Can someone explain the different approaches to teaching phonics??

[RobinM]

I am researching phonics choices for my DS and although I am now more familiar with some of the names of the actual programs, I don't necessarily understand the differences behind the approaches. Can someone please explain the different approaches?

 

I know that some programs teach using sight words... others do not. Some are based on "Spalding methods"... Does that mean they include spelling along with phonics? What are the benefits of doing a complete program which includes spelling, reading, writing or grammar?

 

Sorry for all the questions... just hoping for some clarification on all this! :001_smile:

Edited November 3, 2010 by RobinM

[Guest greenmom]

Hello! I am not familiar with Spalding methods, but I have taught both my son and daughter to read using my own method of phonics. Beginning very early (1-2yrs) I use flashcards with just the upper and lowercase letters (no pictures) and I make it fun and review daily until they know their letters. My son knew his by 18months. Then I begin with the vowel sounds and then I go to consonants. After a long time of reviewing sounds (short, daily lessons), then I used alphabet cookies to put the sounds together (a t = at). Then I used the Bob Books for my kids' first readers. I focused on reading and phonics long before my children had the motor skills to pick up a pencil and write well. I haven't even begun spelling yet. My son and daughter both began reading Bob Books at age 3. It may sound young, but it was not forced, it was pure enjoyment on their part. It took a while to develop the writing skills, so I would say separate the reading from the writing part. :) Good luck!

[johnandtinagilbert]

There are essentially 2 phonetic approaches, analytic (use the whole word to teach the parts of the word) and synthetic (parts to build toward the whole).

 

From Wikipedia, Analytical Phonics (this link has plenty more to read) refers to an approach to the teaching of reading in which the phonemes associated with particular graphemes are not pronounced in isolation. Children identify (analyse) the common phoneme in a set of words in which each word contains the phoneme under study. For example, teacher and pupils discuss how the following words are alike: pat, park, push and pen. Analytic phonics for writing similarly relies on inferential learning: realising that the initial phoneme in /p i g/ is the same as that in /p æ t, p a: k, p u ƒ/ and /p e n/, children deduce that they must write that phoneme with grapheme.[1] Today, Analytical phonics is referred to as Implicit phonics. This is because it signifies the analysis (breaking down) of the whole word to its parts (an analysis only necessary when a child cannot read it as a whole word).[2]

 

From Wiki:

The name 'Synthetic Phonics' (more to read in the link) comes from the concept of 'synthesising', which means 'putting together' or 'blending'. What is synthesised/put together/blended in reading are the sounds prompted by the letters on the page. (rrf.org.uk, newsletter 54)

According to the Clackmannanshire 7 year longitudinal study of 117 children, '[synthetic phonics] is a very accelerated form of phonics that does not begin by establishing an initial sight vocabulary. With this approach, before children are introduced to books, they are taught letter sounds. After the first few of these have been taught they are shown how these sounds can be blended together to build up words (Feitelson, 1988). For example, when taught the letter sounds /t/ /p/ /a/ and /s/, the children can build up the words tap, pat, pats, taps, sat, etc. The children are not told the pronunciation of the new word either before it is constructed with magnetic letters or indeed afterwards; the children sound each letter in turn and synthesise the sounds together in order to generate the pronunciation of the word. Thus the children construct the pronunciation for themselves. Most of the letter sound correspondences, including the consonant and vowel digraphs, can be taught in the space of a few months at the start of their first year at school. This means that children can read many of the unfamiliar words they meet in text for themselves, without the assistance of the teacher.

 

 

I support highly The Orton-Gillingham (OG) method, which approaches phonics "synthetically," meaning systematic decoding using multisensory exercises -- see, hear, touch/trace/move aka VAK (visual, audio, kinesthetic).

 

This link explains the Recipe for Reading quite well. RR simply applies OG and lays out a plan. It is fantastic.

 

As decoding occurs, blending starts, with eventual understanding of the phonemes of the English language. MOST words can be decoded.

 

Other synthetic programs are Writing Road to Reading (Spalding), The Phonics Road (Barbara Beers, my personal favorite) (Linked in my signature).

 

Interestingly, many of these programs are flagged for LD classes by public schools. My take is b/c these programs require One-on-One interaction, which a publicly school child would not receive in a mainstream classroom. I find the multi-sensory approach actually serves ALL learning styles b/c it touches on each area (see, hear, touch, move) when followed correctly. I find the OG methods leads to full language understanding, not just reading OR spelling OR writing, but full language arts mastery. It's amazing stuff!

[Crimson Wife]

What are the benefits of doing a complete program which includes spelling, reading, writing or grammar?

