For all those who use an SWR/WRTR/PR/AAS approach to spelling....

[8filltheheart]

I can see your point. Mine is that how to present the info and changing the order of the word lists changes a program enough that it is no longer OG, better for dyslexic students, or some students that may need things more incrementally. Just to be nitpicky,:tongue_smilie: SWR teaches 70 basic phonograms, and All About Spelling teaches 72 basic phonograms.

 

 

From the AAS website:

 

+ Why doesn’t the program teach all 72 phonograms in the first few months of instruction?

 

+ How is your program different from Spell to Write and Read?

 

Well, that is really the author's interpretation and how she is presenting her program. If you visit dyslexic websites and Orton-Gillingham websites, you will see Spalding's program listed and not AAS. AAS is promoting herself. Those foundations are promoting methodology.

[Lovedtodeath]

From my understanding, AAS covers prefixes and suffixes which is not the same thing as morphographs.

I am trying to find out... and also if they teach the why's like PR. I have been very hesitant to buy level 2... because there may be something better out there for the price, and I have been looking into switching to an AIO LA program (because I am feeling like DD doesn't do enough writing). Where is Merry when I need her?

 

I know I am splitting hairs, but here is the OG website.

 

http://orton-gillingham.com/frmShoppingCatalog.aspx?intCategoryID=4&intProductID=0

 

http://www.orton-gillingham.com/frmParents.aspx

 

I received a letter from Orton-Gillingham (which I posted but can't find) and they have no connection to WRTR and neither do they recommend it. They do, however, recommend several other spelling programs.

 

(I am buying AAS level two because switching would likely do us some harm at this point, but I do want my questions answered before moving beyond level 2.)

Edited February 12, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

 

What I object to is people promoting programs like AAS as a panacea for kids who can't spell. It is often those very kids that can not improve with OG methods.

I see.

[Heather in VA]

What I don't understand is that people seem to be saying that the existence of such children means that SWR isn't an effective spelling method. Now I understand that 8filltheheart says that Apples and Pears is a better alternative. That makes sense. But it seems like you are saying that OG based spelling isn't good because some kids still can't spell?

 

I agree. Every program (spelling, math, writing, grammar) is going to be good for some kids and not good for others. Just because it's not good for some kids doesn't automatically make it a bad program any more than the fact that it's been great from some kids makes it the 'best and only' program that works.

 

Heather

[PeterPan]

What I don't understand is that people seem to be saying that the existence of such children means that SWR isn't an effective spelling method. But it seems like you are saying that OG based spelling isn't good because some kids still can't spell?

 

That's funny. Who knew that all this time, when I have a Quick & Dirty Guide promoting easy use of SWR and recommend it frequently and help people (any time I can) figure out how to implement it better that I was secretly on a mission to knock out all use of Spalding-spinoffs and OG programs... And of course that's why I've kept my SWR materials to use with my ds, because I think they're a flop for everyone. And that's definitely why I read AAS programs and keep my ear to the ground about new spinoffs, because I wouldn't want to consider using again. ;)

 

Come on. I've mellowed a lot on my viewpoints and see things differently, the farther I get away. I think why some people get burnt in this process is that some programs create a bit more of a mystique around themselves. Do this and your kid WILL spell amazingly. Do this and he WILL succeed. Well if it doesn't pan out, or if the reality sets in that it works great for some kids and not others, well then you feel a little burnt, eh? Some programs are a little more moderate in their claims. :)

[Heather in VA]

What I object to is people promoting programs like AAS as a panacea for kids who can't spell. It is often those very kids that can not improve with OG methods.

 

But I think what others are objecting to is that they are experiencing that AAS is helping their kids who can't spell and by saying that it doesn't, you are denying their experience. I know for me the most helpful is to hear everyone's experiences along with their situation so that I can do my best to compare their situations with mine and help me determine what approach might fit my situation. Nothing works for everyone. I would never assume that it would. And I think one of the worst parts about choosing spelling is that to know if it works for sure, you have to try it. And some kids (or adults in my case) just will never be great spellers so matter how much you try. So in those cases it's hard to know if there is something out there that will make it better, or if you are just dealing with a non-speller.

 

Heather

 

Heather

[PeterPan]

And we're just now getting around to the real question, which is if you have a dc who isn't a struggling speller, how would you teach them? Or put another way, if your dc is already progressing in spelling, are you sure you want to deal with the hassle of a time-sucking program? I think once you know the method of SWR/WRTR/etc. you start to see a flexibility to apply it to all sorts of situations. For instance, I really like the spiral dictation sentences and practical words in the Spelling Plus dictation resource book. I like the idea of Spelling Wisdom, with its dictation selections to get you through lots of grades. Once you know the method, you could flex it like that, applying it to another source, and kill multiple birds with one stone. There's not just one way to do this. Then you can really customize it and make it fit your dc.

 

I have no clue what will fit my ds. What I will say though is it's surprising how one-dimensional some of these programs are. If your dc doesn't fit their methodology, you end up stuck with this expensive program. WRTR is handy from that perspective, because it's a small cash outlay and doesn't prescribe certain methods of practice. You feel more free to flex it and use it new ways.

 

I remember being surprised how people seemed worried about spelling up till 5th grade, when all of a sudden they just stopped. Now I'm there and I see it. As long as their spelling is progressing (through reading, through writing, whatever), and they don't have serious problems, you just start to chill out about it. You have more to do. It makes you look back and question all the fretting of the earlier years. It makes you wonder whether you really had to turn spelling into this whole stress-inducing (for mom or dc) subject.

[Lovedtodeath]

And we're just now getting around to the real question, which is if you have a dc who isn't a struggling speller, how would you teach them? Or put another way, if your dc is already progressing in spelling, are you sure you want to deal with the hassle of a time-sucking program?

Okay... back to the OP: Why did I choose AAS? Because I knew that I wanted a good review phonics with my spelling program. DD learned to read at 3 years old and refused to finish any phonics programs. she could sight read her way through OPGTR and ETC. I feel the need to sneak phonics in through spelling with all of the sounding out and syllabication. We also have always told her to sound out words in order to spell them and whether they go with the rules she already knows. My husband and I both sound out words when we are unsure of their spelling.

 

That's funny. :)

Thank you for clarifying. That is why I asked you a question.

 

I remember being surprised how people seemed worried about spelling up till 5th grade, when all of a sudden they just stopped. Now I'm there and I see it. As long as their spelling is progressing (through reading, through writing, whatever), and they don't have serious problems, you just start to chill out about it. You have more to do. It makes you look back and question all the fretting of the earlier years. It makes you wonder whether you really had to turn spelling into this whole stress-inducing (for mom or dc) subject.

That clarifies some of what you have been saying as well.

 

I hope I don't sound like I think I know more than OhElizabeth or 8filltheheart... nothing could be further from the truth. LOL They are both some of my favorite people on these forums and very knowledgable (okay, I don't know how to spell that ROFLOL).

Edited February 12, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Heather in VA]

Okay... back to the OP: Why did I choose AAS? Because I knew that I wanted a good review phonics with my spelling program. DD learned to read at 3 years old and refused to finish any phonics programs. she could sight read her way through OPGTR and ETC. I feel the need to sneak phonics in through spelling with all of the sounding out and syllabication. We also have always told her to sound out words in order to spell them and whether they go with the rules she already knows. My husband and I both sound out words when we are unsure of their spelling.

.

 

Thanks - This is the kind of feedback I need. I haven't made a decision yet but I think I'm getting a clearer picture of each option.

