Phonics for Beginners
Luz Shosie and Ned Vare
Phonics for Beginners -- Another Reason to Homeschool
If you don¹t know Phonics, you can¹t read.
If you don¹t know Phonics, you can¹t read this sentence or any other. You¹re
reading this, so you know Phonics. You might not have learned all (or even
many) of the rules, but still you know how reading happens -- you are making
sounds that correspond to the letters in print.
First, terms: LANGUAGE is what we speak (³lang² means tongue). Language is
the sounds that our speech makes. That¹s true even when we read silently --
we ³hear² the words in our heads. Language comes ³naturally² to children. In
our infancy, turning the sounds we hear into spoken sounds is a natural act
that does not need to be taught. So speaking is like walking in the sense of
being a natural skill. But reading and writing -- the two parts of literacy
-- are not natural acts or skills. They must be learned.
There are two kinds of writing: PICTOGRAPHIC and PHONETIC. In pictographic
writing, ideas are represented by symbolic pictures or ³ideographs² as in
hieroglyphic pictographs. Learning a pictographic language, such as Chinese,
requires the memorization of the designs of a great many symbols in order to
communicate accurately, and even then, it can be problematic because the
pictographs represent ideas, not specific words. In phonetic languages,
letters and letter combinations represent the actual individual sounds of
the spoken language. With phonetic languages such as English, Spanish, and
Hebrew, there are only a few sounds, and since letters represent those
sounds, words are communicated accurately, and therefore, meaning is precise
and clear.
One reason why public schools are doing such a poor job is that they
abandoned the Phonics method of teaching reading about fifty years ago, in
favor of ³Whole Language.² Unfortunately for several generations of school
children, WL tries to teach reading as though it were a pictographic
language -- one that requires children to memorize words whole -- by their
design (³Look-Say²) -- not as a phonetic code that connects letters to
sounds (sounding out). Using repetition (as in Dick and Jane), Whole
Language depends on recognition of whole words by their looks, as though
they were ideographs.
The result is confusion and reading problems: Children in public schools are
not taught how to decode words by time-tested phonetics (Phonics), but are
forced to guess at new whole words (using pictures and context clues)
instead of sounding them out by using the letters. Whole Language does not
work because it leaves out the key to how our language works. Phonics is the
key.
Recently, we¹ve read that a National Reading Panel has advocated a ³blend²
of Phonics and Whole Language. That smacks of politics since the two are not
blendable -- one teaches how to read and the other does not. Whole Language
advocates ³immersing² the child in ³literature,² and expects that to be
enough to inspire him/her to read. It¹s not -- it¹s merely therapy. Reading
requires skill and specific knowledge. Children need to learn how to convert
the marks on the page into specific sounds (sometimes called decoding); in
other words, they need Phonics in order to learn HOW to read. After that,
maybe ³immersion² can have some benefit.
Phonics (also known as Phonetics)
Note: Phonetic writing is perhaps the greatest of man¹s inventions. It
turned guesswork into precision communication. Its use began in about the
year 2000BC.
English has 26 letters and 44 sounds. Simple. A child needs to learn the
letters, and their sounds both alone and in combinations. The few basic
concepts contain almost all of what a child needs in order to read easily
and well. During their first years, children have listened to speech and so
they have what is called ³phonemic awareness² -- they know the sounds of the
language -- and begin to imitate them in order to get what they need and
want -- usually MAMA! But decoding a page of printed words does not come
naturally. The individual marks on the page need to be learned for what they
represent: The different sounds of the language. That needs to be learned,
although not necessarily taught, a little at a time. So how can we parents
help?
When your child is curious (and wants help in learning to read), begin with
single letters (try magnetized letters on the refrigerator door) and say
their names and the sounds associated with each, such as A-a (short vowel
sound as in Am and At) and E (as in Egg, and set) and I (In or It); Up, hOt,
etc. Next step, BAG or CAT, then start changing one letter at a time:
BAG-BAD-BAT-CAT-CUT-COT-HOT-HAT-HIT-SIT-SET-LET, etc. One book comes to mind
as a good primer for reading phonetically: Cat in the Hat, by Dr. Seuss.