 

While I've never used a complete LA program that included grammar along with phonics & spelling, I did use Romalda Spalding's The Writing Road to Reading with my oldest and my DS is using All About Spelling. The benefits of combining phonics & spelling is that it's multi-sensory and writing down the words (or in my kids' cases spelling them with fridge magnets since they weren't/aren't yet writing) helps internalize the rules.

 

I don't think the key thing about choosing a phonics program is whether or not it includes spelling, but rather to make sure it is based on Orton-Gillingham. Most of the ones popular in homeschool circles are O-G. This isn't a complete list, but it's a good place to start.

[johnandtinagilbert]

 

This isn't a complete list, but it's a good place to start.

Do your due diligence with this list. A few listed are phonetic in approach, but def. not OG, as they teach a lot of sight words. Remember, there are truly few sight words.

[Crimson Wife]

Do your due diligence with this list. A few listed are phonetic in approach, but def. not OG, as they teach a lot of sight words. Remember, there are truly few sight words.

 

I guess what I think of as O-G is what you are calling "synthetic phonics". I agree that there are only a handful of true "sight" words in English.

[forty-two]

Another distinction I've seen in synthetic phonics programs is horizontal vs. vertical.

 

Horizontal programs teach just one sound per phonogram at a time, usually the most common sound - like starting out with just the short vowel sounds for a, e, i, o, u - and incorporate the rest of the sounds as the program progresses. I think that OPGTR does this, as does Blend Phonics and lots of other common phonics programs. The benefit is not excessively confusing kids at the start; the drawback is that they might get used to the apparent simplicity of one sound per phonogram, and have problems transitioning to multiple sounds per phonogram. As well, they don't have the tools to read uncontrolled books until they've finished the program.

 

Vertical programs, otoh, teach all the sounds for each phonogram (or at least all but the most uncommon ones) from the outset. Most O-G programs work this way - certainly WRTR and SWR do. The benefit is that kids get an accurate view of how English phonograms work from the get-go, and have the tools to decode most any word from the start - they don't need controlled readers for long, if at all. The drawback is that it might overly complicate things for some kids.

 

In my limited experience, I think it is harder for young kids to grasp the basic alphabetic principle - that written text is just recorded speech, with each phonogram signifying a particular sound - when you teach all the sounds up front. My oldest is still a young 4, though - even knowing all the letters for years, she might not have been ready for sounding out no matter which way I taught her the sounds. And after mulling it over, I still find the vertical approach arguments compelling - but it means that dd4 will definitely start later than she might have otherwise. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, anyway.

[siloam]

Here is my take. I find about 4 different types.

 

Sight word programs that mostly teach memorization. The student tends to max out their memory around 3rd or 4th grade.

 

O/G is the best, IMO. It uses multi-sensory work in a mastery based, incremental approach. Because of all the research around the success of o/g most traditional programs are some form of O/G. Though in original o/g the only kinsthetic component was writing, now o/g programs have been expanded to include a variety of tapping, hand movements, physical objects such as tiles, etc... O/G has a focus on learning the rules for breaking words into syllables.

 

Thus most traditional phonics programs start with letters, works to CVC words, blends, silent e, then into diphthongs, suffixes and prefixes. I suspect this sequence comes from o/g. Some programs are structured and move at a specific pace and others move at the child's pace. Most do include a certain number of sight words, and most use controlled readers at first. The vast majority of programs fall into this category, though some with their own unique focuses. They may or may not teach syllable rules (though most will have the child use clapping to break words into syllables).

 

Spalding worked with Dr. Orton of o/g, so they include many of the same elements, but Spalding covers all the sounds of the all the phonograms up front, instead of limiting it to short vowels and consonants. They also teach all spelling words up front. I personally also love how these program generally teach the child how to spell words by introducing them first instead of spelling them cold. Even o/g programs generally will give you a rule then a bunch of words where the child needs to apply the rule, but the words may all be new to the child. Spalding teaches every word first, having the parent spell the word for the child, and explain why before having the child spell it on their own. Spalding also eliminates the need for sight words becuase they teach all the sounds up front and most sight words are phonetic. They are just high frequency words that they child hasn't learned the phonics for yet. Of the ones that aren't phonetic Spalding teaches a think to spell approach, which I also find present in o/g so I am not sure if this was a Spalding idea that caught on in o/g or an o/g idea carried over into Spalding. Think to spell takes a word like says and has the child pronounce it phonetically for spelling with a short a, but with the short e for daily use. This eliminates the need to teach any sight words and use controlled readers. Spalding uses clapping to break words into syllables and has the rules available, but doesn't have a focus on teaching syllable rules. The child is more likely to try different combinations of letters to see which one looks right than use syllable rules to narrow it down. Spalding style programs include The Writing Road to Reading by Spalding, Spell to Write and Read, and The Phonics Road to Reading. There is also a program called Teach American to Read and Spell that also teaches all sounds up front (vertical phonics) but I don't know how much of the rest of the program is similar or different from Spalding. Winter Promise also loosely uses Spalding for their phonics program but also uses controlled readers, ETC (o/g based in sequence), and puts pictures on the flash cards, which goes against Spalding.