 

Heather

[8filltheheart]

But I think what others are objecting to is that they are experiencing that AAS is helping their kids who can't spell and by saying that it doesn't, you are denying their experience. I know for me the most helpful is to hear everyone's experiences along with their situation so that I can do my best to compare their situations with mine and help me determine what approach might fit my situation. Nothing works for everyone. I would never assume that it would. And I think one of the worst parts about choosing spelling is that to know if it works for sure, you have to try it. And some kids (or adults in my case) just will never be great spellers so matter how much you try. So in those cases it's hard to know if there is something out there that will make it better, or if you are just dealing with a non-speller.

 

Heather

 

Heather

 

I don't think I have ever posted that AAS won't help any children learn how to spell. I actually used levels 1 and 2 last yr with my dd when she was in 1st grade.

 

However, this forum tends to go through severe *gushing* stages where certain programs are presented as the answer to everything. I don't think I have read any other posts giving an alternative POV to balance the one view that once the kids know the phonograms and the rules that they will know how to spell.

 

My posts have always been very specific to the fact that unless they can move beyond the rules to memorizing spelling then their spelling won't improve beyond approx a 4th/5thth grade level. The reason for that is because basic words *do* conform to most of the rules. It is when you progress to words beyond the most simplistic that the rules simply become unreliable in phonogram selection b/c the options are too numerous and no rules are broken.

 

My only other negative comment about AAS is that the words are very easy and the cost is very high for what you get. I think it is not a good choice for kids that are average or natural spellers and wouldn't recommend it for them. Just like as much as I appreciate how Apples and Pears has improved my ds's spelling, I would never recommend it for a child who wasn't seriously struggling with spelling. There are better approaches for typical kids.

 

I do see strengths in AAS in that it is a very easy to implement spelling program and the use of the tiles and the dry erase board are 2 additional avenues for aiding students to integrate spelling into their long term memory. Those are 2 big positives for the program. For kids that are aided in spelling by the phonic/rule approach, this is a good choice.

 

However, again, most of the moms on this forum are in the baby step stages of learning how to teach their kids. They read about phonograms and rules and improved spelling and may think that English spelling is rule-based and they just haven't learned them themselves. Based on the typical posts, they may not realize that spelling isn't as rule based as it sounds.

 

I completely agree with Elizabeth in that the largest benefit is for the teacher to understand how English is structured phonetically and how the rules apply so that the instruction can be given and integrated with any program. For example, I can't honestly say just how much of the success with Apples and Pears is completely dependent on the program. My ds does know all the phonograms and rules. When I teach, I don't follow the teacher script....I teach. Our discussions include much that isn't in the program itself.

 

My personal POV is that I appreciate knowing the strengths and weaknesses of methods and programs that I use. It is easier to deal with them if I know it upfront than be blind-sided by it and left searching for answers when my kids question something. So.....when I teach my kids the phonograms and rules they know they are tools in learning why words are spelled the way they are, but that is it. The bigger challenge is trying to figure out how to get the spelling implanted into their gray matter.

[RootAnn]

Carmen, until you have a dc who doesn't remember the words, no matter HOW many times you drill, you won't understand. ... We went through those words SO many times and practiced SO much. ... It's the KID.

 

I'm not a good (natural?) speller. So far, my first two have not been good(natural) spellers. (My sister is a 'natural' speller. I define that as being able to look at a word and know it is right or wrong.)

 

My oldest dd tested with a very poor "sight" memory. (I can't remember the termonology.) She does very badly the first time through the SWR word list. The next year when we go through, she does much-much better on the review words. Then, she does very, very poorly on the new words.

 

My second dd is doing very, very poorly her first time through the word list in SWR. We're on H-2 and she gets between 3 and 7 correct out of 20 each week. It doesn't matter how many times we go through the list, how we go through the list (on the board, on a flashcard, in her learning log, using a reinforcement activity, out loud, etc.), she frankly doesn't remember how to spell anything that isn't phonetically regular. ("Door" is "dor" every.single.time. I explain that it is "D-O(long O)-R" but it doesn't stick.)

 

If I hadn't seen my older dd improve the second time through the lists, I'd tear my hair out.

 

BTW, my oldest dd reads at least two grade levels above hers, but reading the same word six thousand times still doesn't cement it in her head that she has the correct spelling. She LOVES Trixie Belden books. She must have read "Honey" (Trixie's best friend's name) 300 times in two months, at least. She still missed it on the spelling test the first time through the list. :tongue_smilie:

[PeterPan]

Just as an aside, Beers of PR makes the comment that spelling shifts from easily phonogram-based in the lower levels to more foreign language derived at the upper levels. I had never quite thought of it the way 8 put it, that that actually corresponds to a grade level halt. Now I'm curious to go give my dd a diagnostic and see how she's doing. I haven't done one in a while. :)

 

The other curious thing is I've seen several people come across the boards who completed one of these programs with their dc, often very young, and then found their dc slipping and forgetting things, losing ground, when they stopped. There's something to that idea that kids just need to see it over and over and over again over the years before it gets ingrained. You're trying, eventually, to have this kick over to logic-level understanding and analysis, but you're doing it at a time when all kids do is memorize. They sort of analyze, but it's still very formulaic.

 

Another thing I ponder, which has nothing to do with any of this particularly, is the difference between the words she would have learned anyway (just by reading, using them, doing literature dictation, etc.) and the words she WOULDN'T learn that way, the less common or more challenging words. I don't see a need to beat in unpleasantly stuff that will happen gently if you just let it. But I do think it's good to have direct instruction and get them farther than they would have gone on their own.

[8filltheheart]

I am trying to find out... and also if they teach the why's like PR. I have been very hesitant to buy level 2... because there may be something better out there for the price, and I have been looking into switching to an AIO LA program (because I am feeling like DD doesn't do enough writing). Where is Merry when I need her?

 

I know I am splitting hairs, but here is the OG website.

 

http://orton-gillingham.com/frmShoppingCatalog.aspx?intCategoryID=4&intProductID=0

 

http://www.orton-gillingham.com/frmParents.aspx

 

I received a letter from Orton-Gillingham (which I posted but can't find) and they have no connection to WRTR and neither do they recommend it. They do, however, recommend several other spelling programs.

 

(I am buying AAS level two because switching would likely do us some harm at this point, but I do want my questions answered before moving beyond level 2.)

 

I can't comment on the orton-gillingham website or their views, but it is the first I have ever heard that Spalding is not OG based or that it is not recommended. Everything that I have read over the last 16 yrs about OG methodology and dyslexia have included it, not as straight OG, but definitely modified OG. And as many of them as I have taught, the modifications really aren't that much between any of them.

 

This is from just one LD website:

http://www.ldonline.org/article/Multisensory_Structured_Language_Programs:_Content_and_Principles_of_Instruction

 

From the original Orton-Gillingham method, many variations have been developed. Some of the modified Orton-Gillingham methods written by Orton students are The Slingerland Method, The Spalding Method, Project Read, Alphabetic Phonics, The Herman Method, and The Wilson Method. Other works included in which the authors of the programs used the tenets of Orton's work, but were not directly trained by Orton-Gillingham personnel are The Alphabetic- Phonetic- Structural -Linguistic approach to Literacy (Shedd), Sequential English Education (Pickering), and Starting Over (Knight). The Association Method (DuBard), and the Lindamood-Bell Method (Lindamood -Bell) have as their basis the research into hearing impaired and the language impaired individuals.

