Post: The Importance of Teaching Phonemic AwarenessPosted by Donna Garner, dggarner@swbell.net, on 4/02/99
Because many children in the U. S. are coming to school from language-impoverished homes, many of them have never even tried to "target" sounds. They have heard gutteral language or languages other than English used around them and have not had the interaction of sentence structure and dialogue that once occurred in the average home. (In a country where we have "babies" having babies, what can we expect in the area of language development?)
We also have many children who are "crack" babies and whose parents have practiced unhealthy lifestyles to the extent that there are more learning disabled children. Premature babies have been on the rise for years largely because of sexual activity committed at too young an age.
In the U. S. we have a large percentage of migrant children who have lived in Third World conditions which have produced terrible health problems with many of them having ear infections. For these children, the teaching of phonemic awareness is a must because they could not hear clearly during their most formative years of brain development. All of these problems and more have combined to produce a much larger percentage of disabled youngsters.
That is why the Texas Alternative Document (TAD -- http://www.htcomp.net/tad) in Pre-K starts out with the simplest listening/speaking exercises. Our Pre-K students are usually children who are dubbed Title I, and they are usually the children who come from homes that are considered language impoverished homes.
Used to, in days gone by, the public school teachers could start with "blending" of sounds; now we have to start with the most minute, basic skills. We cannot assume anything anymore with the type of students that are coming into our public schools. Yes, many of them are ready for more advanced reading skills; but the only way to make sure that all of them can move on successfully is to start with phonemic awareness and to make sure that they can even "hear" the subsounds of English before they are introduced to any "blending" skills.
The NIH reading researchers have found that phonemic awareness is the entire basis for future success in reading, and they have done their scientifically replicated research in various parts of the U. S. To see Dr. Reid Lyon's research, go to http://www.readbygrade3.com.
Donna Garner
Lead Writer
Texas Alternative Document
for English / Language Arts / Reading
http://www.htcomp.net/tad
dggarner@swbell.net
Subject: [readbygrade3] Re: On teaching phonics.
Date: Monday, October 05, 1998 2:13 AMDear Donna,
I usually agree with you. It seems to me natural to teach the single letters (c,a,t) and blending-spelling at the same time. They re-inforce each other, are reciprocal. If you could tell me why you think they have to hear the separate sounds FIRST, I would be grateful. How long (6 months, 2 days, a year?) would you spend on this blending, phonemic awareness, before going on to separate visible letters? If you teach the letters along side, they have something TO blend. This is also using multi-sensory teaching from the beginning.
Mona.
______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe, unsubscribe, opt for a daily digest, or start a new e-group at http://www.eGroups.com -- Free Web-based e-mail groups.Re: The Importance of Teaching Phonemic Awareness
Posted by Marva/Texas/3rd on 4/02/99
I think I was like most teachers when I taught first grade. I agreed with whole language and reading real literature just because the focus was on meaning and enjoyment of real language. But at the same time, I used the district's old 1980s phonics program so I covered all the bases. So we did direct instruction in phonics, then read real literature for meaning.
I have always felt that students with hearing problems needed more whole language instruction than phonics. You are asking them to hear and sound out sounds they probably are not hearing correctly. I think a strong dose of other reading strategies is most helpful to these students. What do you think?
Re: Marva, let's think about Helen Keller
Posted by Grace/IL, gsh@mc.net, on 4/02/99
Your post has set me thinking. It IS difficult to teach phonics to the hearing impaired. But what about Helen Keller? How did she learn to speak and to read braille? If I remember correctly, it was by feeling her teacher's face and mouth. In this way she learned 'phonics' without the 'phone' capability. Surely other multi-sensory factors were at work to compensate for her inability to hear, yet she mastered the code. Also, what about the tracing techniques employed by Fernald? This could be an interesting discussion. Grace
Re: phonemic awareness & strategies
Posted by JoAnn on 4/02/99
I have always used a multiple approach to reading. Children that have haad numerous ear infections do not "hear" sounds. Others due to English being a second language or baby speech have problems making the sounds and others are just not auditory learners. Let's be real about this no one learns the same way as someone else. This is why you take a strategy & adapt it to the children you are teaching. Consonants can be felt when making the sound & can be seen if a mirror is used. Vowels cannot. Also phonics needs to be put in its place as a one of a number of decoding strategies. Most of all decoding does not equal comprehension. A child that has not had a strong oral language backround with self expression and onset and rime will have problems not only with decoding skills but with comprehension.
