Conversation with a "whole words" teaching mom

[weddell]

I was with my 1 yo ds at a free play activity place for little kids (famroom.org for those in Evanston, IL) and overheard a mom talking with her little girl who is probably 3-ish. I have seen her there before and we have briefly talked, but we're not friends or anything.

 

She was reading her a book and pointing out the word "truck" and trying to get the little girl to say and reconize the word. Then she says "you will never learn to read if you don't start to remember words and their meanings" in a tone that while not exactly mean, wasn't very encouraging either. The little girl was not interested at the moment and got up and walked away. I turned to the mom and said, "If you are interested in teaching her to read, you should try OPGTTR. It is phonics based and I use it with my 4 year old and she is reading quite well now." She thanked me for my suggestion and said that she had talked with her "cousin in NY who is a reading specialist" and she had said to use the whole word method. Then she said that her dd already knew 40 words. I just nodded and kept my mouth shut since nothing I had to say was going to compete with her reading specialist cousin.

 

Although I have read about the differences in teaching phonics vs. whole word, never has the difference been so clear to me after this conversation. This mom is having her 3 year old memorize random words to teach her to read. What sense does that make? :confused:

[Ellie]

It doesn't make any sense at all. If it did, there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of non-readers, victims of the whole-word/sight-reading train wreck, who have graduated functionally illiterate from U.S. schools in the last 30 years or so.

[Dawn in OH]

It doesn't make any sense at all. If it did, there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of non-readers, victims of the whole-word/sight-reading train wreck, who have graduated functionally illiterate from U.S. schools in the last 30 years or so.

 

Agreed.

 

I read an article a few months back that discussed the illiteracy rate in the U.S. and the all time high for illiteracy, on armed services admission tests, came from people that had been educated during the Whole Wording Reading movement. When a return to Phonics based reading was made, the literacy rates began to rise again.

[StartingOver]

It doesn't make sense. I am a phonics teaching mom. I think kids to memorize words as they read more and more, just as all of us do. But I can't see running next door to ask my neighbor what a word is, because I can't sound it out LOL. That would make life just tooooooooooo difficult.

[pooh bear]

I taught my son to read long before I read the WTM, and anything about phonics. While now I do see the benefits of phonics over whole word learning, I taught my ds to read using whole words.

 

My ds, 10, is a fantastic reader. He has just recently finished reading Watership Down, Oliver Twist and Dracula. He has had no problem with any of these books. I have even had him read sections out loud so that I know he is reading it and not just skimming over parts he does not know.

 

So while phonics is better, whole word learning can work for some kids.

[LuvToRead]

I have a friend with a degree in early childhood education. When I mentioned to her I was going to homeschool she said go to with whole language. That's what the college she went to taught, and it was superior to phonics. She went on and on about how great whole language was. Phonics doesn't work because too many words don't follow the rules, blah blah blah. Luckily, I had already made up my mind to use phonics, regardless of what she said. This was probably 5 years ago, and now we both have children who are in 2nd grade.

 

Well, a few months ago, she was complaining how our local school system didn't have a strong enough phonics program. They still use primarily whole language, and now she can see how much more sense phonics makes. Of course, I wanted to say "I told you so", but I kept my mouth shut.

[Dawn in OH]

 

So while phonics is better, whole word learning can work for some kids.

 

Yes, it DOES work for some kids. And Phonics does not work for some kids. But for the vast majority, Phonics is the better method.

 

Like anything, no one method will work for all people.

[LuvToRead]

I didn't mean to imply that phonics is the only way. I'm sure whole language is better for some children. I meant that phonics works better for more children. My 8 year old reads above grade level, so phonics certainly worked for her.

[msjones]

Whole-word would never be my first suggestion for anyone wanting to teach a child to read. I am an explicit-phonics-instruction-combined-with-lots-of-good-literature gal myself.

 

But, there are people who seem to learn to read that way. Her daughter could be one of them, although I would think 3 would probably be too early to tell.

[StartingOver]

Whole-word would never be my first suggestion for anyone wanting to teach a child to read. I am an explicit-phonics-instruction-combined-with-lots-of-good-literature gal myself.

 

But, there are people who seem to learn to read that way. Her daughter could be one of them, although I would think 3 would probably be too early to tell.

 

Not always, my son started OPGTR at his request ( wanting to learn to read ) at 3.5 years. He will be 4 the end of next month and reading very well. I say try it, you can always drop it if it isn't working !

[Perry]

I think kids who learn to read with whole word instruction just seem to figure the code out on their own. Some figure it out better than others.

 

Phonics instruction is explicit teaching of the code. Seems a lot more efficient and less risky to explicitly teach it than to hope kiddo figures it out themselves.

[weddell]

I'm the OP and I can see that whole words may work for some people, but this seemed to be taken to the extreme. By getting her to say "truck" it didn't seem like there was any method to what she was doing. I don't know what they do at home and maybe she has a plan that she is following and this was just a bad moment. Her dd seemed completely frustrated and uninterested (although we've all had those moments with our kids). I know that her dd is either 2 or 3 and definitely not 4 (the program we were at is for ages 3 and under). I'm sure a systematic one-on-one approach whether it be phonics or whole word can work, but this was just kind of sad.

