
> other
> > > books, having quickly grasped the basic principles of analytic/synthetic
> > > reading.
>
> > No, that is not phonics, that is a basal reading scheme (which are not
> > necessarily phonics-based, the early models in the 1950s (such as "Fun
> > with Dick and Jane") were based on programmed learning).
> > They provide only a basic level of reading ability.
>
> # Not if a primer needs endless repetition of the text, so that whole word
> memorising is (hopefully) achieved. Nothing coulld be more boring.
> Phonics primers use repetition, but it is systematic, and no more than is
> necessary.

A great deal is necessary. Non-readers can only memorise a small
number of new words at a time. That's why the lowest level readers
have so few words and much repitition (John. John runs. See John run.
John is running, etc)
It would take _forever_ to learn to read if you stuck to this level,
because the stories are too thin to have any context.

> I refer you to the old Victorian Readers (State of Victoria), now regarded
> as quaint relics - but they did the job! Or to the equally efficient
> Fitzroy Readers, currently in use. The latter start off with "A Fat Cat" in
> #1, and go on to next reader...
> Simple, monosyllabic words first; polysyllabic, "long vowels" later.
> Elementary to us adults - but not to kids.

Reading standards plummeted after the introduction of these
"programmed learning" schemes.

>
>
> > > Teach the Alphabet in preschool,
>
> > You try it mate !
>
> # I did, at Mrs.Smith's Kindergarten, at age four. No problem.

You try teaching 4 year olds anything.

>
>
> > > and use a Phonics Primer in first grade
> > > at school, and there'd be no "literacy problem" at university level.
>
> > There is no literacy problem at university, and they wouldn't remember
> > anything from grade one !
>
> # Well, glad to hear it. So, it's all a fuss about nothing, this need for
> literacy?

Yep, it's a beat up by a Government on the ropes. And that clown
Donelly who has NEVER TAUGHT A SCHOOL CLASS IN HIS LIFE.

person · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

On May 30, 7:29 am, "Don H" wrote:
> "person" wrote in message
>
> @x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 8:09 am, "Don H" wrote:
> > > "person" wrote in message
>
> > >@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > # So-called "sight words" only become so after first being
> phonemic.
>
> > > > ? Historically, which is irrelevant.
>
> > > > > The
> > > > > number of such words is initially small, those common monosyllabic
> > > words,
> > > > > mainly conjunctions, prepositions, verbs, and a few nouns. Constant
> > > usage
> > > > > makes them sight words. A lot of other words may become so, over
> the
> > > years.
>
> > > > A word such as "know" does not work in ANY phonemic scheme.
> > > > And children learn many words that use more obscure schemes (such as
> > > > words from foreign languages) as sight words.
>
> > > # "know" has a silent initial letter, and is one of several such words.
> > > They'd be taught as a group in any systematic phonics program. -
> gnome,
> > > knight, mnemonic, pseudonym - and endings: dumb, lamb - or in the
> middle:
> > > light, yacht. The so-called "silent e" at end of words, to indicate
> > > preceding vowel is "long" is really pronounced, if, eg. "mate" is spelt
> > > "maet". Why is not spelt thus? Because English is cleverer than we
> credit
> > > it; so when "mate" becomes "mating", the "e" is dropped, and the "i"
> takes
> > > its place as an indicator. The converse also works: "mat" becomes
> > > "matting"; the doubled-consonant is the indicator.
>
> > gnome - phonemic
> > knight - non -phonemic
> > mnemonic - in primary school ?
> > pseudonym - phonemic
> > dumb, lamb - no silent letter, the ending modifies the pronunciation.
>
> > > > > Most words in the English language are polysyllabic, consisting
> of a
> > > > > root/stem, plus affixes (prefixes, suffixes). The eye analyses them
> as
> > > it
> > > > > scans across the page, from left to right, in reading.
>
> > > > An accomplished reader only reads the first and last letters and
> > > > predicts the word form the context.
> > > > This is why basal reading schemes should not be used exclusively
> > > > except at the lowest reading levels, because their contextual content
> > > > is so sparse.
>
> > > # Yes, I've heard this theory, of first and last letters - any proof
> that
> > > this is really the case?
>
> > Heaps.
>
> > > Dog, dig, cat, cot, mat mut - I'm already
> > > confused IF I don't also read that important vowel.
>
> > Because there is no context. That is what is wrong with basal
> > schemes.
>
> > > And read from left-to-right, cos otherwise we get - god, gid, tac,
> toc,
> > > tam, tum.
>
> > so what ?
>
> > > > > Whole Word dogma makes ALL words into sight words, and chucks
> kids
> > > in
> > > > > the deep end; leading to confusion and loss of confidence.
>
> > > > Which is why a mixture of approaches are used...
>
> > > # No, just one is all you need.
>
> > Rubbish.
>
> > > > > Phonics uses a progressive introduction to reading and writing:
> > > short,
> > > > > easy, words first - polysyllabic, variants, and exceptions later.
> Which
> > > is
> > > > > why a Primer is desirable. Those children who are bright can
> attempt
> > > other
> > > > > books, having quickly grasped the basic principles of
> analytic/synthetic
> > > > > reading.
>
> > > > No, that is not phonics, that is a basal reading scheme (which are not
> > > > necessarily phonics-based, the early models in the 1950s (such as "Fun
> > > > with Dick and Jane") were based on programmed learning).
> > > > They provide only a basic level of reading ability.
>
> > > # Not if a primer needs endless repetition of the text, so that whole
> word
> > > memorising is (hopefully) achieved. Nothing coulld be more boring.
> > > Phonics primers use repetition, but it is systematic, and no more than
> is
> > > necessary.
>
> > A great deal is necessary. Non-readers can only memorise a small
> > number of new words at a time. That's why the lowest level readers
> > have so few words and much repitition (John. John runs. See John run.
> > John is running, etc)
> > It would take _forever_ to learn to read if you stuck to this level,
> > because the stories are too thin to have any context.
>
> > > I refer you to the old Victorian Readers (State of Victoria), now
> regarded
> > > as quaint relics - but they did the job! Or to the equally efficient
> > > Fitzroy Readers, currently in use. The latter start off with "A Fat
> Cat" in
> > > #1, and go on to next reader...
> > > Simple, monosyllabic words first; polysyllabic, "long vowels" later.
> > > Elementary to us adults - but not to kids.
>
> > Reading standards plummeted after the introduction of these
> > "programmed learning" schemes.
>
> > > > > Teach the Alphabet in preschool,
>
> > > > You try it mate !
>
> > > # I did, at Mrs.Smith's Kindergarten, at age four. No problem.
>
> > You try teaching 4 year olds anything.
>
> > > > > and use a Phonics Primer in first grade
> > > > > at school, and there'd be no "literacy problem" at university level.
>
> > > > There is no literacy problem at university, and they wouldn't remember
> > > > anything from grade one !
>
> > > # Well, glad to hear it. So, it's all a fuss about nothing, this need
> for
> > > literacy?
>
> > Yep, it's a beat up by a Government on the ropes. And that clown
> > Donelly who has NEVER TAUGHT A SCHOOL CLASS IN HIS LIFE.
>
> # We can argue this topic "till the cows come home". The best solution is
> to let parents choose which teaching method they prefer - Phonics, or Whole
> Word - and, all of us, judge by results.

Parents are not qualified to choose. Do you (or a politician) tell
your plumber how to work ?

>
> What are some useful rules of pedagogy?
>
> (1) Start off teaching a subject by going from the Simplest elements to the
> Complex.
> What is the most basic element of a phonetic language (ie. one with an
> alphabet, where symbols represent sounds - as compared with ideographic or
> hieroglyphic)? A letter, not a word. After all, what does "literacy" mean?
> "Knowledge of letters". Hence, (a) teach the Alphabet first. But words
> are necessary, hence (b) teach simple words first; more complex, later.
>
> (2) Teach Rules first, Exceptions later. Yes, English has rules.
>
> (3) Test children to ensure they've grasped the subject.
> This can take the form of - (a) Reading aloud (the child reads aloud
> from a book); (b) Dictation (the teacher reads aloud, and child writes
> accordingly);

Dictation has been shown to be completely worthless.

> (c) Transcription (child writes words, from left to right,
> copying from text);

Why ? Apart from handwriting practice - which has nothing to do with
learning to read.

>(d) Composition (child writes description of a picture).

That's not strictly composition, but anyway, pictures can sometimes
hamper the learning process because children predict from the picture.

>
> (4) Don't change a proven Method of Teaching for a "new" one, merely because
> the latter is new; because change is not automatically progress - it could
> be retrogress. Only adopt a new method when it has been proven superior to
> the old.
>
> (5) Use a prescribed Primer or other such Text Book as the essential core of
> the child's learning. This doesn't exclude other books, but these are
> supplemental, and optional.

Primers are only intended for beginning to read. "Readers" have been
found to discourage reading.

Most of the things you have mentioned would not be done in a Phonics
program, btw.

Homonyms, Synonyms, Anagrams, Substitution, Sentence construction,
poem construction - these are 'phonics' based activities.

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

"person" wrote in message@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 5, 8:09 am, "Don H" wrote:
> > "person" wrote in message
> >
> > @y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > # So-called "sight words" only become so after first being
phonemic.
> >
> > > ? Historically, which is irrelevant.
> >
> > > > The
> > > > number of such words is initially small, those common monosyllabic
> > words,
> > > > mainly conjunctions, prepositions, verbs, and a few nouns. Constant
> > usage
> > > > makes them sight words. A lot of other words may become so, over
the
> > years.
> >
> > > A word such as "know" does not work in ANY phonemic scheme.
> > > And children learn many words that use more obscure schemes (such as
> > > words from foreign languages) as sight words.
> >
> > # "know" has a silent initial letter, and is one of several such words.
> > They'd be taught as a group in any systematic phonics program. -
gnome,
> > knight, mnemonic, pseudonym - and endings: dumb, lamb - or in the
middle:
> > light, yacht. The so-called "silent e" at end of words, to indicate
> > preceding vowel is "long" is really pronounced, if, eg. "mate" is spelt
> > "maet". Why is not spelt thus? Because English is cleverer than we
credit
> > it; so when "mate" becomes "mating", the "e" is dropped, and the "i"
takes
> > its place as an indicator. The converse also works: "mat" becomes
> > "matting"; the doubled-consonant is the indicator.
>
> gnome - phonemic
> knight - non -phonemic
> mnemonic - in primary school ?
> pseudonym - phonemic
> dumb, lamb - no silent letter, the ending modifies the pronunciation.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Most words in the English language are polysyllabic, consisting
of a
> > > > root/stem, plus affixes (prefixes, suffixes). The eye analyses them
as
> > it
> > > > scans across the page, from left to right, in reading.
> >
> > > An accomplished reader only reads the first and last letters and
> > > predicts the word form the context.
> > > This is why basal reading schemes should not be used exclusively
> > > except at the lowest reading levels, because their contextual content
> > > is so sparse.
> >
> > # Yes, I've heard this theory, of first and last letters - any proof
that
> > this is really the case?
>
> Heaps.
>
> > Dog, dig, cat, cot, mat mut - I'm already
> > confused IF I don't also read that important vowel.
>
> Because there is no context. That is what is wrong with basal
> schemes.
>
> > And read from left-to-right, cos otherwise we get - god, gid, tac,
toc,
> > tam, tum.
>
> so what ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Whole Word dogma makes ALL words into sight words, and chucks
kids
> > in
> > > > the deep end; leading to confusion and loss of confidence.
> >
> > > Which is why a mixture of approaches are used...
> >
> > # No, just one is all you need.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Phonics uses a progressive introduction to reading and writing:
> > short,
> > > > easy, words first - polysyllabic, variants, and exceptions later.
Which
> > is
> > > > why a Primer is desirable. Those children who are bright can
attempt
> > other
> > > > books, having quickly grasped the basic principles of
analytic/synthetic
> > > > reading.
> >
> > > No, that is not phonics, that is a basal reading scheme (which are not
> > > necessarily phonics-based, the early models in the 1950s (such as "Fun
> > > with Dick and Jane") were based on programmed learning).
> > > They provide only a basic level of reading ability.
> >
> > # Not if a primer needs endless repetition of the text, so that whole
word
> > memorising is (hopefully) achieved. Nothing coulld be more boring.
> > Phonics primers use repetition, but it is systematic, and no more than
is
> > necessary.
>
> A great deal is necessary. Non-readers can only memorise a small
> number of new words at a time. That's why the lowest level readers
> have so few words and much repitition (John. John runs. See John run.
> John is running, etc)
> It would take _forever_ to learn to read if you stuck to this level,
> because the stories are too thin to have any context.
>
> > I refer you to the old Victorian Readers (State of Victoria), now
regarded
> > as quaint relics - but they did the job! Or to the equally efficient
> > Fitzroy Readers, currently in use. The latter start off with "A Fat
Cat" in
> > #1, and go on to next reader...
> > Simple, monosyllabic words first; polysyllabic, "long vowels" later.
> > Elementary to us adults - but not to kids.
>
> Reading standards plummeted after the introduction of these
> "programmed learning" schemes.
>
> >
> >
> > > > Teach the Alphabet in preschool,
> >
> > > You try it mate !
> >
> > # I did, at Mrs.Smith's Kindergarten, at age four. No problem.
>
> You try teaching 4 year olds anything.
>
> >
> >
> > > > and use a Phonics Primer in first grade
> > > > at school, and there'd be no "literacy problem" at university level.
> >
> > > There is no literacy problem at university, and they wouldn't remember
> > > anything from grade one !
> >
> > # Well, glad to hear it. So, it's all a fuss about nothing, this need
for
> > literacy?
>
> Yep, it's a beat up by a Government on the ropes. And that clown
> Donelly who has NEVER TAUGHT A SCHOOL CLASS IN HIS LIFE.
>