Re: The Importance of Teaching Phonemic Awareness
Posted by LCB on 4/03/99
I agree with Ms. Donna Garner and have followed her writings and have followed the NIH. Although, I feel she makes a good presentation of the lack of skills of the underprivileged it also affects the average American child in Public schools that are affluent. Lack of basic reading skills does not exist only in the impoverished but also in middle-class neighborhoods.
My district is 42% college educated. I find lack of decoding and reading skills exists here also. I experienced it first hand. Marva, you probably remember me, we had many discussions where I was very distraught. I appolgize for that. My name is Lori. My son is now in 4th, and doing very well. Knowing what I know now about reading skills, and how he was instructed, I see much room for improvement. I hope you all will seek Dr. Reid Lyon's research. After I read it I realized what was missing in my son's basic reading skills. And as I became aware of this I watched other kids in his class to rule out my child as abnormal and saw other kids having problems. Marva, I can tell you why it is important to hear separate sounds first. First of all, I feel in K it is more important to teach sounds of letters versus child being able to say alphabet, or memorize visual patterns recognizing an A from an M. Sounds are more important. "a","b" "c". Multisensory is important, but the hearing should come first. If you recall my example that I wore out a year ago on the teacher's.net. My son read "terrible" as "troubled". Had he been able to sound out individual letters he would have deciphered a strange word. Sounding out "t", "e", then r, then short i. He wouldn't have rushed thru the word and assummed it was troubled. Which, by the way, JoAnn his lack of decoding skills distorted his comprehension skills. My son thought the tractor was troubled, not reading that he was a bad tractor, he felt sorry for the tractor. I luckily walked by and asked him to read his chapter book to me. This was 3rd grade, I learned he had no decoding skills, could not read an unfamiliar word. Then he explained that he didn't know how to sound out the word and was told to read the paragraph and plug in a word that would fit. So, as you state "most of all decoding does not equal comprehension" is correct. Decoding takes precedence and contributes to comprehension, had my son had decoding skills his comprehension of the story may have been accurate. Mona, as I interpret ultimate beginning reading skills, I feel k. should be spent on the sounds first along with a visual, like the sound "b" showing a bag. Then, after sounds are heard visual letters are presented with sound, then writing letters and still focusing on sound. Blending and phonics skills should continue on into 1st. My child learned the alphabet and basic words like cat and dog and later in k formed basic sentences and read them. Then in 1st, a major jump occurred. Books were introduced with difficult words that confused the kids.They were expected to read long sentences with 3 syllable words in small print. So, consequently, children were frustrated, at x-mas party I volunteered for I discovered from other moms that 3 out of 15 kids in his classroom were attending tutoring to learn how to read, and maybe more. Luckily, our parents were able to afford $35 per hr tutoring. Teacher explained that she had a lot to cover quickly. So when my son still had trouble in 3rd, I came to the conclusion that the basics were not taught in his early years.So, I guess my point is, poor reading skills is not limited to the poor, but also the affluent, my district being in the top 3 in Tx.Luckily, there are people like Donna who continue to pursue the improvement of reading instruction in Public schools.You mention kids with hearing problems need more wl instruction. I would guess that in any given class of 20 there is probably 2 children with hearing problems. And yes they probably need other skills, but teaching kids to read needs to be globally. All methods need to be introduced equally. Teaching phonic skills is not so mysterious, teachers successfully completed college and entered the work force. I do not understand the fear and hesitation of teaching phonics if it helps children learn to read. After all, most teachers I've met attempt to do their job to the best of their ability, and some go beyond. No one can say that teaching phonics is going to hurt students. It will help those that don't learn well under WL. I remember a letter a boy had to write my son to appologize for his bad behavior. That night, my son had me read the letter. I felt so sorry for this boy, a letter of 40 words or so with simple words, had maybe 4 words spelled correctly. If you think, when we write a letter we sound out the words in our mind while we write, concerned with spelling. One sentence I recall, "I'm srorry I troe up you peper." This was another clue that a 3rd grader of 6 months was unable to sound out "tore" and spell it correctly when writing a letter. In second, kids were allowed to mispell words in stories, thus ignoring the relationship of sound and visual and writing. We were told not to correct them, that the child might have self esteem problems.