 

But the reality is......it is splitting hairs and really is irrelevant in the long run. The only question that really matters is if approach X will help the child spell.:001_smile:

[PeterPan]

RootAnn, not to discourage you, but I had lists I went through *3* times with dd over multiple years, with ample practice, and STILL she'd forget the words. The only turnaround? Dictation. We went to lots of lit dictation. At one point I was doing a spelling workbook *and* SWR *and lit dictation (a page written) every single day. Oh, and there was the Calvert spelling program. Those cd's turned around her attitude toward spelling, even if they didn't increase her knowledge. They were something she could do and be good at. SWR left her feeling stupid. I know it's not supposed to. I talked with Sanseri and trainers, etc. etc. To her, constantly being asked to spell words she didn't know was a constant reinforcement that she didn't know the words. In other words, if you're constantly tested and don't know the answers, you're dumb, right? Her little brain read it that way, even if I didn't mean it that way and tried not to present it that way. So I started looking for what made her tick. She likes history, everything in stories, so I tried to put spelling back in the context of a story (lit dictation). I got her workbooks and computer games to give more visual input. I have her read back aloud what she has written after dictation for that further input.

 

It's easy to get really guilt-tripped when you're in a program like SWR and feel like it ought to work and that it's YOU if it's not working. No, it's the kid. Keep trying new things. Or just stop trying and do dictation. The mom who gave me that advice turned our situation around, bless her.

[PeterPan]

The dc will not retain the word "door" unless he wants to spell "door". When there is no context, no reason, no interest, why would he want to spell it? These programs toss out tons of words that may or may not interest the kid, may or may not be useful, may or may not be something the kid wants to write ever again for the next 3 years (if you start in K5) and then we wonder why the kids don't remember the words??? My dd was just opinionated enough about it to say so. The Phonetic Zoo words are much more interesting btw. I wrote Pudewa about it, because they're so fun, and he said he basically chose words he thought would be interesting to kids. Duh... Phonics Road does better, expanding the lists at specific skill levels and bringing in lots of interesting words. But in WRTR/SWR you have such COMPACT instruction that you quickly jump to the next level. Well a dc of a given young age might not CARE about those words. They're total trivia at that point, useless bits of info.

[Colleen in NS]

The other curious thing is I've seen several people come across the boards who completed one of these programs with their dc, often very young, and then found their dc slipping and forgetting things, losing ground, when they stopped. There's something to that idea that kids just need to see it over and over and over again over the years before it gets ingrained. You're trying, eventually, to have this kick over to logic-level understanding and analysis, but you're doing it at a time when all kids do is memorize. They sort of analyze, but it's still very formulaic.

 

Another thing I ponder, which has nothing to do with any of this particularly, is the difference between the words she would have learned anyway (just by reading, using them, doing literature dictation, etc.) and the words she WOULDN'T learn that way, the less common or more challenging words. I don't see a need to beat in unpleasantly stuff that will happen gently if you just let it. But I do think it's good to have direct instruction and get them farther than they would have gone on their own.

 

This is a very thought provoking thread, and 8Fills, I finally understand, from your posts here, what you tried to explain to me a few years ago about "bad spellers" and not being able to rule your way into spelling.

 

Elizabeth, I'm sure you'll remember that I was one of the ones who, 3 years ago, said my 3rd grade son worked his way through all the lists in WRTR (the longer list of edition 5), and "now what do I do?" It was a genuine question, because I had no clue what to do after that, and I worried about the very thing you mentioned above (forgetting, losing ground, etc.). Anyway, from reading this thread, I'm getting worried again!! Well, for awhile, I did pull out words from his science and history and had him analyze those in his notebook, but I didn't keep it up. Even now, every so often, I will ask him to tell me a phonogram sound or about a rule pattern he sees in a word....he does forget, because we haven't practiced, because I didn't really know what to do back then. However, he is an excellent speller - he is a natural speller like me. He sees a word and memorizes it instantly. But now I'm reading about the idea of stalling out around this age, and the idea of some programs moving from spelling in English to understanding English spelling of foreign words (or something like that)...and we have never done something like that - I always wished I could see SWO because it is rec'd in WTM and WTM talks about how it moves into prefixes/suffixes/foreign words in the higher levels...I've put my head in the sand. Yet, we've been doing VfCR and Latin, so I tell myself that helps. I still wonder what I am missing, though...R&S covers prefixes/suffixes, and so does VfCR (though I haven't "drilled" him on all the words in there - it's just too much).

 

And then, SWB told us at the PHP conf. last year that many times, spelling ability doesn't start to appear in writing until middle-late middle grades - that was news to me - I'd always had the impression that spelling must be mastered in the lower grades - where I got that impression, I don't know. Probably because people talk about spelling so much here, and spill out angst about it.

 

Anyway, I am using WRTR with dd, because it's what I know, and she is very different than ds. She does not memorize instantly by seeing words in books, so she has had to work harder. I was encouraged to hear Susan's words about middle grades. And I *do* see improvement in dd's spelling, esp. in her writing. I guess I just chalk it up to consistent practice in analyzing words in her spelling notebook, but I don't know. One thing I have *not* done with her is to drill her over and over in the same words - I can't put my finger on why, but it just didn't seem right. So, I just keep giving her 5-10 words each day to analyze in the notebook, and hope that the continued *practice* of analyzing words will carry over into her being able to analyze new words in her reading, and maybe that act will be the thing that cements new words in her mind? I don't know. (and no, I'm not saying that "if we just consistently practice, WRTR will 'work' - whatever 'work' means" - I'm just wondering specifically if *my dd* does this, if it will help her - I hope it will because I do not see the point in drilling endless words over and over again).

 

But y'know, I have thought the same thing, about how the skills of analyzing words in the WRTR notebook is really a logic stage skill (my understanding of logic stage skill is from WTM, just to clarify) - and so I've wondered about how that should play out with dd. Well, we are 3 years into it, and it's going OK, but like I said, I am theorizing right now that the sounds and rules will be memorized anyway, even if some word list isn't perfected, and hopefully, when she reads less common words later, her mind will think to analyze new words and that that will cement it in her brain. That's what I've always understood to be the goal of the phonograms/rules/analyzing part of WRTR - to set up a pattern that you can *use* for the rest of your life - to read new words, and through analyzing, have half a hope of memorizing the spelling, even if the word doesn't perfectly conform to the rules and phonograms.

 

Oh, and yes, she does dictation - her spelling is improving there, too, and in her letter-writing activities. I also get what you mean about WRTR having flexibility, and I have certainly flexed it. I have no idea, because I didn't dig that far into the book, exactly how many words should be done per week, or when test should be done, or how I should determine if/when/where she should go back and start over at some previous point in the list. Every so often, I just sense that she would do better if I quietly backed up, without telling her. I just sort of go back and forth with her, with no real direction....I guess I'm more just practice-minded and hoping improvement will continue steadily...

 

Hm....nothing like random thoughts thrown out there, eh?

 

One more - how important is it, anyway, to perfect a "bad speller?" Is it something to devote tons and tons of time and money to, or is it something that you just steadily work on, at the child's pace? That seems to be what I'm doing with dd, and I didn't have too much angst about it, until I started reading this thread! :lol: Seriously, you and 8Fills have given me lots to think about.

[PeterPan]

Colleen, I think we're now at the same place, with your dd and mine. And YES, I remember your ds, who is about the same age as my dd and so amazed me at the time. :)

 

Your chilled out attitude is where I've come to. I don't know if it's perfect, but I had to strike some middle ground. And yes, like you I've wondered if the spelling workbooks and vocab books and whatnot in WTM would have been the oh so perfect cure-all for dd or would have prevented this. No I do not see her past time in SWR magically filtering into her everyday thoughts or making her more analytical, sorry. Sometime, someday, I'll probably focus on it again for a season and see what happens. That might happen when ds is ready to learn and needs big sis to drill him, right? Hehe.