# We can argue this topic "till the cows come home". The best solution is
to let parents choose which teaching method they prefer - Phonics, or Whole
Word - and, all of us, judge by results.

What are some useful rules of pedagogy?

(1) Start off teaching a subject by going from the Simplest elements to the
Complex.
What is the most basic element of a phonetic language (ie. one with an
alphabet, where symbols represent sounds - as compared with ideographic or
hieroglyphic)? A letter, not a word. After all, what does "literacy" mean?
"Knowledge of letters". Hence, (a) teach the Alphabet first. But words
are necessary, hence (b) teach simple words first; more complex, later.

(2) Teach Rules first, Exceptions later. Yes, English has rules.

(3) Test children to ensure they've grasped the subject.
This can take the form of - (a) Reading aloud (the child reads aloud
from a book); (b) Dictation (the teacher reads aloud, and child writes
accordingly); (c) Transcription (child writes words, from left to right,
copying from text); (d) Composition (child writes description of a picture).

(4) Don't change a proven Method of Teaching for a "new" one, merely because
the latter is new; because change is not automatically progress - it could
be retrogress. Only adopt a new method when it has been proven superior to
the old.

(5) Use a prescribed Primer or other such Text Book as the essential core of
the child's learning. This doesn't exclude other books, but these are
supplemental, and optional.

===========================================

Don H · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 187

"person" wrote in message@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On May 30, 7:29 am, "Don H" wrote:
> > "person" wrote in message
> >
> > @x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
............ (cut ............

# I was at kindergarten, then State school, in the 1930-40s, and learnt the
Alphabet at kinder, with an imaginative pictorial depiction - letter "U' was
a swing.
At State school, which I commenced at five years of age, we had the
Victorian Readers, and soon grasped the idea of words being composed of
letters, reading from left to right.
By second grade, every child could read and write, and dyslexia was
unheard of. We didn't need "guessing games" of "words, in context", nor
grasping at a possible word by first and last letters. Repetition of words
in a Primer was minimal, and only to extent necessary to put a new word into
memory.
Dictation, Reading Aloud, etc, are useful means of learning, and
Parents-reading-to-child was dumped once the child could read for itself.
But already the "innovators" were at work! My sister, two years younger
than me, found that copper-plate, cursive, writing was being scrapped, in
favour of the initial script lettering. Progress? Not if you have to lift
pen from paper with each letter - already needed to dot "i"s.
Fortunately for my generation, the Whole Word mish-mash hadn't yet been
imported from the United States, so the current "literacy problem" didn't
need money thrown at it by an ignorant government.
I hadn't even heard of Phonics back then, it was merely the normal way
of learning to read and write - and spell.
I suggest that modern parents, worried about their child's slow learning
of English, rush out and purchase a set of the old Victorian Readers, before
the print-run is exhausted - or, consult the Fitzroy Readers group. Then
hire a tutor to assist in the remedial work.