 

The last category is Phono-Graphic metods, which include Reading Reflex and ABeCeDarian. These programs focus on the sounds not the letters. It will teach one sound at a time, showing the child all the letter combinations that can make that sound. Generally these programs don't teach spelling rules, but has the child puzzle out which letter combination is being used to make the sound for this word.

 

Generally most programs out there fall into one of these 4 categories or some combination of them. I personally love the sequence used in o/g but I introduce all the sounds of the phonograms as quickly as I can more like Spalding. I do introduce one at a time till mastery through and not go through all of them regardless of mastery. I don't teach sight words at all but use Spalding methods for teaching them phonetically. For spelling I love the Spalding method of teaching the words first. That said it would drive my oldest two nuts because they words in AAS tend to be on the easily side for them. They don't need to be taught something they already know. My younger two it works for. Then I also use a lot of o/g multi-sensory ideas I find: using playdoh, tiles, sand writing, air writing, fingher spelling, hand motions, taps, etc... I do use controlled readers, but that is also because my kids tend to be dyslexic and would be overwhelmed by whole books, even through they know all the sounds. They need incremental practice.

 

Heather

Edited November 3, 2010 by siloam

[RobinM]

Wow! Thanks for all of the great information... it is so helpful!

 

I have been reading so many threads about different programs but had no idea about the ideas behind each of them.

 

So, from what I've read, OG methods and Spalding are very similar??

 

Sorry for even more questions but...

 

Which Spalding/OG methods are most popular among homeschoolers?

(ETA: maybe I should reword this... I know some programs have been listed above... I guess I'm wondering if there are any specific programs that are a nice blend of the Spalding and OG approaches.)

 

Also, I think I would like to start with cursive first. Is this included in the most widely used OG/Spalding methods? Or do most phonics programs encourage teaching print first? Or, is penmanship not included at all? (I'm sure this is an obvious question but I haven't a clue!)

 

Thanks so much... your posts really are truly helpful!

Edited November 3, 2010 by RobinM

[kathkath]

another approach involves onset and rime, or word families. http://www.ehow.com/how_4474823_use-onset-amp-rime-teach.html

 

I do want to point out that although Orton Gillinham is a fantastic program (and I know that from working in the public schools), like HWOT, it may not be necessary for the average or above average student. They have lots of bells and whistles that can help struggling kids. In a classroom full of students, a teacher needs to use all those bells and whistles to hit on all the learning styles and abilities in her classroom and reach all learners effectively. I'm finding now as I am homeschooling (after teaching public school for years) that I don't need a lot of those bells and whistles. I can grab one out of my "toolbox" if I need it, but if a simpler method can work I go with it and save the time/energy for something else. Not to discredit these fine programs--but simplicity and efficiency definitely have their perks. Phonics is very important but it can be taught well simply.

 

FWIW I went to a school during 2nd and 3rd grade and did spalding there. I liked it :)

[forty-two]

Spalding iirc studied under Dr Orton - at any rate, WRTR is in the O-G family, as is Spell to Write and Read and All About Spelling. The Phonics Road to Spelling and Reading incorporates an O-G approach into an integrated LA program. There are probably others.

 

WRTR includes instruction on how to teach both manuscript and cursive, though it assumes manuscript first. SWR also contains handwriting instruction - says that additional handwriting programs are unnecessary - and does advocate cursive first, though contains instructions for both. Not sure about other programs wrt handwriting.

[siloam]

another approach involves onset and rime, or word families. http://www.ehow.com/how_4474823_use-onset-amp-rime-teach.html

 

I do want to point out that although Orton Gillinham is a fantastic program (and I know that from working in the public schools), like HWOT, it may not be necessary for the average or above average student. They have lots of bells and whistles that can help struggling kids. In a classroom full of students, a teacher needs to use all those bells and whistles to hit on all the learning styles and abilities in her classroom and reach all learners effectively. I'm finding now as I am homeschooling (after teaching public school for years) that I don't need a lot of those bells and whistles. I can grab one out of my "toolbox" if I need it, but if a simpler method can work I go with it and save the time/energy for something else. Not to discredit these fine programs--but simplicity and efficiency definitely have their perks. Phonics is very important but it can be taught well simply.

 

FWIW I went to a school during 2nd and 3rd grade and did spalding there. I liked it :)

 

Actually word family falls under o/g because o/g also groups words by family. Word Family and rhyme just make that an emphasis of the program, sometimes not even covering the rules where with o/g you stay focused on the rules. Rhyme would probably fall under Phono-Graphic methods because they focus on the sound, regardless of the letters used.