Play with words and letters as long as it¹s enjoyable for you and your
child. When it¹s not interesting, let it go. There¹s no hurry. Some children
become interested in reading when they¹re 3 or 4, some when they¹re 10 or
12. By the time they¹re 16, no one can tell who learned first. Forcing or
coercing can lead to reading problems.
Once you notice that the child gets the idea that letters represent
individual sounds (r-a-t), you¹ve done your job. The child needs to be able
to decode words independently, not to have someone give the pronunciation
for all words, or rely on pictures as clues. You will probably be surprised
how quickly they get it, and once that happens, the rest of the rules --
those for long vowel sounds (such as the final e, changing rat to rate), and
various combinations of letters -- get easier to learn and use.
Despite what many school teachers want us to believe, English is a very
regular language and reading can be learned quickly, easily and painlessly.
Of course there are weird exceptions that need to be learned individually,
but mostly it follows a very few, simple rules. Stick with what¹s regular
and try not to dwell on the exceptions during the early stages.
If you don¹t know Phonics, you can¹t read.
If you don¹t know Phonics, you can¹t read this sentence or any other. You¹re
reading this, so you know Phonics. You might not have learned all (or even
many) of the rules, but still you know how reading happens -- you are making
sounds that correspond to the letters in print.
First, terms: LANGUAGE is what we speak (³lang² means tongue). Language is
the sounds that our speech makes. That¹s true even when we read silently --
we ³hear² the words in our heads. Language comes ³naturally² to children. In
our infancy, turning the sounds we hear into spoken sounds is a natural act
that does not need to be taught. So speaking is like walking in the sense of
being a natural skill. But reading and writing -- the two parts of literacy
-- are not natural acts or skills. They must be learned.
There are two kinds of writing: PICTOGRAPHIC and PHONETIC. In pictographic
writing, ideas are represented by symbolic pictures or ³ideographs² as in
hieroglyphic pictographs. Learning a pictographic language, such as Chinese,
requires the memorization of the designs of a great many symbols in order to
communicate accurately, and even then, it can be problematic because the
pictographs represent ideas, not specific words. In phonetic languages,
letters and letter combinations represent the actual individual sounds of
the spoken language. With phonetic languages such as English, Spanish, and
Hebrew, there are only a few sounds, and since letters represent those
sounds, words are communicated accurately, and therefore, meaning is precise
and clear.
One reason why public schools are doing such a poor job is that they
abandoned the Phonics method of teaching reading about fifty years ago, in
favor of ³Whole Language.² Unfortunately for several generations of school
children, WL tries to teach reading as though it were a pictographic
language -- one that requires children to memorize words whole -- by their
design (³Look-Say²) -- not as a phonetic code that connects letters to
sounds (sounding out). Using repetition (as in Dick and Jane), Whole
Language depends on recognition of whole words by their looks, as though
they were ideographs.
The result is confusion and reading problems: Children in public schools are
not taught how to decode words by time-tested phonetics (Phonics), but are
forced to guess at new whole words (using pictures and context clues)
instead of sounding them out by using the letters. Whole Language does not
work because it leaves out the key to how our language works. Phonics is the
key.
Recently, we¹ve read that a National Reading Panel has advocated a ³blend²
of Phonics and Whole Language. That smacks of politics since the two are not
blendable -- one teaches how to read and the other does not. Whole Language
advocates ³immersing² the child in ³literature,² and expects that to be
enough to inspire him/her to read. It¹s not -- it¹s merely therapy. Reading
requires skill and specific knowledge. Children need to learn how to convert
the marks on the page into specific sounds (sometimes called decoding); in
other words, they need Phonics in order to learn HOW to read. After that,
maybe ³immersion² can have some benefit.
Phonics (also known as Phonetics)
Note: Phonetic writing is perhaps the greatest of man¹s inventions. It
turned guesswork into precision communication. Its use began in about the
year 2000BC.
