s/o easy readers- what's wrong with memorizing a list of sight words?

[creekmom]

I guess I'm wondering what would be so bad about memorizing a list of 100 words? Wouldn't it help us a get a head start in this whole learning to read process? It actually sounds a lot like the grammar stage in classical education (memorizing information that we might not understand now that will make learning easier in the future? pegs to hang information on?). So, maybe they wouldn't understand why the word sign is pronounced like that, but they might recognize the pattern when they see it in other words like "align" and be able to read it.

 

I guess I'm questioning the whole phonics thing after seeing how quickly and easily my nephews are reading in kindergarten in the ps. Phonics almost seems too slow and laborious, and (shock!) maybe not all that necessary?! I'm getting a little frustrated teaching my child that a cve syllable makes a long vowel sound only to come across words like "gone, love, and come"! I've also been teaching him that 2 vowels together means the first one is long and the second is silent, and then we run into words like bread and field. He looks at me like I don't know what I'm talking about! There are so many exceptions to the rules we teach! I know, I know.... there is value in knowing the phonics rules, but isn't there some value in memorizing a lot of words as well?

Edited August 27, 2010 by creekmom

[calandalsmom]

That is why I think some combination of sight words and phonics is a good idea. My kids explore phonics explicitly thru the spelling program we use but the two who were earlier readers had success because they seem to have memorized a large number of sight words- they did it on their own.

 

I see no reason to wed myself to any particular ideology when its very clear that you can teach reading a multitude of ways (or do nothing at all and they still learn to read on their own. Amazing).

[bethben]

There's nothing wrong with memorizing a list of words - as long as you teach phonics with it. Sight reading will make problems with kids around 3rd grade if they've never been taught phonics. There's a limit to how many words they can memorize.

 

I've taught two kiddos phonics and then worked on sight words by reading books like Cat in the Hat and other Dr. Suess. It would bug me that on lists of sight words, there would be words such as "like" which can be decoded using phonics. So, I have and will do again a good phonics program and then just reading books to learn all those little sight words. So far, I have two kids who within a year were at a 2nd grade reading level.

 

Beth

[EKS]

After phonics is firmly established, there is NOTHING wrong with memorizing a list of words. In fact, with knowledge of phonics, most words on the Dolch list can be fully decoded and the rest can be partly decoded.

[2_girls_mommy]

My mother is a P.S. teacher. She said when she was in college there was such a push for "whole language," but that it really wasn't whole language at the time. There were leaving out the phonics. She said she has now seen a swing at least in her district back towards somewhere in the middle, a whole language program that includes phonics.

 

That is kind of where I fall too. We do phonics. I did phonics intensively as a child, even though I was already reading before 1st grade. I still studied phonics over the next 2 years. I did the same thing with my early reader. Now I have another 6 yr old who is learning to read (not an early reader like her sis.) We use Rod and Staff reading and phonics program. The phonics is tougher and slower going on her. The reading memorizes some sight words and incorporates some of the phonics rules she has learned. It is a good mix. I like being somewhere in the middle on this. I know pure WTM says to go with phonics only, but my dd6 likes the satisfaction she feels from reading her reader. It gives her confidence. In the meantime we keep chipping away at the phonics rules. I would never suggest sight word reading alone in place of phonics, though. I have read too much that shows that is not best.

[FO4UR]

The problem with too many sight words is that many kids just don't get to the point where they are actually decoding new words. Plus, there are only so many words we can memorize before we reach a limit (4th grade slump), but having those phonics patterns as 2nd nature in our brains we can decode seamlessly any new word.

 

It sounds like part of the problem you are experiencing is a program that teaches incorrect phonics rules. Ex: I teach mine that the *ea* phonogram says 3 sounds (/E/ /e/ /A/). The word *bread* contains the 2nd sound of *ea.* In the word *love,* the silent e is keeping the v company b/c English words don't end with v's (or c's).

 

You might like WRTR or SWR. These programs use the Ayer's list of most common words. (So the kids are learning through phonics what ps's teach as sight words, at about the same time.) They use 70 phonograms and 29 spelling rules to *Teach* these words, as opposed to memorizing them. There are *Very* few exceptions to the rules using WRTR or SWR.

 

Anyway...I understand the frustration of teaching phonics/reading (I've got 3dc in various stages of this process:001_huh:)

[calandalsmom]

Im using AAS to teach spelling and it is fabulous for my dyslexic (but advanced reader age 13) and my normal kids. But no way does anyone need to wait that long to learn all that (explicit phonics) before they can read.

 

 

 

My oldest did not read well til about age 8 because of his dyslexia. Now only his spelling is affected. My other two kids both read fluently and well at age 5-6 with phonics (ETC) and sight words (no list, they happened to memorize the high frequency words by themselves).

[Shay]

Here is a video that, although maybe a tad overdramatic, puts it into perspective:

 

http://kitchentablemath.blogspot.com/2010/01/dysteachia.html

 

I oppose it in beginning reading instruction. Once kids are reading CVC words quite well, these irregular words can be dripped in. Requiring kids to memorize words "up front" just is wrong. Consider how similar these look:

there

here

their

three

 

Memorizing a list gives kids the wrong way to go about reading and gives some kids a license to adopt a guessing habit. I had a 3rd grade tutee who, when he came to the word "pick" said "pink" (a common kdg. sight word). He'd catch himself, but IMHO, this got in the way of fluent reading all throught the word. There were other examples of this that I've forgotten, but he struggled most with "there" and "here" at first. You want to space out similar looking words in the instructional sequence. Many "sight words" look similar.