Well, I rattled on long enough. Teachers are the most under-recognized and should be placed at the top. Our children are our most precious commodity. thanks for all your dedication.
Re: Quote from Webster's on English Language
Posted by LCB on 4/03/99
College Edition, Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language.
Copyright 1957,1953,1952,1951.This Dictionary was used by my husband in 69 at Stanford University where he received a 4.0 GPA and his Masters.
"In examining any language or dialect, therefore, the first constructive step is to discover its distinctive sound signals-its PHONEMES, as we shall henceforth call them-and the system which they compose (PHONEMIC SYSTEM)."
PHONEME-in linguistics, a class, or family, of closely related speech sounds regarded as a single sound and represented in phonetic transcription by the same symbol.
PHONETICS-the branch of language study dealing with speech sounds, their production and combination, and their representation by written symbols.
PHONICS-the science of sound; acoustics. phnetics. the use of elementary phonetics in teaching beginners to read or enunciate.
Re: The Importance of Teaching Phonemic Awareness
Posted by Cassandra on 4/03/99
You are right, about alot of things. Sorry no one said that as the children's spelling began to closely match words, that you could then give them the correct spelling. So that they could not make the correct spelling a part of their collection of words.
I agree with your point of social-economics. As a first grade teacher, I am now concerned with the show TELETUBBIES. It is not rich in language experience. How many children are watching it now and not getting the oral language experience they will need for reading in the future?
Re: The Importance of Teaching Phonemic Awareness
Posted by Mona on 4/03/99
I am the Mona that frequents Teachers.Net chatboard but I am NOT the Mona that Donna Garner quotes from. I have no idea where that Mona comes from!! (Just clearing my name!)
Re: The Importance of Teaching Phonemic Awareness
Posted by Addie k/mo, againes@netins.net, on 4/03/99
Most of the articles that I have read concering teaching phonetic awareness (which is the a critical predictor to reading success) state that you have to begin working with the students at the concept level, where they are understanding the idea that is stated orally to them in a sentence. Then you move to hearing the individual words in a sentence, then onsets and rimes and finally individual sounds. The kids do need to know how to segment words into their individual sounds, but it is important to remember that you cant start at that level with kids who do not have the language skills to understand a sentence or to hear individual words in a sentence. One activity suggested at a website for "core-curriculum" (which I dont buy hook line and sinker) for building phonemic awareness at the understanding individual words level is that you use different colored train cars and as the teacher says a sentence the children manipulate the cars to represent the number of words heard in the sentence. This is following whole class modelling where the teacher does this. They begin by manipulating the train cars as the sentence is read and later listen to the sentence first and then move the correct number of train cars. Just to clarify, the words are not on the train cars. I haven't actually tried this sequence of activities, because by the time I read about them we were beyond them this year. I will use them at the beginning of next year though. I think they will especially help the really low students in class.
I dont have the website for this, but if you do a search for "core curriculum" i know that you will come up with it. it is a collection of unit plans. This was from the preschool section.
Re: The Importance of Teaching Phonemic Awareness (to LCB)
Posted by SL on 4/03/99
On 4/03/99, LCB wrote:"My child learned the alphabet and basic words like cat and dog and later in k formed basic sentences and read them. Then in 1st, a major jump occurred. Books were introduced with difficult words that confused the kids. They were expected to read long sentences with 3 syllable words in small print."
**************************************************************************
AHA! LCB... I think I have found ONE REASON that your son had so many problems in reading. If your child's teacher was giving him books that were at his frustration level (and the other kids it sounds like) then your son's teacher did not understand the reading process. I remember your past posts about Reading Recovery (which by the way is a program that contains a phonetic component which for some reason you have said that your son was not getting....) Reading Recovery is a supplement, not a replacement to the regular classroom program. If your child was not returning to a supportive reading program it is no wonder he has so many difficulties.