 

Most traditional phonic programs are built on o/g methodology. As I stated earlier original o/g did not include all the "bells and whistles" of current programs marked as o/g. It was focused on hearing, saying, and writing of the sounds and words, which would describe the simple programs.

 

The programs marketed as o/g today mostly target LD students thus are slower in pace with more....stuff. :D I agree that they are overkill for the average student. Too slow with too much stuff to do. Spalding was actually the solution to this, introduce more to the student.

 

Heather

[siloam]

Wow! Thanks for all of the great information... it is so helpful!

 

I have been reading so many threads about different programs but had no idea about the ideas behind each of them.

 

So, from what I've read, OG methods and Spalding are very similar??

 

Yes because they worked together. The biggest difference is o/g is incremental (one sound and one rule at a time) and focuses on syllable rules where Spalding covers all of them up front. Your typical o/g lesson will say teach EE, thus all the words in the lesson will have EE, then after EE is starting to be mastered they will cover other words that say e (open syllable e, e_e also called vowel silent e) with ee. Spalding introduces all rules and sounds up front and the spelling lists do not focus on one rule or one sound, but covers a whole group. It takes into consideration the frequence of use as much as what sounds are in the word, so the first spelling list in SWR (Spalding) is:

 

top

but

and

cat

red

six

all

my

not

ten

hat

be

am

is

bed

run

ran

go

do

did

 

The first list in my All About Spelling is:

 

at

man

sat

am

an

ran

had

hat

gas

map

 

 

Sorry for even more questions but...

 

Which Spalding/OG methods are most popular among homeschoolers?

(ETA: maybe I should reword this... I know some programs have been listed above... I guess I'm wondering if there are any specific programs that are a nice blend of the Spalding and OG approaches.)

 

For ease of use The Phonics Road to Reading is the most popular. Spell to Write and Read and the one and only original, The Writing Road to Reading, is also popular.

 

Also, I think I would like to start with cursive first. Is this included in the most widely used OG/Spalding methods? Or do most phonics programs encourage teaching print first? Or, is penmanship not included at all? (I'm sure this is an obvious question but I haven't a clue!)

 

 

In general o/g programs don't address handwriting. Most of them also expect a child has been introduced to letter sounds and has phonemic awareness, which is a fancy way of saying they already know the basic sounds and can hear the difference between them. Many kids, in fact, have problems hearing the sounds, my younger two both had issues. My 3rd dd couldn't hear the difference between short i and e or both sounds in blends. I had to do LiPS with both of them to develop their phonological awareness. By the way Barton Reading has a test for this that anyone can use, found here.

 

Now specific programs might include a handwriting piece, I believe Spalding at least addresses it. SWR in fact recommends a program called Cursive First, which is excellent, IMO. I don't think it is a big deal all the way around, because what we write is different from the print we read. For example a is not typed like we write it, so the child has to be able to recognize both either way.

 

Once you look at traditional programs, which are very often based on o/g ideas and/or sequence you can find a lot that include handwriting and that work with introducing letter sounds. Get Ready, Set, Go for the Code and Explode the Code are based on O/G sequence and methods, but are workbooks. It has handwriting practice, works with one letter at a time in the beginning, and moves at the child's pace.

 

Heather

Edited November 3, 2010 by siloam

[Ellie]

I guess what I think of as O-G is what you are calling "synthetic phonics". I agree that there are only a handful of true "sight" words in English.

Even that "handful" of sight words can mostly be sounded out phonectically.

[RobinM]

I am so grateful to you guys for sharing your wisdom on this!! I think I'm about to get it figured out! :001_smile:

 

Here are just a few more questions.... I hope this thread is helpful to others as well b/c I honestly feel bad for coming back with so many questions.

 

 

1. Does Phonics Road introduce all sounds at the beginning like the original Spalding method?
   
2. Would PR work if I wanted to do cursive first?
   
3. Comparing WWTR and SWR, which is laid out better/less complicated to teach?
   
4. WWTR/SWR... do these include grammar instruction also? If not, is there a grammar program that people usually use following WWTR or SWR?
   
5. All About Spelling... I initially thought it was only a spelling program but then found out it is also designed to teach reading as well. Is this correct? If so, what are the differences between AAS and other OG methods?
   
6. Finally, one thing that sort of confuses me... In reading other threads it seems that some people use more than one program...For example, I've read that some people complete a phonics program before starting Phonics Road... and I think I read others that use All About Spelling along with another phonics program. Is this necessary or does it depend on the child?
   

 

[MerryAtHope]

All About Spelling... I initially thought it was only a spelling program but then found out it is also designed to teach reading as well. Is this correct? If so, what are the differences between AAS and other OG methods?