English has 26 letters and 44 sounds. Simple. A child needs to learn the
letters, and their sounds both alone and in combinations. The few basic
concepts contain almost all of what a child needs in order to read easily
and well. During their first years, children have listened to speech and so
they have what is called ³phonemic awareness² -- they know the sounds of the
language -- and begin to imitate them in order to get what they need and
want -- usually MAMA! But decoding a page of printed words does not come
naturally. The individual marks on the page need to be learned for what they
represent: The different sounds of the language. That needs to be learned,
although not necessarily taught, a little at a time. So how can we parents
help?
When your child is curious (and wants help in learning to read), begin with
single letters (try magnetized letters on the refrigerator door) and say
their names and the sounds associated with each, such as A-a (short vowel
sound as in Am and At) and E (as in Egg, and set) and I (In or It); Up, hOt,
etc. Next step, BAG or CAT, then start changing one letter at a time:
BAG-BAD-BAT-CAT-CUT-COT-HOT-HAT-HIT-SIT-SET-LET, etc. One book comes to mind
as a good primer for reading phonetically: Cat in the Hat, by Dr. Seuss.
Play with words and letters as long as it¹s enjoyable for you and your
child. When it¹s not interesting, let it go. There¹s no hurry. Some children
become interested in reading when they¹re 3 or 4, some when they¹re 10 or
12. By the time they¹re 16, no one can tell who learned first. Forcing or
coercing can lead to reading problems.
Once you notice that the child gets the idea that letters represent
individual sounds (r-a-t), you¹ve done your job. The child needs to be able
to decode words independently, not to have someone give the pronunciation
for all words, or rely on pictures as clues. You will probably be surprised
how quickly they get it, and once that happens, the rest of the rules --
those for long vowel sounds (such as the final e, changing rat to rate), and
various combinations of letters -- get easier to learn and use.
Despite what many school teachers want us to believe, English is a very
regular language and reading can be learned quickly, easily and painlessly.
Of course there are weird exceptions that need to be learned individually,
but mostly it follows a very few, simple rules. Stick with what¹s regular
and try not to dwell on the exceptions during the early stages.
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/31/2002 9:10:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nedvare@... writes:
absolutely totally misrepresenting what Whole Language really was. I KNOW
that there are a bunch of phonics promoters out there who do that - but
you've had the opportunity to hear, first-hand, from people like me who were
actually there in the schools when it was introduced and watched it fade away
after only 6 or 7 years.
Whole Language was NOT Look-Say. They are VERY different.
--pam
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nedvare@... writes:
> One reason why public schools are doing such a poor job is that theySheesh - Ned do you ever bother to read what anybody else writes? You are
> abandoned the Phonics method of teaching reading about fifty years ago, in
> favor of ³Whole Language.² Unfortunately for several generations of school
> children, WL tries to teach reading as though it were a pictographic
> language -- one that requires children to memorize words whole -- by their
> design (³Look-Say²) -- not as a phonetic code that connects letters to
> sounds (sounding out). Using repetition (as in Dick and Jane), Whole
> Language depends on recognition of whole words by their looks, as though
> they were ideographs.
absolutely totally misrepresenting what Whole Language really was. I KNOW
that there are a bunch of phonics promoters out there who do that - but
you've had the opportunity to hear, first-hand, from people like me who were
actually there in the schools when it was introduced and watched it fade away
after only 6 or 7 years.
Whole Language was NOT Look-Say. They are VERY different.
--pam
National Home Education Network
http://www.NHEN.org
Changing the Way the World Sees Homeschooling!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:10:25 -0400 Luz Shosie and Ned Vare
<nedvare@...> writes:
wasn't true. We also pretty sucessfully disproved some of the other
notions in this post. Why are you sending it now?
Dar
<nedvare@...> writes:
> Phonics for Beginners -- Another Reason to HomeschoolI thought we just had a discussion about this and concluded that this
>
>
> If you don¹t know Phonics, you can¹t read.
wasn't true. We also pretty sucessfully disproved some of the other
notions in this post. Why are you sending it now?