 

Sure, many kids do fine with it, but for others it is a disaster. Why set a kid up for potential problems? From reading OPG, I don't believe Jessie Wise would suggest a list of sight words. Rather, she has you add one at a time, little by little. Anyway, many(not all) of the so called "sight words" that our ps kindergarteners have to learn are phonetically regular (them, this, that) but are told they are "sight words." Most of the words my son brought home on sight word flashcards for 1st grade were not irregular. I had taught him to read phonetically, so I just ignored them.

[Homeschooling6]

If your library has it maybe pick up a copy of Spell to Write and Read or Writing Road to Reading(did I get that title right:confused1:) even if you don't use SWR or WRTR you do walk away with a better understanding of the English language.

[Ellie]

You might want to read, "Why Johnny Still Can't Read." It will answer all of your questions.

 

A child who is given lists of words to memorize does not have the phonics skills to decode words he meets that are not on those lists. Some children, possibly those who are very visual, pick up on those decoding skills more intuitively and figure things out, but this is not true for the majority of children. We have only to look at the decline in literacy skills following the introduction of sight reading in the 50s, followed later by the whole language debacle in the 80s, to see how sight reading is a failure for most children.

[babysparkler]

Dh learned "whole language" and I was a "phonics" kid... and we went to neighboring schools in the same district! I am the better speller of the two but he was an earlier reader and enjoys reading more than I do.

 

I use a combination of both. I love Elizabeth's thoughts on this and incorporate her list of phonetically organized sight words into DS's Kindergarten time along with phonics...

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/sightwords.html

[calandalsmom]

No one is advocating "just giving a child a list of words to memorize" and having had kids in school that is not what goes on there either.

Children in kindergarten here memorize words, but they do so in small groups, a few at a time. Some (but not nearly enough and NOT explicit) phonics instruction occurs as well.

 

But for a child with a low frustration level it is often nice to have the sight word THEM memorized bc while you can sound it out, who wants to have to 6 times in one book?

 

Phonics is great for decoding and essential for spelling and definitely explicit phonics should be taught, but a few high frequency sight words do not hurt anyone and make reading a lot faster and easier for some kids.

 

Sight words do not work well for dyslexic kids.

[Karen in CO]

And there are kids like my very bright 5yo that would utter fail at reading that way. She has visual discrimination problems. She see letters and words flipped and reversed, and they just don't sit still on the page for her. She can decode quite well, but she'd never be able to recognize words floating around on pages.

 

Phonics may be slower, but you are going to have fewer kids that will be dropped off the end and your phonics kids are going to out pace the whole-word kids pretty soon. The 79 phonograms and 20-something rules are a lot easier to learn than the 5000 words they are going to need to be literate.

[ElizabethB]

Like I said, it works fine for some, but for the 30% to 40% of children that it fails, teaching reading ends up taking longer and many of them never become good readers, it is much harder to remediate.

 

Here's a quote from a thread from ClassicalTwins who had to remediate her children:

 

I am enjoying reading these responses. It seems most of them started at the beginning...instead of having to retrain after school interference, so its not as simple....believe me after 18 months, we really are no further than we were a year ago.

 

(The whole thread is worth reading, several people chimed in about their remedial children and students as well.)

 

Here's an analogy: You are told that your child's broken leg will take 6 weeks to heal, but 60% to 70% of children heal in only 3 weeks. The other 30% to 40% percent will re-break their leg so bad they will be in a cast for a year. Would you do it?

 

I'm getting a little frustrated teaching my child that a cve syllable makes a long vowel sound only to come across words like "gone, love, and come"!

 

From my sight word page, there is actually a reason for this:

 

Hanna, Paul R, Richard E. Hodges, and Jean S. Hanna, "Spelling: Structure and Strategies," 1971. p.44: " During the Middle English period, a certain type of angular writing was in vogue which resulted in some ambiguity for the reader when u was followed by an m, n, or u (sometimes written v or w.) Consequently, scribes replaced the u with o, and that spelling is retained in some words used today, e.g. come, monk, love, tongue, some, honey, son.

 

My students have fun with this one, they get to write messy! I tell them to write messy, "cume, luve, sume, sun" and show how changing the u to an o helps tell which consonant follows the vowel.

 

I've seen the remedial students, and it isn't pretty. Reading is too important a skill to take chances with it.

[Matryoshka]

I guess I'm questioning the whole phonics thing after seeing how quickly and easily my nephews are reading in kindergarten in the ps. Phonics almost seems too slow and laborious, and (shock!) maybe not all that necessary?! I'm getting a little frustrated teaching my child that a cve syllable makes a long vowel sound only to come across words like "gone, love, and come"! I've also been teaching him that 2 vowels together means the first one is long and the second is silent, and then we run into words like bread and field. He looks at me like I don't know what I'm talking about! There are so many exceptions to the rules we teach!

 

And this is why I hate traditional American Phonics. However, I taught my kids to read using a 100% phonetic method with no sight words or memorization and not a single rule, and therefore no exceptions! No silent letters, no walking and talking. That's the Phonographix method used by Reading Reflex and ABeCeDarian - I think it's related to the Synthetic Phonics used to teach reading in Britain.