 

Finally, one thing that sort of confuses me... In reading other threads it seems that some people use more than one program...For example, I've read that some people complete a phonics program before starting Phonics Road... and I think I read others that use All About Spelling along with another phonics program. Is this necessary or does it depend on the child?

 

 

Hi Robin--AAS is a complete phonics program, so anything that your child can spell, they can read. However, many children learn to read at a faster pace than they learn to spell. If that's the case for your child, you would want to make some adjustments if you used it to teach reading. The author has said that she works in two different places in the program when she is tutoring--one for reading and another for spelling. For reading she will teach the concept, and then use the word cards and dictations for reading practice. Later the child will do that lesson and spell everything.

 

Some kids do learn both at the same pace, so it can work to teach both together, and a very few kids actually learn to spell before they learn to read.

 

The author is coming out with an All About Reading program next January that will add in more reading practice, and that will be scripted for reading (AAS is scripted for spelling).

 

Anyway--that's why some people will use AAS for spelling and another program for reading.

 

Some people also want additional phonics review, or they want their child to have something to keep them busy while they work with older kids--so then you'll see people using something like ETC or MCP etc...

 

AAS is based on Orton Gillingham research, but the author has also incorporated extra strategies that she has found helpful in her private tutoring practice that are not "strictly" OG.

 

HTH! Merry :-)

[johnandtinagilbert]

 

In my limited experience, I think it is harder for young kids to grasp the basic alphabetic principle - that written text is just recorded speech, with each phonogram signifying a particular sound - when you teach all the sounds up front. My oldest is still a young 4, though - even knowing all the letters for years, she might not have been ready for sounding out no matter which way I taught her the sounds. And after mulling it over, I still find the vertical approach arguments compelling - but it means that dd4 will definitely start later than she might have otherwise. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, anyway.

This is why some programs encourage learning sounds before names, b/c it attaches more meaning between the sound and the symbol.

 

another approach involves onset and rime, or word families. http://www.ehow.com/how_4474823_use-onset-amp-rime-teach.html

 

I do want to point out that although Orton Gillinham is a fantastic program (and I know that from working in the public schools), like HWOT, it may not be necessary for the average or above average student. They have lots of bells and whistles that can help struggling kids. In a classroom full of students, a teacher needs to use all those bells and whistles to hit on all the learning styles and abilities in her classroom and reach all learners effectively. I'm finding now as I am homeschooling (after teaching public school for years) that I don't need a lot of those bells and whistles. I can grab one out of my "toolbox" if I need it, but if a simpler method can work I go with it and save the time/energy for something else. Not to discredit these fine programs--but simplicity and efficiency definitely have their perks. Phonics is very important but it can be taught well simply.

 

FWIW I went to a school during 2nd and 3rd grade and did spalding there. I liked it :)

I think the bells and whistles make it fun and that it is still simple.

 

For ease of use The Phonics Road to Reading is the most popular. Spell to Write and Read and the one and only original, The Writing Road to Reading, is also popular. Considering Heather's deeper explanation, I'd say The Phonics Road is a combo of O/G and Spalding as it does introduce sounds for the first 4 weeks, then introduces spelling lists that cover a variety of rules and sounds. There are not word families in PR. While there is no finger tapping or pounding (the bells and whistles we add for fun), syllables are taught using auditory detection.

Heather

 

I am so grateful to you guys for sharing your wisdom on this!! I think I'm about to get it figured out! :001_smile:

 

Here are just a few more questions.... I hope this thread is helpful to others as well b/c I honestly feel bad for coming back with so many questions.

 

 

1. Does Phonics Road introduce all sounds at the beginning like the original Spalding method? Most of them; then some spelling lists, with new sounds interjected as necessary.

2. Would PR work if I wanted to do cursive first? Yes, but you'd have to use Cursive First with it. I believe we have some PR users here (abrightmom, maybe) doing just that. You could also follow PR and teach it effortlessly at the end of level 2.

6. Finally, one thing that sort of confuses me... In reading other threads it seems that some people use more than one program...For example, I've read that some people complete a phonics program before starting Phonics Road... and I think I read others that use All About Spelling along with another phonics program. Is this necessary or does it depend on the child?

 

 

Because PR suggests waiting until age 6, many people are not willing to wait out K and start PR in grade 1; others are not confident in the O/G method and prefer something more scripted to teach reading, then pick up PR; others still just found out about the great program and their dc has already learned to read. You absolutely can use PR to teach reading. You can even do so in K with a few modifications (slow down, less paper writing, using a white boards or tactile mediums instead). I am now teaching K using PR (after educating myself more thoroughly on how to implement O/G via Recipe for Reading and Sensational Strategies). You do not Need another program. Some also prefer a full language arts courseload in grade 1; PR focuses on reading, spelling and writing and just touches grammar in level 1, so some will add in grammar. Once you hit level 2, though, PR hits hard and fills up all your language arts needs.