**************************************************************************
"So, consequently, children were frustrated, at x-mas party I volunteered for I discovered from other moms that 3 out of 15 kids in his classroom were attending tutoring to learn how to read, and maybe more. Luckily, our parents were able to afford $35 per hr tutoring. Teacher explained that she had a lot to cover quickly. "
**************************************************************************
If his teacher really said that than she was NOT doing her job. Leaving things not learned well because "she had a lot to cover" is ridiculous! Boy..... I feel for you. I am a strong proponent of getting the BEST teachers in 1st grade. No child should leave 1st grade not reading at at least some level. Those below grade level should have an intervention in place before they leave first. In my school, students who do not successfully complete RR are AUTOMATICALLY referred to special services. We are going to catch them before it is too late!
**************************************************************************
"So when my son still had trouble in 3rd, I came to the conclusion that the basics were not taught in his early years."
**************************************************************************
Not necessarily... it sounds like your son's program was missing more than that. However, since I was never in your son't classroom I don't know what was taught.
**************************************************************************
Teaching phonic skills is not so mysterious, teachers successfully completed college and entered the work force. I do not understand the fear and hesitation of teaching phonics if it helps children learn to read. After all, most teachers I've met attempt to do their job to the best of their ability, and some go beyond. No one can say that teaching phonics is going to hurt students. It will help those that don't learn well under WL.
**************************************************************************
FYI... If your son's teacher was TRULY a WL teacher you would have seen phonics as part of the instruction. The difference is it would have been in context rather than through worksheets. Exemplary phonics instruction is explicit, consistant and put back into context as soon as possible. I still consider myself a WL teacher but believe me.... my K kids are taught letter names, sounds, and how to segment the sounds. My explicit phonics instruction takes less than 5 min. a day (though it is implicitly woven throughout the day) yet my kids are better able to "stretch our words" and hear the sounds in sequence than the teacher's class next door who considers herself a "Phonics" teacher. My kids were given opportunities to read and write from the first day of school while the teacher next door busied the kids in letter of the week cut and paste activities. (I'm not saying that is what you support... I am just pointing out that that is what we see too frequently in classrooms... lots of decontextualized, fragmented so -called "phonics" activities that have nothing to do with reading .) Now.... I will not disagree with you that there were MANY teachers out there who with the best of intentions embraced WL but did not understand the theoretical building blocks behind the movement. How can you leave out phonics in an alphabetic system and still claim to be teaching the "whole language?" Perhaps your son's teacher was one of those.
*************************************************************************
"In second, kids were allowed to mispell words in stories, thus ignoring the relationship of sound and visual and writing. We were told not to correct them, that the child might have self esteem problems."
**************************************************************************
This is the statement that always gets me on two levels. First of all, if your son's teacher really felt that using phonetic spelling was a way to combat self-esteem problems she missed the point. (I hope that you misunderstood her) It IS important that we accept a child's approximations as he/she explores how print works. But along with that we should be teaching the child so that his approximations steadily move toward conventional spelling. If the 2nd graders were allowed to continue these same incorrect spelling patterns all year than they would have developed powerful error patterns that are difficult to remedy. No wonder you were frustrated! My motto is... if I've taught it... I hold the kids accountable for it. If I haven't.. I let it go. Why would I expect a 2nd grader to spell "night" if I haven't taught the -ight spelling pattern. I suppose in this case you could use the "self-esteem" arguement in that if you point out all the errors that the child has no way to monitor on his own it probably would cause the child to become frustrated and give up. But there better be some accountability and standards that the child is held to AND there better be some teaching going on.
Now, on the second level... and I'm not talking about your specifically, but it really irks me when people who claim to be "Phonics" people blame WL people when kids use phonetic spelling! WL is criticized as being a method which teaches kids to "memorize" sight words. Well, if that's all we did... then kids wouldn't be spelling phonetically! What do you people want?! For the children to learn sight words? or to spell phonetically? (Now the truth is that effective teachers do both. There are many words in our language that we are unable to get to phonetically so the children must be taught spelling patterns and/or get a visual picture of the word. Have you ever tried to "sound out" daughter? Ok, not necessarily a high frequency word (I'm drawing a blank) but you get the picture! On the other hand, any word that follows a phonetic pattern should be accessible to a child. The child needs to be taught how to use alphabetic knowledge to read and spell.)
The child needs to be taught how to use meaning, sturcture AND phonetic information to get to a new word. While doing all of this is should always be undertood that COMPREHENSION is our end goal.
**************************************************************************
"Well, I rattled on long enough. Teachers are the most under-recognized and should be placed at the top. Our children are our most precious commodity. thanks for all your dedication."