 

The "rules" taught in traditional phonics are not rules - they are "tricks" thought up by someone or a group of someones sometime in the past to help kids to decode the weird English spelling patterns. However, they are not necessarily the most efficient or accurate "rules", and there are other (and in my opinion better) methods to teach kids to decode English.

Edited August 27, 2010 by matroyshka

[ElizabethB]

While the 30% to 40% figure comes from my own research with hundreds of students (I give grade level tests to every parent I meet!), it is confirmed by research:

 

Here is a quote from Sally Shaywitz's "Overcoming Dyslexia, A New and Complete Science-Based Program for Reading Problems at Any Level" p. 261:

 

"In one Tallahassee, Florida, elementary school where such a program [scientifically proven prevention and early intervention programs] was implemented, the percentage of struggling readers dropped eightfold--from 31.8 percent to 3.7 percent."

[Scuff]

For DD8, it caused her to guess words. And it was *work* to teach her to blend properly after that. Took lots of heartache, time, and frustration when I could have just taught her phonics from the beginning and it would have ben fine. They will learn sight words as they go along. Words that pop up in their reading oftem. But do yourself a favor and start phonics and blending first.

[Lovedtodeath]

And this is why I hate traditional American Phonics. However, I taught my kids to read using a 100% phonetic method with no sight words or memorization and not a single rule, and therefore no exceptions! No silent letters, no walking and talking. That's the Phonographix method used by Reading Reflex and ABeCeDarian - I think it's related to the Synthetic Phonics used to teach reading in Britain.

 

The "rules" taught in traditional phonics are not rules - they are "tricks" thought up by someone or a group of someones sometime in the past to help kids to decode the weird English spelling patterns. However, they are not necessarily the most efficient or accurate "rules", and there are other (and in my opinion better) methods to teach kids to decode English.

:confused: Can anyone else comment on this?

[Lovedtodeath]

Because the 6th grader I taught last year knew his phonics rules but had been taught sight words first. His habit was to guess first and he couldn't get past about a third grade reading level because if it. It was terribly sad. I did my best to help him but much of the "I'm stupid/I hate school" type damage was done.

 

That is why I abhor sight words.

The school here really encourages this whole word guessing. They think it builds fluency faster. Sounding out is a last resort and "for babies". It took me a long while to get Emily back to her former reading level after one semester of Kindergarten. So sad.

[calandalsmom]

:confused: Can anyone else comment on this?

 

http://www.nrrf.org/essay_Explicit_or_Implicit_Phonics.html

 

This article talks a bit about what goes on in school in the name of phonics.

[ElizabethB]

Because the 6th grader I taught last year knew his phonics rules but had been taught sight words first. His habit was to guess first and he couldn't get past about a third grade reading level because if it. It was terribly sad. I did my best to help him but much of the "I'm stupid/I hate school" type damage was done.

 

That is why I abhor sight words.

:iagree:

 

I have seen hundreds of students crippled by sight words. It affects their self confidence and their whole lives. It is like swimming through molasses to fix the problem.

 

It is so much easier to do it right the first time. After the initial work, they eventually get it and take off!!

[calandalsmom]

This is all a bit dramatic IMO.

[calandalsmom]

You only think that because you haven't seen a 12 yo child cry over trying to read "Hank the Cowdog".

 

wel I guess my inclination is to quote the board motto up there"

 

"remember that no single program can possibly meet the needs of every home schooler"

 

And say that no one approach can meet the needs of every student.

[Karen in CO]

wel I guess my inclination is to quote the board motto up there"

 

"remember that no single program can possibly meet the needs of every home schooler"

 

And say that no one approach can meet the needs of every student.

WHich is probably why we've said that "whole language" works for all but about 30-40% of students and for those it is a miserable failure. :)

[calandalsmom]

WHich is probably why we've said that "whole language" works for all but about 30-40% of students and for those it is a miserable failure. :)

 

I guess what Im confused about is the assumption you and others seem to be making that teaching a few dolch words is synonymous with a commitment to the "whole language" approach.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and you can teach explicit phonics and still note that your students may benefit from having instant recall on a few high frequency words.

[Karen in CO]

Well, for one, My 5yo can not memorize sight words because she has visual discrimination problems. But she can read Green Eggs and Ham thanks to phonics. My older two could have learned to read anyway they were taught because they had no problems. If my 5yo had been in Dolch class, she would not be reading at all.

[calandalsmom]

Well, for one, My 5yo can not memorize sight words because she has visual discrimination problems. But she can read Green Eggs and Ham thanks to phonics. My older two could have learned to read anyway they were taught because they had no problems. If my 5yo had been in Dolch class, she would not be reading at all.

 

Again, what is this "Dolch class"? and who is arguing for the use of whole language only?

[Teachaheart]

I guess I'm wondering what would be so bad about memorizing a list of 100 words? Wouldn't it help us a get a head start in this whole learning to read process? It actually sounds a lot like the grammar stage in classical education (memorizing information that we might not understand now that will make learning easier in the future? pegs to hang information on?). So, maybe they wouldn't understand why the word sign is pronounced like that, but they might recognize the pattern when they see it in other words like "align" and be able to read it.

