Phonics then what about sight words?

[Susie in MS]

Does the Reading Lesson contain sight words? If not what do we do to teach them? R&S has sight words built into (via flash cards) their lessons, but they have been condemned for this despite the fact that they turn out tons of voracious readers. So if you don't teach sight reading along with phonics how do you do it and when? Or does RL cover this?

Thanks for any help!

[Stacia]

I don't know what Reading Lesson is, but Jan Brett's site has some lovely charts & flashcards that you can print that cover sight words. They're the Dolch Word Lists & Dolch Word Flash Cards:

http://www.janbrett.com/classroom_helpalongs.htm

[Guest]

I used Spell to Write and Read to teach my son to read. I was amazed to learn how few "sight" words there really are in our language. Many sight words do fit phonetic rules, some do not seem to because we Americans mispronounce them. SWR does introduce common words which are exceptions to the rules.

[Alenee]

I tutored a girl who learned by sight, rather than phonics and I saw exactly what Wanda Sansari and others say about sight reading. It can induce artificial dyslexia. The poor girl was reading at a Kindergarten level in the 3rd grade and although she's a bright, intelligent child, she's now stuck with and IEP in school that will follow her for the rest of her school years. She's been singled out and has undergone some serious emotional issues in the last two years because of this.

 

When you teach a child to read using phonics, you give them the tools to decode. When you teach by sight and they see a new word, how will they know how to decode the new word? That's when you hope there's a picture right? NO!!!! Don't go there! pm me if you want more on that topic.

 

Now, there are some words that can be memorized like of, one, two, and others but imo, only those words should be taught by sight if teaching by sight at all. (In Wanda Sansari's SWR, she teaches these common "sight words" in the first few lessons using phonics.) As the child grows in their reading skills, they will know many words by sight but having a good foundation in phonics, imo, is key. It will take just as much time to teach a child to memorize sight words as it will to teach phonics, so why not just spend the time doing phonics so you don't end up with problems in reading later? And also, when you teach phonics, you've helped the child to not only master reading but spelling as well.

 

Just my 2 cents...

[abreakfromlife]

I get the whole thinking on why sight words are bad.......but right now we're doing phonics and sight words. We're going thru 100 EL, and there are a lot of sight words, I think. was, give, what, come, have, are.....those are constantly throwing my dd, especially when you have 'was' and 'has' at the same time. Why on earth do those not sound the same??? teaching reading is driving me nuts. I'm going to get some ETC workbooks and see if that helps solidify stuff for her. We also use the sight word flashcards for words that can be sounded out, but that she just has trouble reading, like this, that, when, you, etc...

[Susie in MS]

Carli, I am not wanting to teach by sight INSTEAD of phonics. I see the importance of phonics. I just don't see why there are so many folks that condemn teaching sight words ALONG with phonics. I mean they are bound to come up in reading. So if you avoid sight words like the plague while teaching phonics then when are they to be introduced and how? How do you know that a child has enough phonics to be educated enough to learn sight words? This really confuses me.

 

Does anyone know how many sight words there really are? The reason I ask is that there are a lot of flash cards with the R&S reading/phonics set. I am wondering if some of those cards have repeats. For example there are phrase cards. Maybe some of those phrases contain some of the same words? Something like: God is Good -and- God is Great. God and is would be the words repeated. The number of flash cards threw me, but I am wondering if it is not as hard as it looks. Any thoughs there?

[Marie in Oh]

(we use Saxon) and they are doing vowel -consonent-e words at the end of the year, we start them on the First Steps of Pathway Readers. They use high frequency, non-phonetic, sight words in their stories. I just sit doewn and have them read those with me and teach the sight words as we come to them. If they get a sight word after seeing it 2-5 times, I know they are ready. If not, I back off and wait a few months and try again.

[Alenee]

I get the whole thinking on why sight words are bad.......but right now we're doing phonics and sight words. We're going thru 100 EL, and there are a lot of sight words, I think. was, give, what, come, have, are.....those are constantly throwing my dd, especially when you have 'was' and 'has' at the same time. Why on earth do those not sound the same??? teaching reading is driving me nuts. I'm going to get some ETC workbooks and see if that helps solidify stuff for her. We also use the sight word flashcards for words that can be sounded out, but that she just has trouble reading, like this, that, when, you, etc...