[Laurie4b]

The majority of kids (80%) learn to read no matter how you teach them--phonics or whole word. If they are taught whole word, they usually infer the phonics rules eventually.

 

However, nearly all kids (the supermajority) can learn to read with a process that teaches phonemic awareness and then builds on that to phonics and incorporates only a few sight words. Since if you use this method, you cover pretty much everyone, it makes more sense to use it.

 

But the 4 year old is learning, however unpleasantly, to read. Whatever.

[stripe]

I think the real problem is not the reading instruction method (phonics vs. whole word) but the instruction style. Telling her she'll never learn to read if she doesn't do it her mother's way is pretty unsavory, in my opinion, especially for a three year old.

[PollyOR]

I think the real problem is not the reading instruction method (phonics vs. whole word) but the instruction style. Telling her she'll never learn to read if she doesn't do it her mother's way is pretty unsavory, in my opinion, especially for a three year old.

:iagree:

 

I view it as a spectrum with whole word instruction at one end and phonics at the other. My kids tend to be closer to one end than the other, so I try to teach to their strength while still using both methods.

[Debora R]

When you sit your little one in your lap and read with your finger following along, you are engaging in a type of whole word instruction. Then you follow it up with some phonics......then you teach writing, forming one letter at a time...it doesn't matter the learning modalities of the child, you've combined the range. Personally, I kinda think that kids exposed to the whole enchilada are probably going to get the whole picture a little better in the long run......

 

But that said, don't we all start out reading bedtime stories anyway? :tongue_smilie:

 

Trained "Educations specialists" frequently can't see the forest for the trees (and I say that from personal experience)

[Dmmetler]

I wonder if she's doing "Teach your baby to read"-either the book or the DVD version? It's very, very whole word focused. From what I've seen, it seems to lead to kids who can read a few words or few books and make their parents convinced that they're geniuses-but they don't seem to make the jump to more than that until they're 5-6 (which, I suspect, corresponds to when they learn phonics at school, since most of the schools around here do a decent job of teaching phonics). They usually end up reasonably decent, but not particularly advanced students in ps. I strongly suspect that any benefit comes from the parent spending time with the child, since those programs involve a lot of sitting with your child and reading flashcards to them until they have the shape of the word memorized (you don't even teach letter names or sounds-you go 100% straight to memorizing words if you do it by the book), not from anything in the curriculum.

[Cheryl in NM]

Have you considered that she was objecting your unsolicited advice? How would you feel if you were working with your child and a stranger walked up to you and told you how teach to your child? If I felt strongly about helping this family I would have started a conversation, then shared what I was doing, why I was using it and how it was working. Her child is probably not going to read for several years yet. This will not be her only attempt and probably not her only method used. I just would not have walked up to someone and gave them unsolicited advice and would probably resent it if someone did it to me. Of course, if they child were being abused, then that's another story.

[milovany]

Have you considered that she was objecting your unsolicited advice? How would you feel if you were working with your child and a stranger walked up to you and told you how teach to your child?

 

:iagree:

 

This is actually what jumped out at me most from the OP. I thought about starting a thread that said, "I was working with my dd on reading and someone I hardly know came up and implied I was doing it wrong!" to see what the response would have been. But I didn't. :lol:

Edited May 27, 2010 by milovaný

[Harriet Vane]

It doesn't make any sense at all. If it did, there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of non-readers, victims of the whole-word/sight-reading train wreck, who have graduated functionally illiterate from U.S. schools in the last 30 years or so.

 

:iagree:

[happi duck]

If I'd seen this I wouldn't be shocked at the teaching method...I'd be shocked that the three year old was receiving formal reading instruction at all! Um...couldn't they read the book for fun? IMHO Kids love books until all the fun gets sucked out by adults.

[Impish]

Have you considered that she was objecting your unsolicited advice? How would you feel if you were working with your child and a stranger walked up to you and told you how teach to your child? If I felt strongly about helping this family I would have started a conversation, then shared what I was doing, why I was using it and how it was working. Her child is probably not going to read for several years yet. This will not be her only attempt and probably not her only method used. I just would not have walked up to someone and gave them unsolicited advice and would probably resent it if someone did it to me. Of course, if they child were being abused, then that's another story.

Bingo.

[weddell]

Have you considered that she was objecting your unsolicited advice? How would you feel if you were working with your child and a stranger walked up to you and told you how teach to your child? If I felt strongly about helping this family I would have started a conversation, then shared what I was doing, why I was using it and how it was working. Her child is probably not going to read for several years yet. This will not be her only attempt and probably not her only method used. I just would not have walked up to someone and gave them unsolicited advice and would probably resent it if someone did it to me. Of course, if they child were being abused, then that's another story.