 

It's SWR/WRTR that says you should teach all these words when they're young to create a foundation for them to move forward. Your idea is to get them to a mature level of spelling by say grade 5, right as their writing is taking off. In that way they don't dumb down their writing to match their spelling. THAT has worked, no qualms there. No qualms with the way it taught her to read and let her take off, without easy readers or being held back at all waiting for content, sounding out, etc. But for all that, she's not an intuitive, easy speller. She's just not. How galled I was the summer between 1st and 2nd when she spelled "grouse" out of the blue but didn't know other words like "love" that we had spelled over and over and over for spelling time... It's what they want to spell, what they need, what they have a context for, what they find amusing or memorable.

 

I have no problem with the idea of teaching spelling at the grammar level and then hitting it all again, all those phonograms and rules, in the logic stage. They really would see it a different way. You do the same thing with foreign languages, science, etc., almost all other endeavours, covering things multiple times and reviewing the foundation.

 

We do no formal spelling at the moment. I have her do editing workbooks, grammar workbooks (Grammar Works, Spelling Works, etc. by Halverson), and other things that sneak in spelling through the back door. I decided just to let her ride a bit. It's just not decent to do dictation all the time, year round, for year after year, kwim? I just decided we had other things we needed to do for a season and that I could let it ride and see what happens.

 

Well now you have me totally curious. I should go give her a diagnostic and see what happens. I mainly wanted to say I agree with you on all points and am right there. I've frequently wondered if a sensible workbook, one of the ones recommended in WTM, might be a nice piece in that arsenal, just another bit of repetition and quick, painless visual input. Vocab is partly spelling anyway, so it's not like you're totally dropping thought of it, even when you move away from spelling as a subject.

[siloam]

Lovedtodeath, I am not sure why you believe that WRTR is not an OG program. Spalding studied under Orton and the phonograms are the same 70 as Gillingham. She did change the presentation b/c OG was initially developed for kids with LDs and she modified the program for her regular students. However, it is definitely OG based. (all programs other than OG are OG based and have their own "twist.")

 

Romalda Spalding and The Writing Road to Reading

 

Using Orton's methods to teach normal primary students was designed by one of his last teacher-collaborators, Romalda Spalding, who authored The Writing Road to Reading in 1957. She believed, and we believe, that her method represented Dr. Orton's final conclusions that this method should be used for primary children, both to prevent and correct learning disorders, and most importantly to establish high literacy in virtually all primary children.

I have used most of the homeschool accessible OG based spelling programs and they all cover the same phonograms, the same rules, etc (though after reading Merry's posts I gather WRTR doesn't cover syllabication, so I am guessing it must have been in Teaching Reading at Home b/c I know I have taught them to all of my kids) The only major difference is the word lists and how to present the info.

 

What I was told was that Dr. Orton and Spalding did work together, but ultimately parted ways on philosophical differences. Orton being incremental, and Spaulding choosing not to be.

 

Thus I personally refer to vertical phonics programs (SWR, WRTR, PR, TATRAS and WP Phonics) as O/G based, because they are good programs that overlap a lot in methodology.

 

But when you are dealing with an LD, I would always recommend a true O/G program.

 

The differences that I have learned so far.

 

O/G programs are incremental. They introduce one topic at a time, and work towards mastery before moving on. Vertical phonics programs generally introduces all rules up front, then works on applying them, shooting for mastery over time.

 

O/G programs do teach syllable rules, where Vertical Phonics don't. The advantage to learning syllable rules is the child can encounter a word they don't know how to pronounce, and they can use syllable rules to help them puzzle out what the vowels sounds should be. With vertical phonics a child would apply spelling rules, but beyond that they would just use the most common sound and hope that was correct. While I don't know Spalding feelings on the subject I have seen Wanda post that she doesn't feel syllable rules are helpful enough to use because of exceptions.

 

O/G programs have controlled readers. The child only reads material that they have been directly taught. They don't guess at anything till reading instruction is finished. This is essential with dyslexic students who will build guessing habits based on context or on the shape of the letters in the word.

 

O/G programs have nonsense words. This is how they cement concepts, have the child work with a word that is not a real word, so they have no audio clues as to what sounds the vowels are making to tip them off. They have to take their spelling rules, and syllable rules and apply them, so they build skills for attacking words they don't know even through their readers are controlled. This is one of two way in which AAS is not an o/g program. It has no nonsense word work.

 

O/G programs work with units, teaching the child to recognize chunks of words as making specific sounds. ETC is actually also based on o/g methods, so if you look at book 5 in particular, they work with units (-old, -ont, -oll, ect...). Up front this is more work, but long term it increases fluency and decreases guessing in dyslexic students. Personally I will admit it is a lot of work for the child who has no reading issues, though it would still probably increase fluency. This is the second way in which AAS does not line up with o/g methods.

 

SWR did work fine for my older two girls. They started the program around 3rd grade. My 2nd dd had worked with the phonograms for a year before starting the spelling section. They prefer AAS, but did fine with SWR. My 3rd dd was in tears daily with SWR, despite having the first 36 phonograms memorized for over a year. It just covered too many rules, too many phongorams, too many think to spell words at once. AAS was a much better fit for her.

 

BTW AAS is based on the same most commonly used words lists that SWR is. AAS just groups them differently. Level 6 isn't out yet, so I don't know how complicated the words will become, but I think the way the words are presented is part of what makes them seem so easy. The child just covered the rule, so they get all the words right. To me the true test is if you can shuffle it into the rest of the words and cover them out of order. If they can still spell them right outside of their nice neat presentation then the child owns it. If they can't that is why you have the word cards. You use them to keep the words in review, building visual memory and working on the rules until the child has mastered the word. I suspect SWR actually uses words that aren't on the list, as I know AAS does also. Maybe AAS adds more easier words? Not sure on that one. I will agree that the words are on the easy side. My oldest (spells at a 7th grade level) just focuses on the rules.

 

Heather

Edited February 13, 2010 by siloam

[Heather in VA]

Thanks Heather,

 

This is very useful. To me it does seem like there are some significant differences between Spalding and O/G that could be significant especially if you have children with LD issues.

 

So of these programs, which would you consider (if any) to be true O/G programs? What is Barton? I'm not considering that for this child because she doesn't have issues but I do have a friend with a dyslexic child who may be coming home for school and is looking at these options. I'd love to be able to pass some of this on to her.

 

Thanks

(the other) Heather :-)

[Guest]

My dd learned to read using SSRW. She read at least 2 grade levels ahead, but by 3rd gr, I realized she couldn't spell; not even simple words. Sonlight offered a reading assessment test (sorry I don't remember the site name) that evaluated a child's ability to hear individual sounds in words and she completely flunked!

 

I began to research how to tackle this problem when I discovered the research of the Orton-Gillingham method. I looked at WRTR, SWR, Patterson's Reading Works, and The Phonics Road. Fortunately, my library had WRTR, so I checked it out and started reading. I was fascinated by the research that covered how the brain actually encodes words for spelling. Everything clicked with me on what I was seeing in my dd's inability to spell. I bought the book and read it 3 times: 1st time-read, 2nd time-took notes, 3rd time-studied scripts.