 

I guess I'm questioning the whole phonics thing after seeing how quickly and easily my nephews are reading in kindergarten in the ps. Phonics almost seems too slow and laborious, and (shock!) maybe not all that necessary?! I'm getting a little frustrated teaching my child that a cve syllable makes a long vowel sound only to come across words like "gone, love, and come"! I've also been teaching him that 2 vowels together means the first one is long and the second is silent, and then we run into words like bread and field. He looks at me like I don't know what I'm talking about! There are so many exceptions to the rules we teach! I know, I know.... there is value in knowing the phonics rules, but isn't there some value in memorizing a lot of words as well?

 

I have to run out in a few minutes, but I did want to say that the portions I bolded are precisely why I think WRTR is an amazing phonics program. It teaches all the sounds of a particular phonogram at one time without presenting gimmicky "rules" that only hold true part of the time. When one learns phonics the WRTR way, it is easy to see that there are very very few true sight words in English. It may be slower than having kids memorize lists of sight words, but teaching phonics explicitly and systematically gives kids tools they can use their whole lives.

 

BTW, this is just my opinion. It is one I hold very strongly, but I do recognize that other people have their own opinions. I respect that. :001_smile:

[Karen in CO]

Again, what is this "Dolch class"? and who is arguing for the use of whole language only?

 

 

Back to the original question:

I guess I'm wondering what would be so bad about memorizing a list of 100 words? Wouldn't it help us a get a head start in this whole learning to read process?

 

and again from the OP

I guess I'm questioning the whole phonics thing after seeing how quickly and easily my nephews are reading in kindergarten in the ps. Phonics almost seems too slow and laborious, and (shock!) maybe not all that necessary?!

 

The responses defending an Only Phonics approach were answering the OP's question.

[FO4UR]

... and who is arguing for the use of whole language only?

 

The OP was pondering this question.

 

In this town, I've seen folks getting their 5yo's "ready for kindergarten" by having them memorize a long list of sight words. Some of these kids are memorizing the sight words before even knowing letter/sound correspondence. The way this works out irl doesn't work well for a large portion of the population.

 

I have a cousin who got the brunt of the whole langauge fight (luck of the draw with teachers in ps:glare:), and she hit the 4th grade slump and stayed there. She cannot read well enough to make it through CC.

 

I know from talking with a friend who teaches 1st grade that getting help for these kids who "fall through the cracks" of a whole language is difficult at best. I've shared with her my struggles with ds7, and over and over again she encourages me to keep him home and keep on with phonics b/c she knows what happens in the classroom with dc like him.

 

If what you are doing works for you, GREAT! But, the cost to the kids who are harmed through sight words is steep. Is that dramatic? maybe. I think it's better to discuss the benefits/problems openly, than to pat the OP on the back and say "whatever works for you."

[johnandtinagilbert]

I am actually going through this entire Sight words versus phonics right now and talked to the mother of my extra/bonus student about it yesterday :)

 

My son was taught phonics, via The Phonics Road, an OG teaching method. He is a mathy kid who really doesn't have a love of language.

 

My bonus student, whole language, sight words and only a few basic spelling rules in public school K and healthy start K4. He is surely a language kid who must put forth serious effort to understand math. It was a challenge to teach him K math, although he was in 1st grade. We're "caught up" now, but it took a TON of work.

 

My son took longer, much longer in fact to be able to read fluently and independently; while my bonus student was reading easy readers in K; however, now that they're older (8 and nearly 8) and the words are getting more difficult, the lack of phonics instruction absolutely shows in both reading and spelling. REALLY shows.

 

My son will break down words into sylllables naturally, will apply phonics rules to both reading and spelling b/c that is the Foundation of his education. He can spell sovereign (pretty good for a 3rd grader -- he understands phonetic spelling rules), which is a phonetic rule.

 

My bonus student guesses at any unfamiliar word and has a much harder time applying spelling rules (all of them) b/c he doesn't understand the correlation of phonics/spelling/reading as Language Arts. He understands spelling to be memorization and lists of rhyming words. When he has to apply base words, suffix/prefixes or decode a large word in reading, I have to coax him, remind him every.single.time. Our initial spelling lists, he had 100% on each test.

 

Now that we're into words like sovereign, he's failed the last two. He doesn't have the words memorized; therefore we are really working on phonics (an extra "class" for him now) to pick up the pieces he missed while learning sight and whole language. After working for a year to teach him phonics, which was tough to re-visit b/c his sight word vocabulary is excellent, he's just now showing evidence that points to a poor understanding of phonics. He was fooling me for a while b/c of the expansive sight word vocab he has.

 

*Personally* I was taught whole language and did fine until middle school when words got tough. I struggled with spelling for a long time. My husband used to slaughter me at Scrabble. Now, after teaching OG methods, he Never wins. :D I'm a spelling monster!

 

Yes, some people will be fine with whole language, but understanding phonics will make for a better spelling and will give students the skills to decode harder words. Memorizing a few words may not be too bad, but if the child decides memorization and guessing is easier and doesn't practice phonics, it will definitely show up later...just ask my 9th grader, who needed phonics remediation in 7th and 8th grade or my 7th grader who got that remediation in 5th grade b/c their mom didn't teach them phonics.

 

OP, I know it's hard to see public school kids appearing to be ahead, but honestly, give it a few years and you will very likely see all this memorization gives the appearance of an understanding that is really not there. Slow and steady wins the race.