 

Just to clarify, it wasn't like that at all. Like I said, we are friendly and have talked several times before over several months. Her dd had left the area and she was sitting by herself at this point. It's not uncommon at this place for moms who are sitting together in the same area to start up a conversation. She knows I have an older child and I since we were literally two feet apart sitting in the book area together I started telling her about how I was teaching dd to read since it was something we obviously had in common. It was a very friendly conversation and she was not at all insulted by my suggestion and actually did make a note of the book I suggested. We have given each other advice in the past about things like water bottles, etc. This wasn't any different. She was happy to explain what she was doing and I didn't say anything negative to her. It was a give and take mutual conversation. I obviously didn't type out our whole conversation here word for word, just the relevant few lines. :001_smile:

 

She is free to teach her child anyway she wants and it has nothing to do with me. :001_smile: I just left the situation/conversation thinking about how the method she was using seemed really ineffective compared to systematic phonics and that it was amusing that a reading specialist had recommended it. I didn't have any negative thoughts about her or her parenting, more it just got me thinking about educational choices.

Edited May 27, 2010 by weddell

[Orthodox6]

Does anybody teach absolutely 100% pure "phonics" for reading English? I have not yet met anybody who does. We teach a modest-sized set of "sight words", and teach phonics for everything else. The "sight words" include many of the exceptions, such as the word "once".

 

The little girl was only three years old. I don't think she was reading at all -- just noticing that certain squiggly shapes on the page matched some spoken word, and that she could make her mommy happy by memorizing what, to her, was in essence no more than a pictograph for "truck" or for whatever else.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Orthodox6

[milovany]

Does anybody teach absolutely 100% pure "phonics" for reading English? I have not yet met anybody who does. We teach a modest-sized set of "sight words", and teach phonics for everything else. The "sight words" include many of the exceptions, such as the word "once".

 

And lasagne. :)

 

I agree with you -- I think there's both sight and phonics when one learns to read. We're all sight readers now, aren't we? So it's a decent skill to also develop (I realize phonics is helpful while learning; they BOTH are).

[m4given]

Does anybody teach absolutely 100% pure "phonics" for reading English? I have not yet met anybody who does. We teach a modest-sized set of "sight words", and teach phonics for everything else. The "sight words" include many of the exceptions, such as the word "once".

 

 

 

As I was reading this thread, I kept wondering if there is a pure phonic based or pure "sight word" approach. My thought is that there is no pure approach.

 

I have to think that an effective approach is a combo of both approaches. (Same with Math - the 'whys" and the "facts". That is it's own thread.)

[m4given]

And lasagne. :)

 

I agree with you -- I think there's both sight and phonics when one learns to read. We're all sight readers now, aren't we? So it's a decent skill to also develop (I realize phonics is helpful while learning; they BOTH are).

:iagree:

[Firefly]

The whole-word approach has never made sense to me... I liken it to the whole "give a person a fish" vs. "teach a person to fish" thing. With phonics you're giving a tool they can use to decipher words for themselves. That said, I have to admit we did supplement a bit with sight word cards, especially for words that don't follow the rules.

[milovany]

The whole-word approach has never made sense to me... I liken it to the whole "give a person a fish" vs. "teach a person to fish" thing. With phonics you're giving a tool they can use to decipher words for themselves. That said, I have to admit we did supplement a bit with sight word cards, especially for words that don't follow the rules.

 

I think it was Karen Andreola who talked about it being a good thing for newly-reading kiddos to be reading along, working working working at sounding out words, and then all of a sudden get a "freebie" (sight word) once in awhile. It's can be a refreshing break and can provide continued motivation. I always liked that (and it's where my "lasagne" comment above came from).

[Tullia]

I think it was Karen Andreola who talked about it being a good thing for newly-reading kiddos to be reading along, working working working at sounding out words, and then all of a sudden get a "freebie" (sight word) once in awhile. It's can be a refreshing break and can provide continued motivation. I always liked that (and it's where my "lasagne" comment above came from).

 

Yes, I think it was Karen Andreola; I was thinking the same thing but you posted first! :D

[weddell]

The whole-word approach has never made sense to me... I liken it to the whole "give a person a fish" vs. "teach a person to fish" thing. With phonics you're giving a tool they can use to decipher words for themselves. That said, I have to admit we did supplement a bit with sight word cards, especially for words that don't follow the rules.

 

That's my feeling too. We did some sight words as well when they are needed. DD picked up a lot of the sight words on her own as we read together.

[OhM]

Does anybody teach absolutely 100% pure "phonics" for reading English? I have not yet met anybody who does. We teach a modest-sized set of "sight words", and teach phonics for everything else. The "sight words" include many of the exceptions, such as the word "once".

 

 

 

My daughters learned with a combination of the two in p.s. The method was primarily phonics-based, but they also learned the Dolch lists of sight words. FWIW, they both learned fairly effortlessly.

[keptwoman]

People using Spell to Write and Read or Spalding are most likely teaching almost pure phonics. With those programs there are very few exceptions to the rules.

[Alphabetika]

It doesn't make any sense at all. If it did, there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of non-readers, victims of the whole-word/sight-reading train wreck, who have graduated functionally illiterate from U.S. schools in the last 30 years or so.

:iagree: