Posted on 03/02/2011 4:15:59 PM PST by BruceDeitrickPrice
A recent post about a new book by Denise Eide called “Uncovering the Logic of English” prompted more than 80 comments.
One person in particular objected that phonics was not the entire answer, and argued that Sight-Words were easy to learn, and that many people read this way. I don’t think so.
So I am always trying to figure out CLEVER NEW WAYS to explain this mess to all the confused parents out there, and the confused teachers in the schools.
This new article points out quite simply that reading, as described and prescribed by the so-called experts in Whole Word, is an absurdly difficult task, not at all the easy, pleasurable activity that most of us call “reading.”
Real readers just settle into a book and read! Sight-Word "readers" spend all their time looking for clues and trying to figure out the mystery in front of their eyes.
The title of the article is: “Clueless: Reading as Detective Work.” It makes the case that Whole Word is quackery and the reason we have 50 million functional illiterates.
This is a somewhat specialized article, but it’s a good read for anyone involved with reading.
There are also three YouTube videos accompanying the article; these provide more context.
You'll notice that to keep up with this vast flow Bill Gates actually implemented an overt program of substituting Hieroglyphics where practical!
I've learned many new words reading about nutrition and a few other technical subjects, words I've probably never heard pronounced and might not be able to pronounce correctly. But that is not true for less technical new words people might encounter reading, and also hear from others and learn to use in speech themelves.
Speech has its own demands. Reading is different.
I think this comment is based on that so-called research from Cambridge?? First and last letters? Probably a hoax.
Anyway, I believe the brain does as much—or as little—as it needs to do to keep moving along. No rules. Just right. But you are probably not using shapes, because that would imply you have all those thousands of shapes in your memory, like flags, and you are looking for matches. Isn’t it simpler just to read?
This is an important point. What I’m finding over and over is that the so-called progressive ideas turn out to be regressive.
Sight-Words damage the slower kids more than the faster kids. The slower kids can’t see through to the phonics and end up being functional illiterates. If liberals would really look at the damage they do...
Well, my grandson is homeschooled, so I don’t have first hand info, but that is what I heard, too.
Try teaching classrooms full of eleventh and twelfth graders who where taught using sight and whole word methods. They can’t read. It’s that simple, and extremely sad and frustrating.
Not only did they write/record for a living, they had ample opportunity to spread the genes that facilitate the process.
If they didn't get around to your womenfolk in time your ethnic group just doesn't have what it takes to learn to read.
I couldn’t disagree more. I, like many voracious readers not only didn’t learn to read phonetically, but we lack the internal monologue that phonics forces. In my case it occurred naturally, but truly good readers share on thing in common: No internal monologue when reading. If memory serves me correctly, it’s almost impossible to exceed something in the neighborhood of 300wpm while sub-vocalizing, which by necessity is forced by a phonetic approach to reading.
That’s been exactly my experience as well. I was an advanced reader by the time I started kindergarten, and was always excused to do other activities when the other children were going through the reading curriculum. It wasn’t until I was in college that I realized that the vast majority of the population actually hears a little voice in their heads that pronounces the words to them as they read. I still find the whole the concept creepy.
I agree 100%. However, giving credit where credit is due, I admit that I’m the world champion at amassing a vocabulary of words, and pronouncing them incorrectly until I’ve heard them. I still remember my father laughing uproariously when I pronounced pedestrains Ped-uh-strains when I was around 7.
But would I trade reading at less than a third of the speed I currently read, and perhaps even have my comprehension suffer to more accurately pronounce words that I’ve read? Not no, but hell no. When I’m in doubt, I’m perfectly capable of reading a pronunciation key.
Most good readers, can read the following with ease. Phonetic readers, not so much.
Arocdnicg to rsceearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pcale. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit pobelrm. Tihs is buseace the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Fonics would have put me on the short bus...I had trouble when we were taught fonics in Spelling ...in 2nd or 3rd grade.
It should be determined if children are visual or auditory learners and taught to their strength. Kids who have trouble blending sounds are going to have a problem learning to read with phonics.
But schools teach "methods" rather than kids. Not all kids are going to learn by any one method.
But English, no ~ no little voice ~ used to be a Latin voice in there, but I got rid of him ~ just gets in the way of the LONG STUFF.
He brought a documentation book to us and showed us the word "UTILS" which stood for "UTILITIES".
As a family secret-joke we still call new software "YOU TILLS".
I believe the subvocalizing thing is a myth. As you process the letters faster, you no longer say the letters, if you ever did.
A pianist doesn’t think, That’s a C, use the first finger to hit that key.
As part of trying to drive phonics out of existence, the Education Establishment told a lot of lies.
Have it your way. However, I’m extremely glad that phonics was never forced on me, and I’m extremely happy with the results my own children had when we decided (homeschoolers) that phonics was a poor approach.
You are a sight reader. I am too. When I was a freshman in college, I was in an Eng comp class for kids that scored over 650 on the Eng Achievement and SAT. We were the only class that had spelling because they told us that studies showed the the best, fastest sight readers were notoriously poor spellers. Are you a poor speller?
Anyway, there is no one right way to learn to read because there is no single way people learn. There are visual learners and there are auditory learners and all sorts of combinations in between. I get tired of hearing people say that teaching sight reading is wrong, phonics is the only way to teach. It would have bored me to death if I had to sound out every word that I read.
Sight reading is simply a natural way to learn to read. The student actually teaches himself and that is the way many pre-schoolers pick up reading on their own. My two year old grandson can read, but he doesn’t know the alphabet.
All I know is that a generation or two of kids has been hooked on phonics and still can’t read or spell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.