Dar
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/31/02 10:10:49 AM, nedvare@... writes:
<<
Recently, we1ve read that a National Reading Panel has advocated a 3blend2
of Phonics and Whole Language. That smacks of politics since the two are not
blendable -- one teaches how to read and the other does not. >>
First the article is hard to read because there are imbedded things showing
up as numbers, and the quotes and apostrophes are numbers too.
And second, in my experience what you have written is not the simple truth
you make it out to be.
" That smacks of politics since the two are not
blendable -- one teaches how to read and the other does not. "
This doesn't even make sense.
"If you don1t know Phonics, you can1t read this sentence or any other. You1re
reading this, so you know Phonics. "
If this is true then people can learn phonics without being taught, because
all three of my kids would be able to read it without hesitation, and none of
them have ever been "taught phonics."
And I learned to read by look-say (not whole language, but programmed
incremental look-say).
<<But reading and writing -- the two parts of literacy
-- are not natural acts or skills. They must be learned.>>
Yes, but learning is natural and they can be learned naturally.
<<One reason why public schools are doing such a poor job is that they
abandoned the Phonics method of teaching reading about fifty years ago,>>
That is not true. Phonics has not been abandoned for fifty years. SOME
school districts and some reading-method manufacturers have moved away from
phonics, but it has always been there, and many districts flip-flopped from
purchase to purchase (five year cycles or however often they decided on
textbooks).
If phonicst abandoned.
A hundred and fifty years ago in one-room schoolhouses with teenaged girls as
teachers, they were teaching by rote. And rote is recitation and
memorization and doesn't involve a bunch of phonetic analysis and markings.
At one time phonics was new, right? When? That might be worth looking at,
Ned, to make you feel better and to help you clarify what you want to tell
people. To simply say fifty years ago something was abandoned is
problematical.
<<Phonics (also known as Phonetics)>>
Phonetics and phonics are not the same term nor the same field of inquiry.
They're from the same word root, and they're related, but they're not the
same.
It would be a bit like saying "intro to auto mechanics (also known as
mechanical engineering)."
<<Despite what many school teachers want us to believe, English is a very
regular language and reading can be learned quickly, easily and painlessly.>>
English is probably the most irregular language on the planet because
spelling was codified before some sound-shifts took place, we have words from
four different languages making up the bulk of everyday terms, and from
dozens of other languages too. Latin and Norman French have some
similarities as to pronunciation of phonemes, but the Germanic Anglo Saxon
(or most common and easiest phonetic words) and Greek are very different.
<<Of course there are weird exceptions that need to be learned individually,
but mostly it follows a very few, simple rules.>>
The reason it follows a few simple rules is that the bulk of short, easy
words are Anglo-Saxon words. The sentence just before this--probably only
"reason" is from French/Latin, and the rest is Saxon. ("Simple" is probably
French too, but it's been in English for 800 years or so.)
I agree too that it's easy for kids to learn to read. But I don't agree that
they have to "learn phonics" first. Reading is much more complex than a
simple code to break, and yet people are so brilliantly smart that they can,
on their own, develop a way to do a very complex thing. Not all people learn
the same way, nor decode the same way. There are LOTS of everyday Saxon
words which do not follow phonetic rules. Most do. But phonics won't help
with the whole set of through, tough, trough, brought kinds of things which
once were pronounced with a throat hoik (fricative glottal stop? What's the
name for that, any descriptive linguists in the house?) which is why the
sound is there, but which are kept that way with that spelling because
millions of English speakers are reading visually.
Ned, there are new homeschoolers on this list whose kids can't read yet, and
the information you've just sent the list is more about your opinion of
schools than about how reading works. You seem obsessed with politics and
the satanic nature of whole language.
There are people here with several reading children, there are people here
who have taught school, taught reading, read or done research on learning
theory and cognition.
If you share what your family does and believes that's great. But when you
word it in such a way that it speaks for all schools and all readers of
English, you move out of a defensible and helpful stance.
Holly just asked how to spell "once." I told her. And I asked "Do you see
the "one" in there?"
"Yeah," she said.
"Once" is a visual word. It has a history. It's based on the word "one."