**************************************************************************
I hope you still include me in this statement.
sincerely, SL
Re: Phonemic Awareness (to SL)
Posted by LCB on 4/03/99
SL
Thanks for replying.You are right, she didn't understand the reading process, along with the rest of the five 1st grade teachers. The reading material was preselected and defined for all classes at the start of the school year. Around X-mas 3 out of 15 students were placed in RR. In my last posts I expressed how hard my son and I worked on this program. Teacher stated he was her best student and used him in a rr training seminar at the district. Yes, I am aware rr is a supplement. If rr was a phonetic component, why was I instructed not to ask him to sound out words. He read books with the teacher at school, finishing the series early. At home he cut up sentences he made up at school and then placed them in order, looking at the whole word, and glued in a book. She had a lot of material to cover in vry little time. It was a rushed scenerio. I believed he had made progress, and was up to speed until entering 2nd. I continued sending him to Sylvan and working closely with 2nd gr teacher. After 6 months it was noted what an improvement he had made. Then 3rd was a spelling disaster. His scores were 50-70. It was obvious lack of phonetic skills. The entire staff was wl but little phonics included. At a meeting with the principal, I was imformed our specialist was starting a spelling program where kids with trouble were pulled out of specials. Kids in 2-4. I suggested implementing a more structured phonics base instruction for 1st so later kids aren't pulled out. Makes sense to me. In a meeting I asked how were the kids taught to read an unfamiliar word. The reply was to read the paragraph and if you come to a word you don't know then you are to plug one in that makes sense. Not instructed to attempt word by sounding out. Why does everyone jump to the word worksheets as if to imply boredom. I don't know what kind of phonic activities you refer, but phonics has everything to do with reading. If it were taught more explicitly in the beginning problems in reading would decrease. Yes, spelling patterns introduced by the teacher handing out the pages, no oral instruction was given. Spelling was considered unimportant. Teacher commented to me "If I want to spell something I look it up in the dictionary." I replied how funny she would look applying for a job at IBM toting a dictionary. Experts state introducing the 26 phonemes in the beginning establishes an easier path to reading. That's alll I request is for this to be taught in 1st. child should be taught in this order, phonics, structure meaning and end goal comprehension. Anyway sounds like you teach both methods equally, I like that.
sincerely, L
Re: LCB....one last comment (started short but got long.)
Posted by SL :) on 4/03/99
"Anyway sounds like you teach both methods equally, I like that.
sincerely, L"
*******************************************************************************
I'm glad to know that you appreciate a balance of approaches. I admit I have been (hmmmmm... for lack of a better word..) offended by past posts by you (I think it was last summer...?) on Reading Recovery.
I am also a Reading Recovery teacher and whatever happened with your child... trust me.....here IS a phonics element to the lesson. Everyday, we analyze the child's reading through as assessent called running record. We check to see what source of information the child is neglecting or using ineffiently. One of those sources is Visual (phonics). I have had children who ONLY used phonics and yes, I prompted to structure and meaning. On the other hand... I recently discontinued (meaning successfully exited the program) a child who did not attend to the visual at all. That child's program was very phonic-based. I constantly needed to bring that child back to the letters and sounds so that he would learn to use Visual cues effectively.
The cut-up story that we send home does include phonetic analysis. The children need to monitor with what they know. Usually they begin with the beginning letter. A child could not memorize the visual picture of the whole word and use that when he/she is getting so many words everyday. Remember there is a new sentence EVERY day. During the lesson when the child is putting the story back together, I'll say... "what letter would you expect to see at the beginning of ________(the word)?" I'll have the child say the word and listen for the beginning sound. As the child gets more sophisticated we look at ending sounds, etc. True, the child would not need to phonetically analyze known words and would use his/her "picture" of the known word... but that is what good readers do. We certainly don't sound out every word we read/write. How laborious that would be!
Early in the program the child uses pictures and structured sentences more but that is because the child needs to be able to monitor using one to one before we take him/her to the visual. If the child did not understand what a "word" is (since oral language does not have "spaces" this is dificult for many children) it would be ridiculous for me to say "get your mouth ready for the first letter" when the child has no idea what I'm talking about! Maybe it was early in your son's program that the teacher asked you to not have him sound out words.