Edited August 27, 2010 by johnandtinagilbert

[Lovedtodeath]

This is all a bit dramatic IMO.

I disagree. When a very bright student loses a good 2 years because they have to learn phonics all over again I think it calls for dramatics.

[Lovedtodeath]

My son took longer, much longer in fact to be able to read fluently and independently; while my bonus student was reading easy readers in K; however, now that they're older (8 and nearly 8) and the words are getting more difficult, the lack of phonics instruction absolutely shows in both reading and spelling. REALLY shows.

 

OP, I know it's hard to see public school kids appearing to be ahead, but honestly, give it a few years and you will very likely see all this memorization gives the appearance of an understanding that is really not there. Slow and steady wins the race.

Thank you.

[MerryAtHope]

And this is why I hate traditional American Phonics. However, I taught my kids to read using a 100% phonetic method with no sight words or memorization and not a single rule, and therefore no exceptions! No silent letters, no walking and talking. That's the Phonographix method used by Reading Reflex and ABeCeDarian - I think it's related to the Synthetic Phonics used to teach reading in Britain.

 

The "rules" taught in traditional phonics are not rules - they are "tricks" thought up by someone or a group of someones sometime in the past to help kids to decode the weird English spelling patterns. However, they are not necessarily the most efficient or accurate "rules", and there are other (and in my opinion better) methods to teach kids to decode English.

 

:confused: Can anyone else comment on this?

 

Reading Reflex is based on the Orton Gillingham phonograms and is very similar to AAS. I used it to teach my kids to read. There are no supposed "rules" like the one the OP mentioned--"when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking," which really isn't a rule--it only holds true about 40% of the time.

 

However, I don't think you could say that RR has no rules; rather it presents the rules that hold true almost all the time (usually 97% of the time or more). You still have to learn what letters and letter combinations stand for which sounds, and what things affect those sounds.

 

From a reading standpoint there are less rules--for example, you don't need to know that we usually use dge after a short vowel in order to read "judge." That rule is more useful for spelling purposes than for reading.

 

HTH some! Merry :-)

[ElizabethB]

I guess what Im confused about is the assumption you and others seem to be making that teaching a few dolch words is synonymous with a commitment to the "whole language" approach.

 

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and you can teach explicit phonics and still note that your students may benefit from having instant recall on a few high frequency words.

 

Here is a case of a homeschool student who lost her ability to read phonetically after learning the Dolch Words:

 

The skill of sounding out simple words, that she had been able to do shortly after she turned three, had been completely lost. If she didn't know a word by sight, she was stuck. [snip] ; even if a word was in her spoken vocabulary, she couldn't recognize it on the page if she hadn't seen it before in print, even if it was totally phonetically regular, with all short-vowel sounds. And when she came to these words she didn't recognize, she would try to guess, coming up either with nonsense words or with words that were similar-looking (same starting and ending letter, totally different middle), or with a synonym that bore no visual resemblance to the correct word on the page.

 

I used to think that a few sight words were OK...then I started handing out grade level tests to students in schools with good phonics programs + the Dolch Word lists. Their failure rates averaged around 30%. The failure rates depend on how many sight words are used and how much they emphasize them (CA schools with sight word speed drill have failure rates approaching 60%, but they also seem to have more whole language practices.)

 

The more whole language things that are being done, the higher the failure rates I've seen.

 

For a homeschool student that is being closely monitored, just the Dolch Words will probably not have as high of a failure rate, but I have seen several cases of problems from homeschool students taught a good phonics program and given the Dolch Sight word lists.

 

Since it only takes a few extra hours to teach the extra rules/patterns you need to teach them phonetically, why risk it?

[MerryAtHope]

I guess I'm wondering what would be so bad about memorizing a list of 100 words? Wouldn't it help us a get a head start in this whole learning to read process? It actually sounds a lot like the grammar stage in classical education (memorizing information that we might not understand now that will make learning easier in the future? pegs to hang information on?). So, maybe they wouldn't understand why the word sign is pronounced like that, but they might recognize the pattern when they see it in other words like "align" and be able to read it.

 

I guess I'm questioning the whole phonics thing after seeing how quickly and easily my nephews are reading in kindergarten in the ps. Phonics almost seems too slow and laborious, and (shock!) maybe not all that necessary?! I'm getting a little frustrated teaching my child that a cve syllable makes a long vowel sound only to come across words like "gone, love, and come"! I've also been teaching him that 2 vowels together means the first one is long and the second is silent, and then we run into words like bread and field. He looks at me like I don't know what I'm talking about! There are so many exceptions to the rules we teach! I know, I know.... there is value in knowing the phonics rules, but isn't there some value in memorizing a lot of words as well?

 

There are some words we need to memorize, but many "sight words" are really not sight words at all--they follow common patterns that kids can learn.

 

The issue we had with sight words was that too many in the beginning teach kids that there are not reliable patterns, and to just guess at words. That's a difficult strategy to UN-teach a child. Better to start with some solid phonics and then add in TRUE sight words a little at a time.

 

I never really go for comparisons with ps kids because we don't know how all of the kids in the class are doing, nor how they will do several years down the line. Kids who learn to memorize lots of words as their main reading strategy often hit a wall around 3rd or 4th grade--they can't memorize thousands and thousands of words. And if they have depended on that strategy, they get confused, frustrated, and angry that it doesn't work for them, that they have to relearn phonics at this point, it doesn't make sense to them at first--it can be a very difficult process to take a child through.