But neither "one" nor "once" starts with a "w." We could talk about why that
is, or we could just accept that every reader of English reads that visually.
She's still sitting next to me, and asked how to spell "flower/flour" (I
didn't know which and I asked which kind).
"'Who' is w-h-o, right?"
Yes.
"Who" doesn't start with an h, and "One" doesn't start with a "w" and both of
them are native English (Anglo-Saxon) words.
"How do you spell... [since/cents/sense]?" Holly just asked. And now we need
to discuss that. gotta go.
Sandra
<<
Recently, we1ve read that a National Reading Panel has advocated a 3blend2
of Phonics and Whole Language. That smacks of politics since the two are not
blendable -- one teaches how to read and the other does not. >>
First the article is hard to read because there are imbedded things showing
up as numbers, and the quotes and apostrophes are numbers too.
And second, in my experience what you have written is not the simple truth
you make it out to be.
" That smacks of politics since the two are not
blendable -- one teaches how to read and the other does not. "
This doesn't even make sense.
"If you don1t know Phonics, you can1t read this sentence or any other. You1re
reading this, so you know Phonics. "
If this is true then people can learn phonics without being taught, because
all three of my kids would be able to read it without hesitation, and none of
them have ever been "taught phonics."
And I learned to read by look-say (not whole language, but programmed
incremental look-say).
<<But reading and writing -- the two parts of literacy
-- are not natural acts or skills. They must be learned.>>
Yes, but learning is natural and they can be learned naturally.
<<One reason why public schools are doing such a poor job is that they
abandoned the Phonics method of teaching reading about fifty years ago,>>
That is not true. Phonics has not been abandoned for fifty years. SOME
school districts and some reading-method manufacturers have moved away from
phonics, but it has always been there, and many districts flip-flopped from
purchase to purchase (five year cycles or however often they decided on
textbooks).
If phonicst abandoned.
A hundred and fifty years ago in one-room schoolhouses with teenaged girls as
teachers, they were teaching by rote. And rote is recitation and
memorization and doesn't involve a bunch of phonetic analysis and markings.
At one time phonics was new, right? When? That might be worth looking at,
Ned, to make you feel better and to help you clarify what you want to tell
people. To simply say fifty years ago something was abandoned is
problematical.
<<Phonics (also known as Phonetics)>>
Phonetics and phonics are not the same term nor the same field of inquiry.
They're from the same word root, and they're related, but they're not the
same.
It would be a bit like saying "intro to auto mechanics (also known as
mechanical engineering)."
<<Despite what many school teachers want us to believe, English is a very
regular language and reading can be learned quickly, easily and painlessly.>>
English is probably the most irregular language on the planet because
spelling was codified before some sound-shifts took place, we have words from
four different languages making up the bulk of everyday terms, and from
dozens of other languages too. Latin and Norman French have some
similarities as to pronunciation of phonemes, but the Germanic Anglo Saxon
(or most common and easiest phonetic words) and Greek are very different.
<<Of course there are weird exceptions that need to be learned individually,
but mostly it follows a very few, simple rules.>>
The reason it follows a few simple rules is that the bulk of short, easy
words are Anglo-Saxon words. The sentence just before this--probably only
"reason" is from French/Latin, and the rest is Saxon. ("Simple" is probably
French too, but it's been in English for 800 years or so.)
I agree too that it's easy for kids to learn to read. But I don't agree that
they have to "learn phonics" first. Reading is much more complex than a
simple code to break, and yet people are so brilliantly smart that they can,
on their own, develop a way to do a very complex thing. Not all people learn
the same way, nor decode the same way. There are LOTS of everyday Saxon
words which do not follow phonetic rules. Most do. But phonics won't help
with the whole set of through, tough, trough, brought kinds of things which
once were pronounced with a throat hoik (fricative glottal stop? What's the
name for that, any descriptive linguists in the house?) which is why the
sound is there, but which are kept that way with that spelling because
millions of English speakers are reading visually.
Ned, there are new homeschoolers on this list whose kids can't read yet, and
the information you've just sent the list is more about your opinion of
schools than about how reading works. You seem obsessed with politics and
the satanic nature of whole language.