 

The next year, 4th gr, I went back and taught her all 70 of the English phonograms. I followed the script taught in WRTR and used their Ayer's spelling list taking her from almost the beginning. Now as a 6th grader, she is in Spelling List W (It goes from A-Z.) On most of her monthly Morrison McCall tests she scores at 7th or 8th grade level. She has been scoring about 2 grades higher on her ITBS also. Better yet, I see many improvements in her ability to spell while writing. She'll even catch her mistakes more now and recognize the spelling rule(s) that apply. In addition to WRTR, I've found that the more reading, writing, and dictation she does, the better the spelling becomes.

 

I also taught my ds to read, write, and spell using WRTR. His reading and spelling are so much better than my dd's at the same age. I can't say that it is all because of WRTR since they are two different kids, but I do believe that this method made a huge difference in my ds's abiliby to see, hear and sound out phonograms for reading and spelling. Two of my friends were so impressed with my son's abilities that they asked me to teach them how to use it. So we had some mini-training sessions and now they also rave about the progress that their sons have made. Many people complain that this program is too hard to implement, but honestly, I disagree. It is not an open and go program. You do have to learn to use the method, but everthing is scripted in the 5th edition. Once you find your rhythm and routine, it is simple and straight forward. Oh yes, and the book only costs $22!

 

Where would you place your dc?

 

I suggest you get a copy of the 5th edition of WRTR. Look at the Ayers list and see where you think you're child might begin. Start dictating some of those words. If she misses more than 3 or 4 words from a group of 10-12, then back up. I kept having to back up with my dd and that's why I finally decided to go back to the beginning. She needed the review combined with seeing & hearing the phonograms and learning the spelling rules.

 

Sorry this has gotten so long....

 

God bless,

Jennifer

 

Thank you for your post Jennifer. I too have been reading WRTR and have been fascinated by it enough that I am considering it should be doable for us without having to get AAS. Adrian is an excellent reader and has a pretty good memory for spelling but my goal is to use phonemic rules to cement spelling even more. Good to hear the great success you have had with WRTR. While this program also covers other aspects of LA my goal for now is to use it primarily for spelling since Adrian is already reading at an advanced for his age level.

 

Thanks again,

Edited February 13, 2010 by Guest

[siloam]

Thanks Heather,

 

This is very useful. To me it does seem like there are some significant differences between Spalding and O/G that could be significant especially if you have children with LD issues.

 

So of these programs, which would you consider (if any) to be true O/G programs? What is Barton? I'm not considering that for this child because she doesn't have issues but I do have a friend with a dyslexic child who may be coming home for school and is looking at these options. I'd love to be able to pass some of this on to her.

 

Thanks

(the other) Heather :-)

Yes Barton Reading and Wilson Reading are my favorites from a philosophical standpoint. I love the concept of using tiles, using as many senses a possible, because you store each sense in a different place, thus overcoming some of the recall issues that dyslexic students have. But that really was part of the original o/g method. Writing was the only physical aspect. Both program also add different audio elements too. Barton also has the best visual imaging used in their rules. Wilson is more flexible though. As I understand it Barton has a set pace. You can take longer in an area, but it is hard to speed up. Wilson has the ability to cover concepts the child already knows more quickly, if needed.

 

I hear good things about Preventing Academic Failure, S.P.I.R.E., Recipe for Reading and Horizons Reading as well.

 

Most of this I have picked up from a yahoo group called Heart of Reading. It is ran by three gals, one who has used Barton and Wilson, one who has gone through formal o/g training and is a certified Barton tutor, and one who bought an o/g manual and is pulling it together on her own. They are a wealth of information.

 

Heather/Siloam

[8filltheheart]

What I was told was that Dr. Orton and Spalding did work together, but ultimately parted ways on philosophical differences. Orton being incremental, and Spaulding choosing not to be.

 

Thus I personally refer to vertical phonics programs (SWR, WRTR, PR, TATRAS and WP Phonics) as O/G based, because they are good programs that overlap a lot in methodology.

 

But when you are dealing with an LD, I would always recommend a true O/G program.

 

 

 

As I wrote in an earlier post, other than here, I have never heard of Spalding as not being OG nor have I heard of it not being recommended for dyslexics. Spalding is recommend repeatedly by different dyslexic websites and other than referring to Orton-Gillingham as the unaltered approach, almost all professionals refer to Spalding as OG based.

 

Here are just a few:

http://www.avko.org/Info/dyslexia/what_is_dyslexia.htm

Official Definition #2. According to the International Dyslexia Association's Committee of Members in November, 1994, "Dyslexia is a neurologically-based, often familial, disorder which interferes with the acquisition and processing of language. Varying in degrees of severity, it is manifested by difficulties in receptive and expressive language, including phonological processing, in reading, writing, spelling, handwriting, and sometimes in arithmetic. Dyslexia is not a result of lack of motivation, sensory impairment, inadequate instructional or environmental opportunities, or other limiting conditions, but may occur together with these conditions. Although dyslexia is life-long, individuals with dyslexia frequently respond successfully to timely and appropriate intervention."

 

Translated into plain English, this means that dyslexia has to do with how the brain organizes what the eyes see and the ears hear. The condition is such that traditional methods of teaching reading will not work with a person with dyslexia. However, dyslexics may be taught to read and write with proper instruction. This usually involves multi-sensory approaches as used by AVKO, Orton-Gillingham, Slingerland, Spalding tutors, etc.

 

http://www.teachwithabc.com/pdf-downloads/ABC%20VITA%20Research.pdf

 

ABC The Key is patterned after the scientifically proven methodology generally known

as an Orton-based Method. Through extensive research, Miss Jones adopted the principles

found in one particular version of the Orton Method called The Spalding Writing

Road to Reading. She uses the Orton-Gillingham phonogram system

 

http://business.intuit.com/directory/article-the-nuts-and-bolts-of-dyslexia-part-i

 

Traditional instructional programs are not appropriate for people with Dyslexia. Dyslexics do not process language as others do. They need instruction that is clear, organized, and multi-sensory. Along with these techniques, the structure of written English is taught-sounds (phonemes), prefixes, suffixes, roots and common spelling rules. There are many good programs incorporating the Orton-Gillingham Multisensory approach to learning. Some of the most popular Orton-Gillingham programs include: The Stevenson Language, The Recipe for Reading, Spalding The Writing Road To Reading, Wilson, Herman Method, Slingerland, and Alphabetic Phonics.

 

I do have another question that maybe someone else can answer. It keeps being stated that WRTR does not teach syllabication. I am far too lazy to go up to my attic and get out my WRTR, but I know for a fact it must teach the syllable rules b/c I know them and teach them and I learned OG methods from WRTR though I haven't actually used the program itself in over 9 yrs.....since my oldest was in 5th grade. I much prefer other sources like HTTS over WRTR.

 

I did a google of WRTR and syllables and found this reference.....so I am assuming that, yes, WRTR does teach the rules even though I didn't actually go look for myself. ;) Perhaps someone with their copy handy can confirm this content.

 

http://www.spalding.org/BB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=341

 

I would like to add some additional information from the perspective of Spalding Education International and The Spalding Method located here in Phoenix, AZ.

 

1. It is important to teach your child spelling and pronunciation rules and syllable patterns to help them apply these to words as they encounter them. For instance, you asked the question about words such as baby. The Spalding Method divides words according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, so baby is divided ba by. Teach rule 4 to help with the pronunciation and syllabication of this word. Rule 4 says: Vowels a, e, o, u usually say /a/, /e/, /o/, /u/ (second sound or long sound) at the end of a syllable, e.g. na vy, me, o pen, mu sic, ba by. Words with a vowel at the end of the syllable are called open syllables, such as ba by. The syllable "ba" is called an open syllable. Also, teach rule 5 which deals with the sounds of i and y. Rule 5 says: The letters i and y usually say /i/ (big, gym--first sound or short sound), but may say /i/ (silent, my, type, Bible--second sound or long sound).