Now, there have been cases where I have asked parents to not have their children "sound out" words. That is not because I don't believe kids need it, but because it is often the ONLY thing that parents tell their kids to do and reading can become slow and monotonous. Since I am very knowledgable about reading and how to help a struggling reader, I want the parents to let me do my job. If they make time for the child to read familiar text (that I have already worked on phonetic analysis) at home so that the child can work on fluency and comprehension then they are doing a great deal for that child. I'm not saying I don't appreciate the parents' 'efforts, just that most don't understand the reading process enough to help. (In fact, they can actually hinder their child's progress)
Maybe that was why the teacher asked you not to have him sound out words.
I also think it was interesting that your child's teacher took him for a demonstration lesson and told you it was because he was her best RR student. I assume that this was for a Behind The Glass lesson (a lesson behind a one-way mirror) that all RR teachers must do. This is a time that we get feedback from our peers to help us become better teachers. Sometimes we miss things about a child that another well-trained eye can pick up. Most of us will bring our hardest to teach child to go behind the glass because that is who we need the most help with! I am not saying that your child was her hardest to teach child. I am wondering what she hoped to gain by bringing what she said was her best student behind the glass? I also wonder why she said he was her best student yet he didn't successfully complete the program. Do you know how many kids were successfully discontinued out of your son's school's program? Like every other job in this world there are people who are REALLY good and people who are not so good. Or maybe it was the teacher's training year. I just hope that you will see that even though you had a bad experience we have had many, many success stories. It really is a great program.
Re: Phonemic Awareness to SL & LCB
Posted by LINDA/2/CA on 4/03/99
What both of you are saying is correct. But before totally blaming the teacher for not understanding the reading process take a look at the reading adoptions we are to use. Most of the current adoptions are literature-based. (Sorry, this is one of my soapboxes.) I have watched my average and above-average students when they start reading in second grade for the last 2 years. Mind you, these students are very good readers and have a firm grounding in phonics and comprehension. They stumble over the words in the first story!!!! It is "This is the Way We go to School" where many of the words (mostly names) are of foreign origin--some I am not even sure how to pronounce. My low acheivers have an even worse time--1/3 of the words in the book they are to read (from 1st grade) are words they are not familiar with either verbally or written. Furthermore, they have not yet been taught/mastered the phonics skills needed to "decode" these words. Words that are full of silent letters, words where the vowels do not follow the "rule" they have been taught. It is any wonder they can't read?
As for the writing/spelling, my students are allowed to write any way they want in their journals. We have spelling lessons, phonics, word walls, dictionaries, etc., to aid them in their spellings. However, when they are writing for a purpose, they use the Writing Process. Yes, this is time-consuming, but after 2-3 editings, they start doing a better job on the 1st draft because they know that the mean old teacher will make them correct their mistakes--and then it takes less time.
As an almost 30 year veteran, I have seen many methods/philosophies come and go. But sometimes the "old" ways are better than the new ones. Not always, but sometimes. As for Whole Language, I have always taught that way--even 25 years ago. We just didn't have a name for it. I think most good teachers will include most of the components of Whole Language, even if they don't call it that.
Linda
Re: Let's think about Helen Keller
Posted by Marva/Texas/3rd on 4/03/99
On 4/02/99, Grace/IL wrote:
> On 4/02/99, Marva/Texas/3rd wrote:> Your post has set me thinking. It IS difficult to teach phonics to the hearing impaired. But what about Helen Keller? How did she learn to speak and to read braille? If I remember correctly, it was by feeling her teacher's face and mouth. In this way she learned 'phonics' without the 'phone' capability. Surely other multi-sensory factors were at work to compensate for her inability to hear, yet she mastered the code. Also, what about the tracing techniques employed by Fernald? This could be an interesting discussion. Grace
I am unfamiliar with Fernald's work. I had not thought about how hellen Keller learned. That is interesting.
Just this week I was reading with some of my kids and I could definitely pick out who had our no-phonics-all-whole-language first grade teacher. Heh. Most of my students I had caught by now and had taught them to look for rimes etc., but one little guy who is a very smart fellow and a strong reader is still just %*@@##^%%*& when he sees the rare word he doesn't know. That is, he just says some nonsensical sound and goes on. It hasn't broken his comprehension yet, but it may eventually.