There are people here with several reading children, there are people here
who have taught school, taught reading, read or done research on learning
theory and cognition.
If you share what your family does and believes that's great. But when you
word it in such a way that it speaks for all schools and all readers of
English, you move out of a defensible and helpful stance.
Holly just asked how to spell "once." I told her. And I asked "Do you see
the "one" in there?"
"Yeah," she said.
"Once" is a visual word. It has a history. It's based on the word "one."
But neither "one" nor "once" starts with a "w." We could talk about why that
is, or we could just accept that every reader of English reads that visually.
She's still sitting next to me, and asked how to spell "flower/flour" (I
didn't know which and I asked which kind).
"'Who' is w-h-o, right?"
Yes.
"Who" doesn't start with an h, and "One" doesn't start with a "w" and both of
them are native English (Anglo-Saxon) words.
"How do you spell... [since/cents/sense]?" Holly just asked. And now we need
to discuss that. gotta go.
Sandra
[email protected]
I have one more question/comment:
Ned, have you ever had the privilege or misfortune of teaching school? If
you have not, and if you haven't studied education, I wish you would lighten
up on these kinds of statements about teachers ("Despite what many school
teachers want us to believe..."). And if the history of English isn't one of
your favorite hobbies, ditto about the summary statements about English.
You can ethically and morally ignore what I wish, but I can still wish.
Sandra
Ned, have you ever had the privilege or misfortune of teaching school? If
you have not, and if you haven't studied education, I wish you would lighten
up on these kinds of statements about teachers ("Despite what many school
teachers want us to believe..."). And if the history of English isn't one of
your favorite hobbies, ditto about the summary statements about English.
You can ethically and morally ignore what I wish, but I can still wish.
Sandra
zenmomma *
>>If you don�t know Phonics, you can�t read.>>But you CAN read using techniques in addition to phonics. And phonics may
not have been the first step in the reading process. Sounding out words can
be a small part of an even bigger reading process. In fact, it has to be. I
know I don't sit there sounding out each and every word I read.
>>Language comes �naturally� to children. In our infancy, turning the sounds-- are not natural acts or skills. They must be learned.>>
>>we hear into spoken sounds is a natural act that does not need to be
>>taught. So speaking is like walking in the sense of being a natural skill.
>>But reading and writing -- the two parts of literacy
They must be LEARNED, but not ncessarily taught. Like walking and talking, I
believe reading and writing come naturally once a child's brain and body is
physically ready to learn them. And like the language they hear every day,
most children in this day and age are surrounded by the printed word. They
are immersed in it and its uses and naturally want to mimic and learn what
they see the adults doing. We don't sit the down to teach them to talk, and
I don't believe we need to sit them down for reading/writing lessons either.
It's a part of the day and a part of their lives. They learn it.
>>Unfortunately for several generations of school children, WL tries toWhole Language and Look-Say are two different methods. I thought Pam gave a
>>teach reading as though it were a pictographic language>>
very good description of a Whole Language classroom. My son Conor was in a
WL classroom and I thought it was great. Where the schools were failing was
in insisting kids were "behind" if they didn't read on the school's
timetable. (Well, that's one place the schools were failing anyway. ;-)) And
yes, there were plenty of phonics games and sheets and puzzles and
activities in his classroom.
>>Whole Language advocates �immersing� the child in �literature,� andAhhh...it worked for my kids. Harry Potter was the final ticket for Conor.
>>expects that to be enough to inspire him/her to read.>>
He wanted to read it so badly and I just wasn't going fast enough. After
years of being labelled as learning disabled, he finished the first book in
a day at age 9. He was ready. Casey was inspired by The Magic Treehouse
Books. Those were the ones she just had to read for herself.
>>Play with words and letters as long as it�s enjoyable for you and yourWell I certainly agree with this. :o)
>>child. When it�s not interesting, let it go. There�s no hurry.>>
>>Once you notice that the child gets the idea that letters representindividual sounds (r-a-t), you�ve done your job. The child needs to be able
to decode words independently, not to have someone give the pronunciation
for all words, or rely on pictures as clues.>>
No way! My "job" is NOT over when they can sound out rat. I am there to
answer questions, give them pronounciations or even entire words or phrases.