 

The kids who do well with a sight-word method probably recognize and internalize the patterns, and apply them as they go on in reading--that's why that strategy tends to work with only about 30-40% of students (according to the info in the front of Reading Reflex).

 

The "rule" about two vowels together & the first one saying it's name is only true about 40% of the time. It isn't even worth teaching a child, as you and your son are discovering. Vowels work together to stand for sounds, yes, but they don't always stand for long-vowel sounds. EA can stand for long E or short E or long A. Kids need to be let in on the full truth of how our language works for them to learn to trust it. There really ARE solid rules they can learn that hold true almost all the time with few exceptions--but "two vowels walking" is not one of them, and unfortunately it's in a lot of supposed "phonics" curriculum.

 

Phonics actually fits in great with a classical education for just the reason you mentioned--it's memorizing information now that they will use both now and later. And it's much easier to memorize 72 basic phonograms and the 150 or so sounds they can stand for plus some true sight words, than thousands of words.

 

HTH! Merry :-)

[Lovedtodeath]

Reading Reflex is based on the Orton Gillingham phonograms and is very similar to AAS. I used it to teach my kids to read. There are no supposed "rules" like the one the OP mentioned--"when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking," which really isn't a rule--it only holds true about 40% of the time.

 

However, I don't think you could say that RR has no rules; rather it presents the rules that hold true almost all the time (usually 97% of the time or more). You still have to learn what letters and letter combinations stand for which sounds, and what things affect those sounds.

 

From a reading standpoint there are less rules--for example, you don't need to know that we usually use dge after a short vowel in order to read "judge." That rule is more useful for spelling purposes than for reading.

 

HTH some! Merry :-)

Oh, what a relief! Everything I use or plan to use is OG based. :D Thank you for clarifying that for me.

[Lovedtodeath]

Merry, is there any news on AAR? More samples? Cost? What it will have besides the reader? Phonemic awareness activities like in Before the Code? I forgot all about it because it isn't available yet.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[MerryAtHope]

Here is a case of a homeschool student who lost her ability to read phonetically after learning the Dolch Words:

 

 

 

I used to think that a few sight words were OK...then I started handing out grade level tests to students in schools with good phonics programs + the Dolch Word lists. Their failure rates averaged around 30%. The failure rates depend on how many sight words are used and how much they emphasize them (CA schools with sight word speed drill have failure rates approaching 60%, but they also seem to have more whole language practices.)

 

The more whole language things that are being done, the higher the failure rates I've seen.

 

For a homeschool student that is being closely monitored, just the Dolch Words will probably not have as high of a failure rate, but I have seen several cases of problems from homeschool students taught a good phonics program and given the Dolch Sight word lists.

 

Since it only takes a few extra hours to teach the extra rules/patterns you need to teach them phonetically, why risk it?

 

EXACTLY! It took me 6 months to get my 1st grader to even start trying phonetic strategies again after trying sight readers for only 1 month. And it took years to totally undo the guessing strategies developed in that month.

 

AND, it affected spelling later on as well--one method that was supposed to focus on patterns appeared to my son as arbitrary--and he lost, in 4th grade, the ability to spell phonetically! We had to start all over with that again. Thankfully this time it did not take as long to undo, thanks to previous work with Orton Gillingham strategies.

 

The thing about the Dolch Sight words--many of them are not even sight words.

 

Merry :-)

[siloam]

This is all a bit dramatic IMO.

 

Only if you have a child who isn't dyslexic or if you were dyslexic yourself. If you had experiences like that then you would understand.

 

By the time they figure out the child is dyslexic the damage is done, and it takes a lot of work to repair. It benefits all in the long run to do the hard work at first. It makes things easier in the long run.

 

Taking short cuts usually just mean more work later. You don't eliminate the work, just delay it, or leave the child with bad habits that result in mild reading problems for years to come (the latter is probably what most commonly happens in PS).

 

What is worse is the kids who are most likely to have dyslexia or other reading problems are the ones most likely to be taught the most sight words because they will be the ones struggling most with phonics. It isn't that phonics doesn't work, they just have processing problems that make it take longer.

 

Heather

Edited August 27, 2010 by siloam

[siloam]

And this is why I hate traditional American Phonics. However, I taught my kids to read using a 100% phonetic method with no sight words or memorization and not a single rule, and therefore no exceptions! No silent letters, no walking and talking. That's the Phonographix method used by Reading Reflex and ABeCeDarian - I think it's related to the Synthetic Phonics used to teach reading in Britain.

 

The "rules" taught in traditional phonics are not rules - they are "tricks" thought up by someone or a group of someones sometime in the past to help kids to decode the weird English spelling patterns. However, they are not necessarily the most efficient or accurate "rules", and there are other (and in my opinion better) methods to teach kids to decode English.

I do think RR and ABeCeDArin are strong programs, but if you have a dyslexic who is not abstract then it doesn't work. RR did not work for my concrete dyslexic.

 

People usually learn by concrete or abstract means. Those who are abstract can take information in any order and find the pattern, putting the pieces together. Those who are concrete need it to be in order with direct instruction of rules because they will not see the patterns intuitively. They have to be taught rules, and yes, the exceptions as well.