 

To answer about words like was, give, what... was is not sounded out like /w/ /u/ /z/, it's actually, in the origin of the word /w/ /ah/ /z/. The letter A makes three sounds /a/ as in apple, /A/ as in state, and /ah/ as in was.

 

In the word /give/, there's an /e/ at the end because English words do not end in i, u, v, or j.

 

/what/ is another example of the A saying /ah/, and /wh/ sounds like /hwa/. To teach this, we tell the child to hold their hand in front of their mouth and sort of blow the sound.

 

In SWR, there's a part that talks about the fact that only about 1% of the time, English words do not follow the rules. The problem with this is that most of us brought up in the PS system were not taught how to differentiate between English words and words from other countries. So then we believe the lie that English doesn't make sense.

[KarenNC]

We did a combination of phonics and sight words through Explode the Code, Bob books and other leveled readers, Dolch sight word flash cards and....horror of horrors....Dick and Jane books! :) My daughter needed a combination of sight and phonics. I am fully in agreement that learning the Dolch sight words are keys to fluency and making reading more enjoyable than laborious in the early stages. The Dick and Jane books actually were what turned the corner and gave her the confidence to be willing to read aloud to anyone other than me (including her father)---they were probably the first books she actually *enjoyed* reading on her own. As she is 7.5 yo and recently tested on the Woodcock Johnson as decoding at a 7.1 grade level, with spelling at 12.1 grade level, I don't think it harmed her overmuch.;)

 

We really liked the Jan Brett site. I think I also picked up a pack of the "sight words" and "more sight words" cards at the learning supply store or Walmart, though I think Barnes and Noble has them as well (we did this when she was 4, so I can't remember exactly). We played a game with them---if she could read it, she kept the card, if not, I did. http://www.dolchsightwords.org/ says that there are 220 words on the Dolch list, which doesn't include nouns.

 

Very few things in this world are *only* one way or the other for every person (or, indeed, for the vast majority of people). Teaching reading is not one of them in my opinion. For example, we tried both Phonics Pathways and 100 EZ lessons (based on the WTM recommendation) and they both were miserable failures for us though they worked for other friends.

[TracyR]

We have The Reading Lessons and yes they incorporate sight words . Reading Lessons uses a phonice and whole words approach . Meaning they blend both philiosophies into the program. Sight words are inevitable . There are lots of words that donot follow the 'rules' . So they have to be taught .

There are many thoughts as to just teaching one or the other .

[Alenee]

Carli, I am not wanting to teach by sight INSTEAD of phonics. I see the importance of phonics. I just don't see why there are so many folks that condemn teaching sight words ALONG with phonics. I mean they are bound to come up in reading. So if you avoid sight words like the plague while teaching phonics then when are they to be introduced and how? How do you know that a child has enough phonics to be educated enough to learn sight words? This really confuses me.

 

Sorry! Didn't mean to sound like I was brow-beating you! That's the last thing I would want.

 

I think the reason people condemn teaching sight words with phonics is because of what I said in my last post. Only 1% of the time, English doesn't follow rules. When you're reading with phonics, the words come up so often, they learn it. It's not a matter of being educated enough. It's frequency of use.

 

I'll stop now. I don't want to give SWR a bad name as it has been given in the past for being so adamant about sight reading. You can read more about this in SWR if you're interested in the larger picture of why. There is a system in introduction of these words.

[Susie in MS]

Now see this is what I am wondering about. When I grew up I was taught with mostly D&J and sight words, very little phonics. I don't think I fit the characters that Why Johnny Can't Read portray. If this book was perfectly right seems that most folks in my generation would be illiterate. From what I can tell it does make some valid points. I don't think any child needs to be taught with sight reading only for sure. So, KarenNC, in your opinion teaching Dolch sight words along side of phonics (such as what R&S does) is a good thing for some kiddos?