I will still read to them for as long as they still enjoy it. I will
continue to fill their world with literature beyond their current reading
comprehension and I will read it with them or to them as they prefer.
Reading is so much more than decoding!!
Was this an old article Ned? Lots of us here have given you examples from
our own children's lives where phonics was NOT the answer. I'm surprised
that you seem to be disbelieving our real life observations.
Life is good.
~Mary
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Betsy
<<
Recently, we1ve read that a National Reading Panel has advocated a 3blend2
of Phonics and Whole Language. That smacks of politics since the two are not
blendable -- one teaches how to read and the other does not. >>
Let's not forget about teaching WHY to read. Telling a kindergardener
-- "you'll need this in college and on the job" doesn't really cut it!
One needs to stress the pleasure of reading to create real motivation
for learning.
Betsy
Recently, we1ve read that a National Reading Panel has advocated a 3blend2
of Phonics and Whole Language. That smacks of politics since the two are not
blendable -- one teaches how to read and the other does not. >>
Let's not forget about teaching WHY to read. Telling a kindergardener
-- "you'll need this in college and on the job" doesn't really cut it!
One needs to stress the pleasure of reading to create real motivation
for learning.
Betsy
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/31/02 12:59:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead, if only he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to
present the present.
8) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
9) I did not object to the object.
10) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
11) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
12) They were too close to the door to close it.
13) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
14) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
15) After a number of injections, my jaw got number.
16) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
17) I threw the ball through the hoop.
18) The cement statue of the deer was dear to my Mother.
19) The slogan of a bear on the beer bottle was funny.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> <<Despite what many school teachers want us to believe, English is a veryWHY IS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE SO HARD TO LEARN?
>
> regular language and reading can be learned quickly, easily and painlessly.>
> >
>
> English is probably the most irregular language on the planet because
> spelling was codified before some sound-shifts took place, we have words
> from
> four different languages making up the bulk of everyday terms, and from
> dozens of other languages too. Latin and Norman French have some
> similarities as to pronunciation of phonemes, but the Germanic Anglo Saxon
> (or most common and easiest phonetic words) and Greek are very different.
>
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead, if only he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to
present the present.
8) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
9) I did not object to the object.
10) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
11) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
12) They were too close to the door to close it.
13) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
14) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
15) After a number of injections, my jaw got number.
16) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
17) I threw the ball through the hoop.
18) The cement statue of the deer was dear to my Mother.
19) The slogan of a bear on the beer bottle was funny.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
It's bad enough to try to interpret English from the written word, but then
there's translating the sounds BACK into the mish-mosh of a system.
Here are two real-life notes from the past week. Holly's was in all caps,
Kirby's had upper and lower case appropriately used:
VA HUSPEDEL WILL CALL DAD TO REE SKEGUEL MRI
Whent to
hang out
with Andrew
and Matt
Kirby
Neither of them has been "taught to spell," they're both just picking it up.
I showed Holly that schedule started "sch" and she said "like school!" So
she knew that. And she told me about seeing school spelled with a "k" on
Invader Zim and knowing it was wrong there for the comic effect.
Sandra
there's translating the sounds BACK into the mish-mosh of a system.
Here are two real-life notes from the past week. Holly's was in all caps,
Kirby's had upper and lower case appropriately used:
VA HUSPEDEL WILL CALL DAD TO REE SKEGUEL MRI
Whent to
hang out
with Andrew
and Matt
Kirby
Neither of them has been "taught to spell," they're both just picking it up.
I showed Holly that schedule started "sch" and she said "like school!" So
she knew that. And she told me about seeing school spelled with a "k" on
Invader Zim and knowing it was wrong there for the comic effect.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/31/02 4:26:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
is going to call Dad to reschedule his MRI.' I found a similar message on our
fridge last week, "A Ldy frum the Va colld she sad the gren teme daktr wil
sea dad thrsda at 3 and not to forgt to brng his idcrd if he had eny qwestens
he can coll the va and ask to spek to the gren teme reseptinst."