[siloam]

I am so grateful to you guys for sharing your wisdom on this!! I think I'm about to get it figured out! :001_smile:

 

Here are just a few more questions.... I hope this thread is helpful to others as well b/c I honestly feel bad for coming back with so many questions.

 

 

Does Phonics Road introduce all sounds at the beginning like the original Spalding method?

Would PR work if I wanted to do cursive first?

 

I don't know, I will let the PR people answer that.

 

Comparing WWTR and SWR, which is laid out better/less complicated to teach?

 

I think both are easy to teach, the difficult part is mastering it yourself and pulling together the lists if you use WRTR. I have seen people come to SWR because it was easier than WRTR, but I have also seen a few people go the other way, preferring the freedom that WRTR gives to tailor it to your child. I believe WRTR also has full on curriculum now, so I would guess it would be a matter of which made more sense to you and met your needs.

 

 

WWTR/SWR... do these include grammar instruction also? If not, is there a grammar program that people usually use following WWTR or SWR?

 

Yes they both include grammar through about 2nd or 3rd grade (depending on how relaxed you are).

 

 

All About Spelling... I initially thought it was only a spelling program but then found out it is also designed to teach reading as well. Is this correct? If so, what are the differences between AAS and other OG methods?

 

People argue that one, but the whole premise of Spalding is that a child can learn to read by spelling. Personally my 2nd dd could spell for a whole year before she could blend, which is what drove me to SWR. Right now I am using it with my ds focusing just on reading the words, and learning the rules rather than spelling them. He has fine motor issues, so spelling is a pain and I don't want to wait for him to be able to spell and read at the same level. Later I will do it again but this time focus on spelling, if needed. I assume it will be because he is dyslexic and well we dyslexics are just not natural spellers. :D

 

 

Finally, one thing that sort of confuses me... In reading other threads it seems that some people use more than one program...For example, I've read that some people complete a phonics program before starting Phonics Road... and I think I read others that use All About Spelling along with another phonics program. Is this necessary or does it depend on the child?

 

It really depends on the needs. Many people come to these programs because others are not working. Some need more phonics/reading instruction but most need a more effective spelling program. The kids can read but spelling has never come together for them. Personally I have parts of about 4 different programs I am using right now. I am using the spelling methods of SWR, the readers and spelling words from my old Sonlight LA, the motions from Barton Reading (he is a kinsthetic learner, so he needs this), the Sequence from AAS, and ETC workbooks for review and reinforcement. Oops that is 5 different programs. :D I take what makes sense to me and seems to be working for DS, and leave the rest behind.

 

Heather

[RobinM]

Thank you again everyone... such a wealth of knowledge on these boards!

 

I have narrowed it to:

 

SWR

or

PR

and will also take a look at All About Reading as more info comes out about it.

 

I do want to go ahead and get started with some cursive, though, so will be ordering Cursive First or Peterson Handwriting for that....

[siloam]

Thank you again everyone... such a wealth of knowledge on these boards!

 

I have narrowed it to:

 

SWR

or

PR

and will also take a look at All About Reading as more info comes out about it.

 

I do want to go ahead and get started with some cursive, though, so will be ordering Cursive First or Peterson Handwriting for that....

 

If you are going to get Cursive First, you might want to consider the sand cards and especially the sand box she sells. I was able to find a Ziploc container with low enough sides to make it work, but it is surprisingly hard to find a container with low sides to use for sand writing. Sand writing not only brings in a multi-sensory element, it allows you to do more work with the child than they are physically able to write. Sand writing takes less motor skills, so when they have had it for the day with physical writing you can pull out the sand and finish up there. Plus it is just fun. The sand letters you can make on your own. Here is my homemade ones, but some people like having something more professional. All you do is write the letters in glue and cover them with sand. I have both a cursive and manuscript set, but only took pictures of the manuscript. It is also a great way to practice the phonograms, just have the child trace the letter while saying their sounds.

 

If you decide to go with SWR, there is a yahoo group on which Wand, the creator of the program is available to answer questions. In addition most of her trainers are on the list as well. While she doesn't get over to the forums much HiddenJewel is using SWR to teach her child to read, so you could also ask her questions, just send her a PM or e-mail and tell her I sent you her way.