 

In the second part of your first question concerning the word giggle, usually words with double consonants are divided between the double consonants. We call this syllable pattern vccv (vowel-consonant-consonant-vowel). Also, in the word giggle, the word ends in a consonant + le which is a syllable pattern as well. Example words for consonant + le are lit tle, gig gle, dou ble, trou ble. Example words for vccv pattern are yel low, let ter, din ner, hap py. Because the first syllable in little, giggle, yellow, letter, dinner, and happy has the pattern of consonant-vowel-consonant it is called a closed syllable because the syllable ends in a consonant. Because of this configuration of the syllable, the vowel says its first or short sound.

 

Based on Rule 4, 5 and these syllable patterns, words you encounter such as body, copy, river, seven, cover, city, river, panic will be easier to figure out. If you were to divide any of these words after the first vowel, the vowel would most likely say its name. If you pronounced these words with the long sound of the first vowel, the word would be unrecognizable, so you would then consider these words closed syllable words dividing after the second consonant in each word. Once you pronounce these words with the short sound of the first vowel, you would then recognize the word............

 

I hope these answers to your questions help to explain further. I would suggest that you study the Rules of Pronunciation, Spelling, and Language on pages 222-225 in The Writing Road to Reading, 5th Edition. These rules answer so many questions. Also, on pages 226-227 are Syllable Division patterns that should be studied. These are pretty standard patterns and are helpful in explaining some of your questions.

[Lovedtodeath]

Well, HTTS has nonsense words and lots of dictation. It is also on the OG website, so....

 

 

:tongue_smilie:

[8filltheheart]

Well, HTTS has nonsense words and lots of dictation. It is also on the OG website, so....

 

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

Yeah, but I don't remember ever even *reading* HTTS. I only remember opening it and going, ok, let's start here! Maybe I did learn something from it, but if I did, it didn't stand out in my mind as anything I didn't already know. ;)

 

Now when I opened up WRTR, my reaction was :tongue_smilie:

 

FWIW......I have never seen nonsense words as a critical part of OG either. This is the list that I have seen repeatedly:

 

* Phonology (study of sounds) and Phonological Awareness -the ability to segment words into their component sounds.

 

* Sound-symbol association-mapping speech to print

 

* Syllable instruction- teaching of the six basic types of syllables in the English language and the rules that dictate syllable division.

 

* Morphology-the study of how roots and affixes combine to form words and convey meaning.

 

* Syntax-the set of rules which dictate the sequence of words in a sentence; this includes grammar and the mechanics of language

 

* Multi-sensory-using all learning pathways in the brain (visual, auditory, kinesthetic-tactile)

 

* Systematic and cumulative-material is organized in the logical order of the language beginning with the simplest and progressing to the more difficult

 

* Direct Instruction-direct teaching of all concepts with continuous student-teacher interaction.

 

* Diagnostic teaching- the teaching plan is based on continuous monitoring of the student’s needs. Everything taught is learned so that it becomes automatic before moving forward to the next step.

 

* Synthetic and analytic instruction-Synthetic is used in spelling and writing (which are harder than reading) and they require combining the parts of language to form whole words; reading requires the analytic instruction which teaches how reading can be broken down into its component parts.

Edited February 13, 2010 by 8FillTheHeart

[Colleen in NS]

I have never heard of Spalding as not being OG nor have I heard of it not being recommended for dyslexics. Spalding is recommend repeatedly by different dyslexic websites and other than referring to Orton-Gillingham as the unaltered approach, almost all professionals refer to Spalding as OG based.

 

Me neither. My mother, a Spalding trainer who was taught by Mrs. Spalding in person, used to always talk with her fellow Spalding teacher friend on the phone after school, and that is where I heard the term, "Orton-Gillingham" all the time. When my mother showed me how to use WRTR, she talked a lot about how great it was for dyslexic kids.

 

I do have another question that maybe someone else can answer. It keeps being stated that WRTR does not teach syllabication. I would suggest that you study the Rules of Pronunciation, Spelling, and Language on pages 222-225 in The Writing Road to Reading, 5th Edition. These rules answer so many questions. Also, on pages 226-227 are Syllable Division patterns that should be studied. These are pretty standard patterns and are helpful in explaining some of your questions.[/i]

 

confirmed. I wondered why you mentioned the syllable thing earlier - I thought, "of course it's taught" but then I didn't go look to see where anyone said it wasn't taught. :D

 

Some of the other info. you put in there is not in the book, but it probably is talked about in the Spalding workshops - my mother told me random bits of info. as I learned from her, about backgrounds of words such as baby, or that "one" may have been pronounced with two syllables and the e wasn't silent, etc.. She learned the types of things you quoted, at the workshops back in the early 80s.

[MerryAtHope]

I don't think I have read any other posts giving an alternative POV to balance the one view that once the kids know the phonograms and the rules that they will know how to spell.

 

My posts have always been very specific to the fact that unless they can move beyond the rules to memorizing spelling then their spelling won't improve beyond approx a 4th/5thth grade level. The reason for that is because basic words *do* conform to most of the rules. It is when you progress to words beyond the most simplistic that the rules simply become unreliable in phonogram selection b/c the options are too numerous and no rules are broken.

 

I agree with you in part--to be a good speller, one definitely has to move beyond knowledge of the rules. Spelling is both auditory and visual. Some words can be easily sounded out, while some have to be determined visually (how do we know not to spell "rain," "rane" for example?). If you are suggesting that AAS doesn't move beyond rules and give kids other strategies however, then I would disagree with you there--AAS actually teaches several strategies for analyzing words, and rules are only one of those strategies. They start off with the rules-based, easy words first, and gradually teach kids other, more difficult strategies.

 

My only other negative comment about AAS is that the words are very easy and the cost is very high for what you get. I think it is not a good choice for kids that are average or natural spellers and wouldn't recommend it for them. Just like as much as I appreciate how Apples and Pears has improved my ds's spelling, I would never recommend it for a child who wasn't seriously struggling with spelling. There are better approaches for typical kids.

 

I agree with you here, and I believe the author does too. Right on the home page it says to use it with new spellers or with struggling spellers. For a natural speller, I might skip spelling altogether or rely on dictation. I'd be tempted to do that with an average speller too. Of all the spelling programs I tried before AAS, just doing dictation (mixed in with me teaching what I knew of syllable rules and other rules as they applied) netted the most progress for us. Through that experience, and then through an online copywork/dictation class, I realized they needed more and we ended up finding AAS.

 

Merry :-)

[siloam]

As I wrote in an earlier post, other than here, I have never heard of Spalding as not being OG nor have I heard of it not being recommended for dyslexics. Spalding is recommend repeatedly by different dyslexic websites and other than referring to Orton-Gillingham as the unaltered approach, almost all professionals refer to Spalding as OG based.

I won't argue that Spalding is o/g based, it is. But a program being incremental is a BIG piece of o/g methods, and it is a piece Spalding purposely goes against. They disagreed on this issue, which is fine. They built different programs because of it.

 

The programs have different strengths and weaknesses, and one of the weaknesses of Spalding is that it will overwhelm some dyslexic students. Not all. It does work for some, and it is much stronger than traditional phonics programs for dyslexic students, if it doesn't overwhelm the student. The weakness of many o/g programs, especially if they have a set pace, is they move much too slowly to be used with non LD students. It also requires much more memorization and mastery than the average student needs to be able to read well. That is where Spalding shines, the pace is much better for a non LD student, allowing them the freedom to take off. O/G programs can at times can hold a normal child back.