What pleased me was that she answered the phone politely, took a message,
wrote as neatly and clearly as she could and left it where we could find it.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> It's bad enough to try to interpret English from the written word, but thenLOL Moly and Holly spell the same! But I got it right off, 'the VA hospital
> there's translating the sounds BACK into the mish-mosh of a system.
>
> Here are two real-life notes from the past week. Holly's was in all caps,
> Kirby's had upper and lower case appropriately used:
>
> VA HUSPEDEL WILL CALL DAD TO REE SKEGUEL MRI
>
> Whent to
> hang out
> with Andrew
> and Matt
> Kirby
is going to call Dad to reschedule his MRI.' I found a similar message on our
fridge last week, "A Ldy frum the Va colld she sad the gren teme daktr wil
sea dad thrsda at 3 and not to forgt to brng his idcrd if he had eny qwestens
he can coll the va and ask to spek to the gren teme reseptinst."
What pleased me was that she answered the phone politely, took a message,
wrote as neatly and clearly as she could and left it where we could find it.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tia Leschke
>It's really interesting to see how kids hear the words they want to spell,
>
>VA HUSPEDEL WILL CALL DAD TO REE SKEGUEL MRI
like va for the. (Oops, I just read another post that read that word as VA
hospital.) Also the way they notice the the w sound is sometimes written
wh, and then they use it all the time for a while. There's one word (which
I can't remember now) that Lars always writes with an extra sound or
two. When I listened carefully, I realized that he was saying it that way
as well. So of course he added the extra sounds when writing it. I kind
of thought that his spelling was so phonetic (and wrong) because I pushed
phonetics on him, but your kids spell much the same way as he does without
the phonics instruction.
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
Karen
As we're heading to the store, Emily (6) said she knew how to spell
"shopping." She then proudly spelled "s-e-a-p-p-i-n-g." Her brother's name
is Sean, so she was quite properly applying phonetic principles she'd
learned. I explained about Irish names and off we went to "seap."
Karen
"shopping." She then proudly spelled "s-e-a-p-p-i-n-g." Her brother's name
is Sean, so she was quite properly applying phonetic principles she'd
learned. I explained about Irish names and off we went to "seap."
Karen
C. Levine
Touche!
-----Original Message-----
From: Dnowens@... [mailto:Dnowens@...]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 4:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Phonics for Beginners
In a message dated 7/31/02 12:59:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead, if only he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to
present the present.
8) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
9) I did not object to the object.
10) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
11) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
12) They were too close to the door to close it.
13) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
14) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
15) After a number of injections, my jaw got number.
16) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
17) I threw the ball through the hoop.
18) The cement statue of the deer was dear to my Mother.
19) The slogan of a bear on the beer bottle was funny.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
the Moderator, Joyce Fetteroll, at fetteroll@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-----Original Message-----
From: Dnowens@... [mailto:Dnowens@...]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 4:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Phonics for Beginners
In a message dated 7/31/02 12:59:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
> <<Despite what many school teachers want us to believe, English is avery
>painlessly.>
> regular language and reading can be learned quickly, easily and
> >Saxon
>
> English is probably the most irregular language on the planet because
> spelling was codified before some sound-shifts took place, we have words
> from
> four different languages making up the bulk of everyday terms, and from
> dozens of other languages too. Latin and Norman French have some
> similarities as to pronunciation of phonemes, but the Germanic Anglo
> (or most common and easiest phonetic words) and Greek are verydifferent.
>WHY IS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE SO HARD TO LEARN?
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead, if only he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to
present the present.
8) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
9) I did not object to the object.
10) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
11) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
12) They were too close to the door to close it.
13) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
14) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
15) After a number of injections, my jaw got number.
16) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
17) I threw the ball through the hoop.
18) The cement statue of the deer was dear to my Mother.
19) The slogan of a bear on the beer bottle was funny.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
the Moderator, Joyce Fetteroll, at fetteroll@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]