Re: SL....great explanation!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Sandy/RR/PA on 4/03/99
I doubt if even Marie Clay could have explained it better!!
Thanks!!
Sandy
Re: To SL, Linda and others!
Posted by Sea/2 on 4/03/99
Hello,
This has been an interesting thread and I had to smile when Linda said she felt like she had used WL ideas before it was called that! When WL came to our school quite a few years ago, I was one of the ones that struggled the most with what I thought was a lack of "systematic phonics". Then I was selected (dubious honor I thought!) to work with a specialist in reading to train in the Literacy Model of "balanced reading". Needless to say, although quite difficult, I learned enough to gradually have a paradigm shift.
Then a good friend (teacher) next to me said, "Girl, you know the saying, "I was Country before Country was in?', well, you were Whole Language before WL was in!"
{She knew that before my training, I supplemented our reading program [at that time a whole group storybook with separate isolated whole group phonics], with lots of extra reading books on different levels, and small group integrated skills.}
As Linda said, good teachers learn what their kids need. Good teachers teach.
(WL at our school was/is still misunderstood by many that claim they are "phonics" teachers. If the components are not easily grasped by professionals, then I shudder to think how difficult it must be for parents.)
To me, a balanced approach is the best approach* to teach reading skills. Linda and SL are correct, well-trained WL teachers include phonics, and so much more.
~Sea~
*Note I did not say the ONLY approach! Different children need different degrees of each... and there are many excellent teachers of both schools of theory.
One added note... spelling is a visual memory skill. If your child is having trouble with sight words (or any words for that matter!) here is an "old" LD remedy:
Trace and Say
- Parent or teacher writes word on an index card in pencil while saying the word (not spelling the letters). Ex. "said" (Tell child, "Say 'said' with me while I write it.")
- Child then picks up a crayon and traces the word "said" while saying it.
- Child repeats the process with a different color crayon.
- Word goes into deck (of 5 - 10 cards) that have been through the same process.
- When child reviews word(s), he thereafter traces with his finger while saying word.
What is happening? First, the child is incorporating 3 modalities into learning the word (visual, auditory, kinesthetic). When he traces in color, the brain says, "Ohhh, pretty color word"* :) and takes another mental image of the word. (Second color brings a fresh brain response.) And finally, the repetition ingrains the word into visual memory. (This works with my lowest children and a few of my higher ones use the strategy with "tricky" words, too.)Hope it may help!
* My edition of brain talk! ;)
Re: Thanks Sea & to Marva
Posted by Linda/2/CA on 4/03/99
First thanks to Sea for the kind words. Second, to Marva. I would be interested to hear what others have to say about teaching phonics to hearing impaired children. For you see, I am and have always been severely hearing impaired. And yet I learned to read phonetically--though in those dinosaur days of the early 50's it seemed to be taught by osmosis rather than by direct instruction. We were learning phonics but didn't know it. I did not get a hearing aid until after college, yet I had almost straight A's and have a 3.87 grade average for 5 years+ of college. I will have to admit that I, and probably others, learned ways to compensate in the classroom. Sit near teacher--that was in the days when the teacher stood in front of the class--which I do not do, I roam. Read, read, read. Due to my own experiences I am able to pick out students who seem to have some type of hearing problem. Sometimes it is just wax in the ears. Or an infection. Sometimes it is a hearing loss. And sometimes it is an auditory processing problem. That is the one that is hardest to get others to understand. In this instance, the person hears you, just does not understand you. Try this experiment, it's easy. Turn on radio or TV. Normal sound. Now turn sound down a little. You still hear it, but can you understand what they are saying? If yes, keep turning volume down until you still hear it, but no longer understand what is being said (don't listen to music to do this-- especially those with lyrics). This is one thing that happens to a child with auditory problems. There are others.
Linda
Re: SL .....I always like what you have to say! :)
Posted by Mona on 4/04/99
You must be an OUTSTANDING teacher!