 

This is assuming you are not dealing with a tutor who knows their stuff. I am talking programs, and in general people who need to follow them as stated.

 

Traditional instructional programs are not appropriate for people with Dyslexia. Dyslexics do not process language as others do. They need instruction that is clear, organized, and multi-sensory.

 

The above is part of what you quoted. For some dyslexic the fact that the words are not presented by rule, violates this "organized" need they have. They can't process all the parts fast enough to make any sense of it. They need to go much slower and master the individual concepts.

 

Now I will also flat out state that if a person using WRTR understood this need, then they could easily customize WRTR to be more incremental. It just isn't built into the program as written.

 

 

I do have another question that maybe someone else can answer. It keeps being stated that WRTR does not teach syllabication. I am far too lazy to go up to my attic and get out my WRTR, but I know for a fact it must teach the syllable rules b/c I know them and teach them and I learned OG methods from WRTR though I haven't actually used the program itself in over 9 yrs.....since my oldest was in 5th grade. I much prefer other sources like HTTS over WRTR.

 

I have been told that by other people. I have way too much of a reading stack to have gotten to WRTR yet. Someday....

 

But I know SWR does have the rules in the manual, and it does use syllable work extensively. It has the child break every word into its syllables before marking it up and applying the rules. But it does not teach the syllable rules so that if a child doesn't know how to pronounce the word they can break it into syllables. They have to already know the pronunciation first.

 

Thus a child says navy and knows its na vy because the a is long. But if they approached a nonsense word they wouldn't know what to do.

 

For example, bojy

 

What sound would the o make? In O/G a child would learn that when you have two vowels and one consonant in between them you put the consonant with the second syllable. Thus the child would know this work should say the long o sound as it is an open syllable: bo jy

 

But with a word like: bohjy

 

The syllable rules change here. Again you find the vowels, and because there are now TWO consonants you put one consonant with each syllable. Thus this time the o would be closed and say its short sound: boh jy

 

They again cover much of the same material, but o/g does take the concept one step farther. It might also be that WRTR teaches more syllable work than SWR does. I just thought if it did Ellie would have spoke up by now, given she worked with Spalding herself. I really do want to read it myself, I just never have the time needed.

 

BTW, this type of nonsense syllable work helps students who try to read based on context, or patterns, which dyslexics are horrible at.

 

Heather (diagnosed dyslexic, mom of 4 dyslexic students using multiple remedial programs not listed with my regular curriculum)

 

[MerryAtHope]

From my understanding, AAS covers prefixes and suffixes which is not the same thing as morphographs.

 

I am trying to find out... and also if they teach the why's like PR. I have been very hesitant to buy level 2... because there may be something better out there for the price, and I have been looking into switching to an AIO LA program (because I am feeling like DD doesn't do enough writing). Where is Merry when I need her?

 

 

Level 6 is supposed to include morphographs. It should be coming out this April.

 

Sorry I haven't been on much, I had to take my dh to the dr. out of town & had a busy week here! If I missed a question you want me to see, please feel free to pm me the question or the link & I'll answer on here if I can :).

 

I find AAS teaches the "why's when there are reasons (or reasons that are helpful to learn).

 

The entire spelling fiasco with my children has been the most frustrating teaching experience I have had. It is extremely difficult to see very bright kids not be able to spell no matter what you have done. It is even more difficult b/c I can simply visualize words w/o any problems. FWIW......I am convinced that some people are just poor spellers and I no longer see it as a reflection on one's educational level but on lack of intelligence in getting someone else to proofread professional materials when one is aware of the deficit.;)

 

Sorry you've had such a difficult time, it IS heart-breaking and frustrating and a test of the patience. I'm glad you've found a program that is helping your children!

 

Merry :-)

[Colleen in NS]

It has the child break every word into its syllables before marking it up and applying the rules.

 

WRTR does, too.

 

But it does not teach the syllable rules so that if a child doesn't know how to pronounce the word they can break it into syllables.

 

p. 226 5th ed. WRTR: "To be independent readers, they must be able to quickly and accurately pronounce (decode) words so they can connect them with their spoken vocabulary or identify them as unfamiliar words. Knowing syllable-division generalizations facilitates rapid word pronunciation."

 

It might also be that WRTR teaches more syllable work than SWR does. I just thought if it did Ellie would have spoke up by now, given she worked with Spalding herself.

 

I can't compare it with SWR, but that p. 226 in WRTR goes on to say that teachers should teach the meaning of syllables and then discuss syllable division in the writing lesson (I'd just use the spelling lesson). It lists the generalizations in order of introduction of where they are used in the spelling list. So, they are there, and they are to be used.

 

.

[Colleen in NS]

No I do not see her past time in SWR magically filtering into her everyday thoughts or making her more analytical, sorry.

 

:lol:

 

I have no problem with the idea of teaching spelling at the grammar level and then hitting it all again, all those phonograms and rules, in the logic stage.

 

I think I am going to review some phonograms/rules/patterns with him sometime soon. I should probably do it right now, while I have some breathing space because I actually know what I'm doing with most things right now, because I'm about to get blind-sided again with yet another new skill to learn about/learn in a few months - logic. AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!

[8filltheheart]

But I know SWR does have the rules in the manual, and it does use syllable work extensively. It has the child break every word into its syllables before marking it up and applying the rules. But it does not teach the syllable rules so that if a child doesn't know how to pronounce the word they can break it into syllables. They have to already know the pronunciation first.

 

Thus a child says navy and knows its na vy because the a is long. But if they approached a nonsense word they wouldn't know what to do.

 

For example, bojy

 

What sound would the o make? In O/G a child would learn that when you have two vowels and one consonant in between them you put the consonant with the second syllable. Thus the child would know this work should say the long o sound as it is an open syllable: bo jy

 

But with a word like: bohjy

 

The syllable rules change here. Again you find the vowels, and because there are now TWO consonants you put one consonant with each syllable. Thus this time the o would be closed and say its short sound: boh jy

 

 

 

I'm going to say based on my memory that WRTR must teach it b/c I have taught my kids those rules.

[MerryAtHope]

I have used most of the homeschool accessible OG based spelling programs and they all cover the same phonograms, the same rules, etc (though after reading Merry's posts I gather WRTR doesn't cover syllabication, so I am guessing it must have been in Teaching Reading at Home b/c I know I have taught them to all of my kids) The only major difference is the word lists and how to present the info.

 

I know there are several "Merry's" on this board, so I don't know if you mean me (I'm just "Merry" on the other boards I'm on so whenever I see her posts I do a double-take, LOL!)--but if you did mean me, I certainly didn't mean to imply this in any way. I try to post about what AAS can do, not what another program does or does not do. Hope I didn't cause confusion!

 

Merry :-)

[Lovedtodeath]

Siloam, which programs teach a child how to break a word into syllables without pronouncing them?

[8filltheheart]

I know there are several "Merry's" on this board, so I don't know if you mean me (I'm just "Merry" on the other boards I'm on so whenever I see her posts I do a double-take, LOL!)--but if you did mean me, I certainly didn't mean to imply this in any way. I try to post about what AAS can do, not what another program does or does not do. Hope I didn't cause confusion!

 

Merry :-)

 

My apologies Merry. :blush: I realized a little while ago that it is actually Heather that posts that WRTR doesn't teach syllables.

 

I am sorry for using your name and causing confusion. I'll go back and edit my OP.