 

We did a combination of phonics and sight words through Explode the Code, Bob books and other leveled readers, Dolch sight word flash cards and....horror of horrors....Dick and Jane books! :) My daughter needed a combination of sight and phonics. I am fully in agreement that learning the Dolch sight words are keys to fluency and making reading more enjoyable than laborious in the early stages. The Dick and Jane books actually were what turned the corner and gave her the confidence to be willing to read aloud to anyone other than me (including her father)---they were probably the first books she actually *enjoyed* reading on her own. As she is 7.5 yo and recently tested on the Woodcock Johnson as decoding at a 7.1 grade level, with spelling at 12.1 grade level, I don't think it harmed her overmuch.;)

 

We really liked the Jan Brett site. I think I also picked up a pack of the "sight words" and "more sight words" cards at the learning supply store or Walmart, though I think Barnes and Noble has them as well (we did this when she was 4, so I can't remember exactly). We played a game with them---if she could read it, she kept the card, if not, I did. http://www.dolchsightwords.org/ says that there are 220 words on the Dolch list, which doesn't include nouns.

 

Very few things in this world are *only* one way or the other for every person (or, indeed, for the vast majority of people). Teaching reading is not one of them in my opinion. For example, we tried both Phonics Pathways and 100 EZ lessons (based on the WTM recommendation) and they both were miserable failures for us though they worked for other friends.

[KarenNC]

In SWR, there's a part that talks about the fact that only about 1% of the time, English words do not follow the rules. The problem with this is that most of us brought up in the PS system were not taught how to differentiate between English words and words from other countries. So then we believe the lie that English doesn't make sense.

 

My reasoning for using sight words with a beginning reader has very little to do with believing that "English doesn't make sense". Rather I wanted to give my child the tools she needed to be able to enjoy reading as quickly as possible and to give options for sentences that were a little more interesting than her level of initial decoding allowed. Yes, many of those high frequency words included in the Dolch list do indeed follow rules, but many of them do not follow the rules introduced at the early stages. When a child is learning c-v-c words, allowing sentences that include things like "said", "blue", "you", "are", "come", "play", etc make putting together practice sentences that sound relevant and interesting to the child a lot easier.

 

It is not that "English doesn't make sense" but that modern English has a much more complex set of variations of spelling than many other languages precisely because it is a mixture of words from so many languages that in many cases retained the spelling or usage characteristics of their language of origin. Which words do we consider "English"? Only those that come from Anglo-Saxon?

 

If you (or others) find that only using phonics and never including any sight words works for your child, great. But I don't see a reason to tell a person that because she wants to teach her child how to read the word "are" when the child's learning c-v-c words that she will make her child dyslexic.

[KarenNC]

So, KarenNC, in your opinion teaching Dolch sight words along side of phonics (such as what R&S does) is a good thing for some kiddos?

 

Yes. It certainly was beneficial for my child and those of a number of others I know. I think this is particularly true for children who have been raised in a literature-rich environment and are accustomed to more complex language. My daughter quickly dismissed the Bob books as "not real reading" because the sentences were so simple to her ear. She wanted to do "real reading", the kind she heard in the stories we read to her. This doesn't mean we didn't work on decoding, but if I fully believe that if I had only used the words she could decode, she would have come to hate reading as boring and laborious. As it is, I can't keep her supplied with enough books.

[Susie in MS]

Thanks to everyone!!! This thread has been VERY helpful instead of one-sided. I really appreciate hearing all the views!!! This information will help me decide just which way I will go when the time comes. Thank again!!

[Stacia]

Yes. It certainly was beneficial for my child and those of a number of others I know. I think this is particularly true for children who have been raised in a literature-rich environment and are accustomed to more complex language. My daughter quickly dismissed the Bob books as "not real reading" because the sentences were so simple to her ear. She wanted to do "real reading", the kind she heard in the stories we read to her. This doesn't mean we didn't work on decoding, but if I fully believe that if I had only used the words she could decode, she would have come to hate reading as boring and laborious. As it is, I can't keep her supplied with enough books.

 

:iagree: This sounds similar to our house.

 

Phonics is great -- we have used Phonics Pathways successfully twice now & I have 2 very avid readers who are reading way above 'grade' level. They don't have decoding problems, nor do they have comprehension problems. In addition to using Phonics Pathways, I used the Jan Brett 'sight word' list w/ my kids. But, really, by the time I showed them the sight words, they already knew most of them because we were reading together constantly & they had learned to recognize those words already.