 

Heather

[RobinM]

If you are going to get Cursive First, you might want to consider the sand cards and especially the sand box she sells. I was able to find a Ziploc container with low enough sides to make it work, but it is surprisingly hard to find a container with low sides to use for sand writing. Sand writing not only brings in a multi-sensory element, it allows you to do more work with the child than they are physically able to write. Sand writing takes less motor skills, so when they have had it for the day with physical writing you can pull out the sand and finish up there. Plus it is just fun. The sand letters you can make on your own. Here is my homemade ones, but some people like having something more professional. All you do is write the letters in glue and cover them with sand. I have both a cursive and manuscript set, but only took pictures of the manuscript. It is also a great way to practice the phonograms, just have the child trace the letter while saying their sounds.

 

If you decide to go with SWR, there is a yahoo group on which Wand, the creator of the program is available to answer questions. In addition most of her trainers are on the list as well. While she doesn't get over to the forums much HiddenJewel is using SWR to teach her child to read, so you could also ask her questions, just send her a PM or e-mail and tell her I sent you her way.

 

Heather

 

Thank you Heather! The sand writing sounds neat... I will definitely check it out.

[ElizabethB]

There is also syllabic phonics. It is still taught in some portions of France and Mexico.

 

As Geraldine L. Rodgers says in her article "Why Noah Webster's Way Was the Right Way,"

 

The teaching of beginning reading remained unchanged until the eighteenth century A. D. Children first learned the alphabet, and then learned the syllabary, but they continued to spell each syllable as it was practiced, using the current letter names (which still did little to demonstrate their sounds: ell, oh, gee = log). It was only after they learned the syllabary that they read connected texts, usually Latin prayers after about 300 A. D. They then read those texts syllable by syllable until they became proficient readers.

 

Until the sixteenth century A. D. in English-speaking countries, beginning reading was taught in Latin, and, in much of Europe, beginning reading continued to be taught in Latin until the eighteenth century. Since beginning reader did not yet know Latin, obviously they were reading print purely by its “sound”, and not by its “meaning” (such as Pa - ter nos - ter for Our Father.)

 

So, at first, people were taught to read in Latin with syllables. Then, people were taught with syllables in their native language. I am currently using this method to teach my son to read, here is our schedule and progress this year so far. I used it to teach my daughter--she was reading at the 12th grade level by the end of K because of this method! I have also used it with scores of remedial students with great success. It teaches phonics but also incorporates spelling, and uses syllables as the basis. It is easier to teach a young student the 2 letter syllables than CVC words, and the syllables later allow them to easily sound out 2 to 7 syllable words at a young age.

 

At first, this method was used with hornbooks. Then, it was taught through Spellers. You can read about its history here.

Edited November 6, 2010 by ElizabethB

[siloam]

There is also syllabic phonics. It is still taught in some portions of France and Mexico.

 

As Geraldine L. Rodgers says in her article "Why Noah Webster's Way Was the Right Way,"

 

 

 

So, at first, people were taught to read in Latin with syllables. Then, people were taught with syllables in their native language. I am currently using this method to teach my son to read, here is our schedule and progress this year so far. I used it to teach my daughter--she was reading at the 12th grade level by the end of K because of this method! I have also used it with scores of remedial students with great success. It teaches phonics but also incorporates spelling, and uses syllables as the basis. It is easier to teach a young student the 2 letter syllables than CVC words, and the syllables later allow them to easily sound out 2 to 7 syllable words at a young age.

 

At first, this method was used with hornbooks. Then, it was taught through Spellers. You can read about its history here.

 

 

 

But they still have to go through the work of really learning letter to sound recall to be able to read normal text. To me it seems like a lot more work.

 

It would also be a nightmare for dyslexic students. They already have so many recall and spelling issues, and they would be very likely to fall back on the sound method of spelling the words. Any LD student with memory issues would also have problems with the additional amount of memorization. I just don't see any advantage in learning to read that way.

 

Then again thinking to our conversation about whole word reading, this might aid in getting the child to re-focus on the parts...hmmm going to have to think on that one. :D

 

On the other hand what it became:

 

If these two statements are considered to be true, then no connected, meaning”- bearing texts should EVER be

given to beginning readers until they have become adept at reading long lists of multisyllabic words in isolation. Furthermore, each word in such lists should be learned by concentrating on the sound (or absence of sound) of ALL its letters, and, most particularly, on the sound of its vowels. It is noteworthy that Noah Webster did not introduce connected text in his fantastically successful 1783 and 1804 phonic “sound” spelling books (any later revisions should be disregarded) until a high degree of competence had been reached. Webster’s very first “meaning”- bearing sentence did not appear until well into the body of his speller. It was, “No man may put off the law of God.”

 

So, today, just as was true in Webster’s speller, words should be presented with no attention whatsoever to their meaning, but with great attention to syllabic divisions. Further, as was true with Webster’s speller, beginners should orally spell each word as it is learned, syllable by syllable, (but with Pascal letter names, not alphabet names). Attention should be focused on the sound of every letter, regular, irregular, or silent.