 

But rules like two vowels go walking are often wrong that it should never be called a rule. O/G and Spalding programs don't use rules that are that inaccurate. The rules they use are much more refined and work.

 

Heather

[siloam]

I have to run out in a few minutes, but I did want to say that the portions I bolded are precisely why I think WRTR is an amazing phonics program. It teaches all the sounds of a particular phonogram at one time without presenting gimmicky "rules" that only hold true part of the time. When one learns phonics the WRTR way, it is easy to see that there are very very few true sight words in English. It may be slower than having kids memorize lists of sight words, but teaching phonics explicitly and systematically gives kids tools they can use their whole lives.

 

BTW, this is just my opinion. It is one I hold very strongly, but I do recognize that other people have their own opinions. I respect that. :001_smile:

I agree, though I do have one exception. Some dyslexic and LD students are overwhelmed by the volume. They need the incremental approach that full o/g (as apposed to WRTR being o/g based) program use. O/G program do eventually get where Spalding goes, it just takes longer to get there because it directly teaches each sound one at a time to mastery.

 

I had two dyselxic students who had previous incremental phonics instruction who did great with SWR (WRTR offshoot) and I had one who despite having some incremental instruction and reading at a 2nd grade level fluently, was in tears daily becuase more than one rule or new sound at a time left her feeling lost. It probably goes back to the concrete vs. abstract that I was talking about earlier. Abstract thinkers can take in information in any order and mentally put it in its place. Concrete thinkers have a hard time doing this. They need to see the big picture then learn things one step at a time in order to mastery.

 

For non dyslexic students, even concrete thinkers they are often able to see enough of the pieces and how they fit to do Spalding, eventually. They would probably be overwhelmed at first, but step by step they would come out of the fog. It gets non-LD students reading faster than straight o/g can and without using sight words.

 

Heather

[Marie in Oh]

We have always done full phonics till they read cvc and silent e words. Then I use pathway readers that introduce words like "come" and "here" and such. It works great. If they come to and unfamiliar word that they try to guess at, I just say "use your phonics." It works. Now, I must say, they are all strong readers with no learning issues. I can imagine my method would not work in those circumstances. However, one can not say a combination method is ineffective. My current 5 yo is my fifth child that I have successfully taught to read, and my 3.5 yo is hot on her heals. My method wouldn't work in all families, but no one could argue it doesn't work here. So, to the OP, try it and see, it might work.

[kitten18]

Merry, is there any news on AAR? More samples? Cost? What it will have besides the reader? Phonemic awareness activities like in Before the Code? I forgot all about it because it isn't available yet.

:bigear:

[robsiew]

I guess I'm wondering what would be so bad about memorizing a list of 100 words? Wouldn't it help us a get a head start in this whole learning to read process? It actually sounds a lot like the grammar stage in classical education (memorizing information that we might not understand now that will make learning easier in the future? pegs to hang information on?). So, maybe they wouldn't understand why the word sign is pronounced like that, but they might recognize the pattern when they see it in other words like "align" and be able to read it.

 

I guess I'm questioning the whole phonics thing after seeing how quickly and easily my nephews are reading in kindergarten in the ps. Phonics almost seems too slow and laborious, and (shock!) maybe not all that necessary?! I'm getting a little frustrated teaching my child that a cve syllable makes a long vowel sound only to come across words like "gone, love, and come"! I've also been teaching him that 2 vowels together means the first one is long and the second is silent, and then we run into words like bread and field. He looks at me like I don't know what I'm talking about! There are so many exceptions to the rules we teach! I know, I know.... there is value in knowing the phonics rules, but isn't there some value in memorizing a lot of words as well?

 

I haven't read all the responses, so forgive me if I repeat...

 

I've taught children to read both ways. I began teaching "whole language" in PS right out of college. I had no text to teach reading from. Nothing. I've taught my own children to read using phonics.

 

I think memorizing words is fine for children that have good visual memory in the beginning. I think in the beginning children seem to do just fine memorizing words. But, I think the problems come later on as reading gets more difficult. What happens when they get older and have no word attack skills to figure out longer more complicated words? You can memorize some, even a lot of words, but you will never be able to memorize ALL words. I kind of look at phonics like teaching a man to fish instead of providing him with the fish.

 

On the other hand, children who are taught word attack skills (phonics) have a toolbox from which to pull from when coming across words they don't know. They could pull apart a multi-syllable word and come pretty close to reading it if they know some simple rules. No, the rules don't work all the time... there is some memorization necessary. However, there are a lot of words the rules do work for. If you teach phonics you are also teaching prefixes and suffixes... you can determine a meaning for a longer word pretty easily if you know your prefixes and suffixes. I do believe spelling comes a bit easier to children who have learned the phonics rules as well. They go hand in hand (phonics rules are spelling rules too!).

 

So, while yes... memorization can take you awhile (and is necessary for a certain amount of words in the English language). I think for the long haul phonics is a better bet. Yes, it's long and tedious, but most things that have lasting value take longer to learn. The lessons we remember most are usually the lessons that were either the hardest for us to learn or took the most time/effort.

 

I also find that if I take "exceptions" in stride my kids tend to also. I have told them from the beginning that the English language has lots of exceptions. We make a game out of it. Instead of being a frustrating thing, it's almost like finding a "renegade". "Hey! That one doesn't follow the rules!!" The interesting thing is if you know where some of these words come from you find that often times they follow the rules of the original language they came from....