 

Don't know that any of that makes much sense, but I do agree w/ Karen that English is a very complex language and not every word will fall into a 'decodable' pattern. Plus, many of the sight words that youngers learn are necessary for reading even the most basic books or stories (esp. important for the kids like Karen describes -- who want 'real' stories vs. just ones w/ only the decodable words they have already learned). Ours is also (somewhat) a bilingual household, so perhaps things like that may play into being a vocabulary-rich environment, multiple languages, etc.....

 

I'm no expert, but I'm just sharing what our experience/my oberservations are.

[Alenee]

 

If you (or others) find that only using phonics and never including any sight words works for your child, great. But I don't see a reason to tell a person that because she wants to teach her child how to read the word "are" when the child's learning c-v-c words that she will make her child dyslexic.

 

I didn't say it *would* make a child dyslexic, I said it *can*. This is such a touchy topic. Like I said above, I'm not trying to brow-beat anyone. I put many, imo's into my post for that reason. It's jmho. Anyone can choose to agree or disagree. You're going to do what you think is best. This is what *I* think is best.

[Ellie]

Does the Reading Lesson contain sight words? If not what do we do to teach them? R&S has sight words built into (via flash cards) their lessons, but they have been condemned for this despite the fact that they turn out tons of voracious readers. So if you don't teach sight reading along with phonics how do you do it and when? Or does RL cover this?

Thanks for any help!

 

I never found it necessary to teach my dc "sight words." All of the "sight words" that R&S (and other similar methods) teach are easily read by children who have been taught true phonics.

 

I don't know about "tons of voracious readers," but there were tons of children in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s and 80s who did NOT learn to read via the sight reading materials (later renamed "whole word") used in most public schools. Why Johnny Still Can't Read was an eye-opener for me.

[Paula in PA]

I never found it necessary to teach my dc "sight words." All of the "sight words" that R&S (and other similar methods) teach are easily read by children who have been taught true phonics.

 

I don't know about "tons of voracious readers," but there were tons of children in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s and 80s who did NOT learn to read via the sight reading materials (later renamed "whole word") used in most public schools. Why Johnny Still Can't Read was an eye-opener for me.

 

This is why I liked OPGTR. It was primarily phonics with a few sight words thrown in. Many of the sight words I've found on various lists were taught as phonetic in OPG. I was taught this way, but my dh was not. I have an easier time with new words as a result. He usually comes to me for help.:)

[...................]

Adventures in Phonics, Phonics Pathways (here and there for review), ETC Primers, plus the first 3 ETC books, and phonetic readers alongside, plus HOP levels 2-4...

 

And you know what, I am finally going to incorporate sight words into our curriculum because my son loves to read, and really reads well, and i notice that he reads mainly by sight, even though he's had *plenty* of intensive phonics!!

 

We'll be using Dolch Word flashcards on a ring, adding 5 at a time working on level 2 and 3. meanwhile we'll be using a phonics workbook, either MCP B, or Pathway learning Through Sounds.

 

I think sight words can be a very good tool for some children. My son just memorizes every word, and though we could drill ir says "ir" a million times, if I have him break the word apart and sound it out he still says, -i-r or Eye-Ar, or Eye-Er.... But if I tell him that third just says third, he will remember that forever. So hey, you know what I am going to meet my kid where he's at.

 

And because I want to lay a good foundation for spelling, and I'm sight reading phobic, we'll continue with intesive phonics.

[KarenNC]

I fully agree that the whole word vs. phonics pendulum swung way too far in one direction in some schools during the childhood of most of us. It was a case of deciding that everyone had to learn the same way. As I said, I don't think it's an "only one way for everyone" situation. That's the beauty of homeschooling and choice.:)

 

I don't see any reason that just because a child learns "yellow" as a sight word early on (it's on the Dolch pre-primer list) it will prevent them from later learning and applying the phonics rule that "ow" can be read as a long-o sound, even in the word "yellow", any more than learning their name as a sight word will prevent them from using and applying phonics rules related to that spelling *shrug*. I haven't seen anyone advocating that the child never be exposed to phonics---quite the opposite.