Re: Phonemic Awareness to LINDA/2/CA
Posted by SL on 4/04/99
I agree 100%, Linda. you'll notice I made comments to LCB where i said I had hoped that she misunderstood the teacher. I am lucky in that I teach in a school where, though we have an adopted series, we are free to use whatever we see fit for our students. I use our series (scholastic) simply as one more resource. Some or the material is appropriate, but if not.....see ya! That is one of my soapboxes.... publishers who claim that their material is what my kids need. How on earth could some publisher on the east coast who has never met my class know what my kids need at any given time? I think that this is an American thing.... talk to teachers from Canada or New Zealand for instance and they are surprised when we talk about our "programs" and are refering to the adopted text. It is our jobs to know our kids and know what each child needs at any given time. That is why I do guided reading groups so that I can meet my kids in small groups and individualize each program as much as possible.
Also, I think you are completely right in editing in second grade. I did when I taught 2nd too. But not everybody. A student who has developed a reasonable bank of known words and understands how print works needs to be held accountable to correct spelling. But those kids who don't have it figured out need opportunities to "try things out' without worrying that everything will be wrong. When we look at Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development it is clear that we need to accept "half-rights" and understand that each child is in a different place.
Of course..... if the children have come from balanced K and 1st grade classes where instruction is based on assessment they should ALL be ready for editing in 2nd grade, right?
And your're right... a rose by any other name....
Happy Easter!
SL
Re: is your reading instruction balanced?
Posted by deb on 4/04/99
Deb wants to add her two cents AGAIN...I think part of the big picture problem is that there are a a lot of teachers still teaching the basel and workbook as their entire reading program instead of a balanced reading program. I know there are 16 of 28 teachers in my building teaching workbook and basel as a complete reading program...it makes me crazy...
I think that teachers need to include SSR time, comprehension instruction, working with words, and writing process. I also think we need to make sure our reading instruction is based on best practice.
The key is that the kids are actually being taught how to read.
Some Reading Strategies I am thinking about:
- Look for the little word inside the bigger word
- Does it sound right
- Get your mouth ready
- Go back and reread the sentence
- Does it make sense
- Does it look right? Do those letters make those sounds?
- Skip and Go on
- etc....
deb
Re: Balanced reading PLUS spelling issue. (Long post)
Posted by Grace/IL, gsh@mc.net, on 4/04/99
It's interesting to watch this thread grow -- so many wonderful ideas. Indeed, some of us who considered ourselves whole language teachers have incorporated word study into our programs for years. And others of us who have claimed to by heavy on synthetic phonics have seen to it that our students have been exposed to good literature, individual reading, and process writing.
I do want, though, to comment on the statement that spelling is a visual skill. It is said that it takes 20 years for theory and research to work its way down to the classroom level. So much information is available these days. Yet many of us are locked into the notions which we learned in our teacher training. As I read the many posts on Teachers.net and find teachers asking questions about concepts that some of us have known about for several years, it makes me realize that there are a lot of isolated teachers out there. How many of us are able to attend state and national reading conferences? How many of us know -- or do not know -- about the developmental spelling research? We now KNOW that learning to spell is a developmental process and that all spellers go through the same sequence of learning even though this may occur at different stages of life. Some of us may internalize the spelling processes quickly without even knowing that we have learned them. Therefore we assume that we have learned this visually. Others never learn to spell because they have not received proper guidance through the stages. Richard Venezky and others have noted that our spelling system is much more regular that perceived earlier. It is my belief that we need to teach spelling in three ways: 1) a basic corps of high-frequency words which may not be phonetic in nature (but how can we teach children why these are spelled as they are?), 2) we need to teach groups of words that are necessary in various subject matter (number words, color words, etc., thay may or may not be phonetic in nature), and 3) we need to teach the spelling system. That system really DOES exist. Many words are related by meaning even if the sounds change such as 'nation' and 'national'. Enough of that right now. We can start a separate thread on spelling.
I also want to share something from "The Little Red Reading Book," put out by the Illinois State Board of Education, which notes feature of classrooms and schools that support effective beginning reading instruction. These features are:
- Careful use of instructional time
- Sound instructional materials (to achieve or enhance)
- Phonemic awareness
- Alphabetic principle
- Decoding ability
- Decodable text
- Spelling and writing
- Vocabulary acquisition
- Comprehension and understanding
- Language activities
- Reading opportunities
- A variety of assessment tests
- A positive school climate
- Systematic professional development
- Sound administrative practices.
I think all but three or four of these features lay directly in the hands of teachers. If we are doing all of these, our reading programs will succeed. Just my soap box. Grace
© 1996 - 2008. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.