[8filltheheart]

confirmed. I wondered why you mentioned the syllable thing earlier - I thought, "of course it's taught" but then I didn't go look to see where anyone said it wasn't taught. :D

 

Some of the other info. you put in there is not in the book, but it probably is talked about in the Spalding workshops - my mother told me random bits of info. as I learned from her, about backgrounds of words such as baby, or that "one" may have been pronounced with two syllables and the e wasn't silent, etc.. She learned the types of things you quoted, at the workshops back in the early 80s.

 

Do you know what they changed in the different editions? I have no idea what edition my copy is, but it is definitely not the newer one.

 

I ask b/c I remember comments about words like one and two included in my book.

 

FWIW......I find it completely ironic that I have spent quite a bit of time tonight defending a program that I don't ever want to use again b/c I just don't like it!! :tongue_smilie::lol:

[Colleen in NS]

I'm going to say based on my memory that WRTR must teach it

 

Did you see my previous posts (#75 and 79), where I confirmed that and gave some details?

 

EDIT: oops, just read your post! :D

[Colleen in NS]

Do you know what they changed in the different editions? I have no idea what edition my copy is, but it is definitely not the newer one.

 

I ask b/c I remember comments about words like one and two included in my book.

 

FWIW......I find it completely ironic that I have spent quite a bit of time tonight defending a program that I don't ever want to use again b/c I just don't like it!! :tongue_smilie::lol:

 

I have the 4th blue edition and used to have the 3rd red edition a long time ago....a lot of things have changed. The 5th edition is way too wordy and technical and detailed and educationalesed, IMO!! :lol: I only bought it for the longer word list. I'm going cross-brained from reading this thread, lol, so I can't really explain why right now, but I just like the blue edition better - it is much friendlier to me. How is that for general. Yes, in the 5th there are the comments about two, and comment about one, but not the background of one.

 

Yes, I was thinking it was pretty funny how hard you are lobbying for WRTR tonight!! :lol::lol:

[MerryAtHope]

My apologies Merry. :blush: I realized a little while ago that it is actually Heather that posts that WRTR doesn't teach syllables.

 

I am sorry for using your name and causing confusion. I'll go back and edit my OP.

 

That's ok! I was racking my brain trying to remember what I might have posted, LOL!

 

Merry :-)

[johnandtinagilbert]

I am trying to find out... and also if they teach the why's like PR. I have been very hesitant to buy level 2... because there may be something better out there for the price, and I have been looking into switching to an AIO LA program (because I am feeling like DD doesn't do enough writing). Where is Merry when I need her?

 

 

From the beginning of Level 1 to the end of Level 2...it's like moving mountains. Much more dictation, beginning writing process (outline, sentences, paragraphs).

 

I feel the need to sneak phonics in through spelling with all of the sounding out and syllabication. I have a ds that I feel this way about too. He loves to spell, but doesn't like to think he's doing Phonics (a different program ruined this for him). PR with games suggested was great for him.

knowledgable (okay, I don't know how to spell that ROFLOL).

you need the "e" still so the "g" can keep it's second sound...not that I knew that before PR, but hey, at least I sound smart! :lol: There is another word like that, that I can't remember right now that has a modern spelling that leaves out the "e" before "g"...drives me nuts now that I know the rule!

 

Siloam, which programs teach a child how to break a word into syllables without pronouncing them?

PR does via rule tunes. Certain vowels usually say their name at the end of the syllable and every syllable must have a vowel. Using those two songs, I was able to separate Siloam's nonsense words correctly. There are a couple more syllable related Rule Tunes that teach syllables.

 

I wanted to agree with everyone about the rules not turning out good spellers. My eldest is a terrible speller, yet can recite all the rules he learned when he was young. He just doesn't make the connection of how to spell when writing. Dictation Does Help Him. My natural speller doesn't like the phonograms presented, but loves the word origins. I will say, though, the phonogram rules have received some recent love from him as he begins high school level reading. He says he understands why I taught them to him (using PR although he was in middle school) and is glad he knows them b/c they do come in handy for really big words and for breaking up syllables.

 

Siloam. Thanks for the informative post. I love to learn new things.

[8filltheheart]

you need the "e" still so the "g" can keep it's second sound...not that I knew that before PR, but hey, at least I sound smart! :lol: There is another word like that, that I can't remember right now that has a modern spelling that leaves out the "e" before "g"...drives me nuts now that I know the rule!

 

 

 

Is it judgment? It drove me crazy after I learned the rule, too!! :D

[siloam]

Siloam, which programs teach a child how to break a word into syllables without pronouncing them?

 

O/G programs do. While AAS doesn't use nonsense words to do so, there is such an emphasis on syllable work, that I think a child would be able to.

 

Vertical phonics programs use syllables and teach where they interact with spelling well, but they don't teach the actual rules of syllables, so that a child can use the syllable rues to decode words they haven't already herd pronounced.

 

The hard thing is they really over lap on syllable work more than they differ, but for LD kids I think that difference is important. For non LD kids I doubt you would see a huge difference.

 

Heather

 

[siloam]

I wanted to agree with everyone about the rules not turning out good spellers. My eldest is a terrible speller, yet can recite all the rules he learned when he was young. He just doesn't make the connection of how to spell when writing. Dictation Does Help Him. My natural speller doesn't like the phonograms presented, but loves the word origins. I will say, though, the phonogram rules have received some recent love from him as he begins high school level reading. He says he understands why I taught them to him (using PR although he was in middle school) and is glad he knows them b/c they do come in handy for really big words and for breaking up syllables.

 

Siloam. Thanks for the informative post. I love to learn new things.

 

I will agree here too.

 

I am a horrible speller, once more I am one of those who can write a word correctly and thing it looks wrong. For this reason little speller books don't work for me. I don't have the visual memory to pick out which is the correct spelling. Thus when a word looks wrong I can look it up in a dictionary, read the definition and know I have the right word, and it will SILL look wrong to me. Thus I once misspelled which four different ways in a hand written document, including the correct spelling and witch and two misspellings. None of them looked right, so I kept trying. If anyone was wondering why dyslexic's do that sort of thing. :D

 

The biggest improvement in my spelling came with my posting online. I just got sick of spell checking underlining the same words over and over and over again. Thus I finally took the time to figure out what I was doing wrong, and correct it. The biggest difference now that I know the rules is that I often don't need their suggestions. I can look at the word and figure out what I did wrong on my own.

 

If the desire to spell well isn't there, all the rules in the world won't help.

 

Heather

[Lovedtodeath]

From the beginning of Level 1 to the end of Level 2...it's like moving mountains. Much more dictation, beginning writing process (outline, sentences, paragraphs).

But she is currently working through FLL and WWE, so I am thinking that with the programs we are currently doing we will be there by the time we would start PR.

 

Maybe talking about it here and in my own thread is overkill? :D

[Colleen in NS]

Is it judgment? It drove me crazy after I learned the rule, too!! :D

 

Yep, that's the one I was going to say!

[Lovedtodeath]

Heather, I am pretty sure that Emily will be starting Phonics Road level 2 as soon as she is done with AAS level 2. She will be 8. I really, really want AIO LA and the vocabulary and etimology being included is a feature that I really want. I was thinking of doing MCT LA, but DH doesn't like it. He wants all of the basics covered.

 

I haven't decided if DS will be doing Phonics Road yet. I will need to find out how fun level one is. I was planning on McRuffy for K and then using all of the same stuff I have used with Emily after that. He will be 3 this spring and is all boy, so I have lots of time to decide on that.:tongue_smilie:

[johnandtinagilbert]

Is it judgment? It drove me crazy after I learned the rule, too!! :D

YES! That is it! :D