 

This is done in O/G methods. The oral spelling is not always present, and some instead do oral spelling of the sounds vs. letter names. Syllables are a major focus of both o/g and Spalding.

 

I also used the Webster Speller for my 3rd dd to just read through, not as actually reading instruction, but so that she would "see" the words in their syllables. This was nice because her spelling level is so much lower than her reading level, that it is going to take time till she gets heavily into syllable work in spelling. Basically she reads at a 7th grade level and spells at a 2nd grade level.

 

Heather

 

Edited November 6, 2010 by siloam

[ElizabethB]

It would also be a nightmare for dyslexic students. They already have so many recall and spelling issues, and they would be very likely to fall back on the sound method of spelling the words. Any LD student with memory issues would also have problems with the additional amount of memorization. I just don't see any advantage in learning to read that way.

 

Then again thinking to our conversation about whole word reading, this might aid in getting the child to re-focus on the parts...hmmm going to have to think on that one. :D

 

 

 

You do teach everything in a regular phonics program as well...you just start with 2 letter syllables. That's actually easier for students with almost any kind of problem to figure out than CVC blends. The syllables start out with 2 letters, so if there are memory problems, you are working with 2 digits vs. 3, and you build up to 3 later, but the skills you learned with these 2 letter blends (syllables) transfer directly to 2 to 7 syllable words.

 

So, it is a bit more work up front, but actually the best way to go (I think!) for any student, and even more so for a student with speech or memory difficulties. Speech difficulties because the syllable sounds are closer to sounds in words than the letter sound approximations of single letters when blending.

[gardenmom5]

I support highly The Orton-Gillingham (OG) method, which approaches phonics "synthetically," meaning systematic decoding using multisensory exercises -- see, hear, touch/trace/move aka VAK (visual, audio, kinesthetic).

 

Other synthetic programs are The Phonics Road (Barbara Beers, my personal favorite) (Linked in my signature).

 

I haven't looked at the OG, but I do have a 5yo son with SPD which is affecting his academics. (he's currently doing tomatis - phase 1 is complete, and we're doing a reeval in two weeks before starting phase 2)

 

I've developed a partiality to the phonics road (1dd is a classics major -though I've only read about it online) and would love to start next year for his first grade year.

 

how do they compare for a child with visual and auditory discrimination issues? He is in therapy, and I have already seen improvement in his ability to focus/attention span, but I've no idea how much there will be.

[sarahv]

Here's just a thought about dyslexia and memory issues. Could it be that students who have difficulty with visual memory might be helped with a program that works with audio memory?

 

I've found that with teaching the syllables, my kids have developed good audio distinction of the vowels much better than other work I have done with phonics. I don't necessarily stress visual recognition beyond the first syllable (ba be bi bo bu or ab eb ib ob ub) They read the ba or ab and take off with the pattern. How does that help? Later when they are applying it, as long as they remember the pattern they can figure out what it is, almost by deduction. I was astounded how quickly they picked up the entire syllabary and I'm also astounded with how going over the syllabary non visually is actually helping them. Just a thought, but it's probably nothing. :tongue_smilie:

[siloam]

Here's just a thought about dyslexia and memory issues. Could it be that students who have difficulty with visual memory might be helped with a program that works with audio memory?

 

 

I can see how that might click with some. My oldest, for example, because she is an auditory learner. Although she isn't deficient in visual memory to begin with. :rolleyes:

 

The three of us here who struggle with visual memory also have auditory processing issues, and we actually do better with visual based learning. We just don't naturally see words in our minds. We will develop full color movies in our minds to go with stories we read/hear. Just no words. :D

 

It really depends on the child and the issues.

 

Heather

 

p.s. I am cleaning out my in-box and thought it was an interesting idea, even through the thread is old.

[ElizabethB]

I was astounded how quickly they picked up the entire syllabary and I'm also astounded with how going over the syllabary non visually is actually helping them. Just a thought, but it's probably nothing. :tongue_smilie:

 

p.s. I am cleaning out my in-box and thought it was an interesting idea, even through the thread is old.

 

Yes, it is an interesting idea!

 

I have no idea how it works, exactly, but it is one method that seems helpful for all of my remedial students, regardless of their underlying issues.

 

Different parts of it seem more helpful than others depending on the student's weak areas.

 

ESL students find the schwa/accent pattern of the 3+ syllable words particularly helpful.

 

Students with speech problems seem most helped by the syllables and the explicit teaching of schwa patterns.

 

My remedial students with sight word induced problems are most helped by the breaking up of syllables, which limits their ability to guess.

 

Students having trouble learning to blend find the long vowels and 2 letter syllables easier to learn.

 

For other students, I'm not sure exactly what their underlying problems are or what is helping them about the Speller, but I do know that my results since using the Speller have improved dramatically!