[Shay]

Heather (Siloam) says:

"What is worse is the kids who are most likely to have dyslexia or other reading problems are the ones most likely to be taught the most sight words because they will be the ones struggling most with phonics. It isn't that phonics doesn't work, they just have processing problems that make it take longer."

Yes, yes, yes, Heather has it right. I see that all the time with my tutees. The teachers are frustrated and this is their solution---more drilling on sight words. I've never seen it make a difference. My lowest in ability tutee was subjected to this over and over to the extent she was so very confused. I think it is precious time lost.

[sbgrace]

If your child doesn't have major issues they can learn to read pretty quickly and entirely phonetically with a SWR or WRTR/Spaulding or similar phonogram based approach. If a child is going to be struggler you'll learn slower (with O-G, I See Sam at a slower pace, etc.) but these are the very kids most at risk with sight words anyway. So you're spending less time and frustration trying to undo damage in the long run even though the actual progression to reading is slower.

 

Sure some kids will do ok no matter the method. However, in my opinion it's not worth the risk that you might have a child who will fail miserably with a method including sight words.

[calandalsmom]

Heather (Siloam) says:

"What is worse is the kids who are most likely to have dyslexia or other reading problems are the ones most likely to be taught the most sight words because they will be the ones struggling most with phonics. It isn't that phonics doesn't work, they just have processing problems that make it take longer."

 

Yes, yes, yes, Heather has it right. I see that all the time with my tutees. The teachers are frustrated and this is their solution---more drilling on sight words. I've never seen it make a difference. My lowest in ability tutee was subjected to this over and over to the extent she was so very confused. I think it is precious time lost.

 

 

That's not what we got with Title 1 reading intervention. My dyslexic child was in school for gr 1 and title 1 provided "apple reading" which was phonics remediation with 1 teacher/ reading coach to 2 students.

 

There are a lot of generalizations being tossed around here and frankly I don't think they hold true.

 

Learning 100 sight words over a couple yrs doesn't preclude you from using (an O-G based or other high quality explicit) phonics program.

[Lovedtodeath]

If your child doesn't have major issues they can learn to read pretty quickly and entirely phonetically with a SWR or WRTR/Spaulding or similar phonogram based approach. If a child is going to be struggler you'll learn slower (with O-G, I See Sam at a slower pace, etc.) but these are the very kids most at risk with sight words anyway. So you're spending less time and frustration trying to undo damage in the long run even though the actual progression to reading is slower.

 

Sure some kids will do ok no matter the method. However, in my opinion it's not worth the risk that you might have a child who will fail miserably with a method including sight words.

:hurray:A brilliant sum-up!

[FO4UR]

I agree, though I do have one exception. Some dyslexic and LD students are overwhelmed by the volume. They need the incremental approach that full o/g (as apposed to WRTR being o/g based) program use. O/G program do eventually get where Spalding goes, it just takes longer to get there because it directly teaches each sound one at a time to mastery.

 

I had two dyselxic students who had previous incremental phonics instruction who did great with SWR (WRTR offshoot) and I had one who despite having some incremental instruction and reading at a 2nd grade level fluently, was in tears daily becuase more than one rule or new sound at a time left her feeling lost. It probably goes back to the concrete vs. abstract that I was talking about earlier. Abstract thinkers can take in information in any order and mentally put it in its place. Concrete thinkers have a hard time doing this. They need to see the big picture then learn things one step at a time in order to mastery.

 

For non dyslexic students, even concrete thinkers they are often able to see enough of the pieces and how they fit to do Spalding, eventually. They would probably be overwhelmed at first, but step by step they would come out of the fog. It gets non-LD students reading faster than straight o/g can and without using sight words.

 

Heather

:iagree: I kept hitting the wall with SWR with ds7. I went to Recipe for Reading (a pure O-G) program, and went all the way up through the syllabication chapter with him, and then switched back to SWR. We just finished section D and it's been a breeze for him so far, and he's beginning to really be able to track/read a sentence fluidly. (Yeah for him!!!) And, he's finding all the rule pages/markings kinda fun...wanting to mark EVERYTHING!!!:lol: Anyway, I say all that b/c what you said rings true for us too. WRTR/SWR are solid, but too much too fast for some kids.

 

With my littlers, I am just doing Recipe for Reading in K before diving into SWR in 1st. I hope that will save any confusion down the road.

 

 

 

Learning 100 sight words over a couple yrs doesn't preclude you from using (an O-G based or other high quality explicit) phonics program.

 

Those same 100 words can be learned through phonics, without the risk to those students with dyslexic tendencies.(with *very* few exceptions) Why not teach them phonics? ime - Many kids are learning sight words before ever learning to read cvc words. I don't *get* that!!!

 

My POV: If we are talking about us HSers each teaching our own, teach in whatever way works best for your dc. Educate yourself on the pros/cons of your methods, and tweak as necessary. If we are talking about classrooms full of kids, I think it is *malpractice* to teach in a manner that is known to cause serious problems for such a large percentage of students! Yes, that's dramatic.:tongue_smilie: But, when it's *MY* child who lies in that percentage, well....I'm bound to get that way whether we are talking about reading, vaccines, or carseats...:auto:ymmv