Jump to content

Menu

Are site words really that bad?


cagirlintexas
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you are doing a phonic program is it bad if they learn some site words early on?

 

Well, it's sight words, not site words. Also, phonics, not phonic.

 

Almost every phonics program I have used (and there must have been ten!) has taught a few sight words as soon as reading of sentences is introduced. "The" becomes important to know, pretty much right away.

 

So, I'd say, no, in the right context, there's nothing wrong with memorizing a few words by sight, if you take the right approach to it and don't allow your children to rely on memory alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found it imperative to also include sight words for my oldest. His kindergarten teacher used him as an example of why phonics ONLY doesn't ALWAYS work for ALL children.

 

I learned to read entirely by sight. I don't recommend that approach, but when my son was failing to learn to read by phonics, I fell back on what I knew to work for me and he was reading in 2 weeks and was finally understanding the phonics being taught at school as well. Sight words flipped a switch on, in his brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that as long as you are using a phonics program along with them and they are introduced at a good time then no, there is nothing wrong with it.

 

My dd is one of those that a phonics only approach just wouldn't work for. My oldest son did well with a combined approach, and my youngest seems to be following in his older brother's footsteps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's sight words, not site words. Also, phonics, not phonic.

 

Email can be tough sometimes. I don't think this came across the way you meant it? It feels...unsupportive to ME, and maybe that is just MY problem, but this is a new member and...I don't know :-0

 

There are so many times I misspell things when I am typing quickly, or my educational background is lacking in an area. I know this comment directed at me would have left me feeling a little raw.

 

Maybe I should be minding my own business :-0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this answer will differ per child. My girls were initially taught to read with a phonetic approach only. We then changed states and went to a sight word approach only. It was highly aggravating for them because they were critiqued for attempting to sound out words.

 

Now that we are homeschooling, we are doing phonics with Phonics Pathways but we are reviewing sight words that are used in ETC gradually. They are doing great with this method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no point in teaching children to memorize words by sight alone. Any good phonics method will give the dc the ability to read words that are common in their vocabulary.

 

Also, teaching children to memorize words by sight can tempt them into guessing at other words, and we don't want dc to "guess." We want them to use their phonics skills to reasonably analyze new words to read them correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are doing a phonic program is it bad if they learn some site words early on?

 

Glad you asked this because it was something I was thinking on recently!

In the past (when I taught public school) we often relied on sight word drills and a word wall and such.

 

After some of my recent readings, I am beginning to question the benefit (if there is any) of such teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Email can be tough sometimes. I don't think this came across the way you meant it? It feels...unsupportive to ME, and maybe that is just MY problem, but this is a new member and...I don't know :-0

 

There are so many times I misspell things when I am typing quickly, or my educational background is lacking in an area. I know this comment directed at me would have left me feeling a little raw.

 

Maybe I should be minding my own business :-0

 

Actually you gave me a good laugh. Didn't have a clue I was miss spelling those things. I rely heavily on spell check. I am the world worst speller. Going to have to watch those words more closely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Email can be tough sometimes. I don't think this came across the way you meant it? It feels...unsupportive to ME

 

I didn't mean it in a snotty or judgmental way. I screw things up all the time, too, bigger errors than spelling, and I am usually grateful when someone lets me know. We're all trying to educate our kids and need to know this stuff, right? I'm sorry if it came off to the OP as unsupportive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a terrible speller, too. I often wonder if I would be a better speller if I had been taught phonics, rather than being taught sight-reading.

 

I think that sight reading can be tempting because it can be done quicker. I live in an area where sight-reading is very common, and it gets strange to be at the park or something wherein all the other parents are teaching their 3 year olds sight words, and I'm patiently waiting for them to develop enough to de-code using phonics (which, for my kids, came around 4 or 5).

 

That being said, we're using a heavily phonics approach. It's working for us. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Email can be tough sometimes. I don't think this came across the way you meant it? It feels...unsupportive to ME, and maybe that is just MY problem, but this is a new member and...I don't know :-0

 

There are so many times I misspell things when I am typing quickly, or my educational background is lacking in an area. I know this comment directed at me would have left me feeling a little raw.

 

Maybe I should be minding my own business :-0

 

 

Nope it hit me the same way. The problem with computer socializing is there isn't anyway to see facial expressions or body language to see how something was meant, and words typed doesn't leave much room for nuance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually you gave me a good laugh. Didn't have a clue I was miss spelling those things. I rely heavily on spell check. I am the world worst speller. Going to have to watch those words more closely.

 

And see, I just assumed you were typing on a iPad or phone and autocorrect was wreaking havoc. :D (That's usually the case in this household!)

 

I do think sight words have their place. I like how SWB says they should be introduced as they are encountered in reading, not in isolation. That makes sense to me. With DD (this past year) I was just presenting and drilling flash cards of sight words in isolation and finding she really was not transferring that knowledge to her reading. And that she was doing a *LOT* of guessing on words that she should've been sounding out.

 

I'm still on the fence, but I do think they (sight words) will be less prevalent in my teaching from now on.

Edited by alisoncooks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only have experience with my one DD, but we are using both phonics and sight words. I'm teaching her the phonics, but when sight words such as are, the, have, said (common words that can't be taught phonetically) come up, I teach them to her.

 

Otherwise, we'd be stuck with See Sam. See Sam Sit. Couldn't even read a sentence as complex as "The dog said hi to the cat." :D

 

I feel that using both sight words and phonics has increased her interest in reading, because we can read real books together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And see, I just assumed you were typing on a iPad or phone and autocorrect was wreaking havoc. :D (That's usually the case in this household!)

 

I do think sight words have their place. I like how SWB says they can be introduced as they are encountered in reading, not in isolation. That makes sense to me. With DD (this past year) I was just presenting and drilling flash cards of sight words in isolation and finding she really was not transferring that knowledge to her reading. And that she was doing a *LOT* of guessing on words that she should've been sounding out.

 

I'm still on the fence, but I do think they (sight words) will be less prevalent in my teaching from now on.

:iagree: this is the method that I have been doing and it seems to work fairly well. If we encounter a sight word that they don't know I just tell them what it is and we move on. This was also the method encouraged to be used by Wisdom Words by The Weaver Curriculum. It works quite well for us. I only hold them accountable for phonetic words that we have covered in lessons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean it in a snotty or judgmental way. I screw things up all the time, too, bigger errors than spelling, and I am usually grateful when someone lets me know. We're all trying to educate our kids and need to know this stuff, right? I'm sorry if it came off to the OP as unsupportive.

 

You were not snotty, Rose. Feel free to call me out if I need correction. I can take it. :001_smile:

 

The world is watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, you should be teaching sight words. Some words cannot be sounded out phonetically, including some very common words such as have, are, some, was, come, etc. A child must master these in order to read fluently.

 

yes, and if you help your child memorize the dolch words, then (s)he will automatically know 60-70% of all text encountered. Why not give your child this tool? We give our kids forks and spoons to eat. Do we worry they will not be able to tell what to use a spoon for or what to use a fork for? No--they are clever and most figure it out just fine. I think people have baggage with the sight-only method and let that taint their view of how sight word teaching can help. Not only that, but even when kids learn to read via phonics, eventually words they once sounded out become sight words to them. That is what we want---automaticity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to use both phonics and some sight words. My oldest was a self-taught early reader who primarily read by sight. I still had her go through a phonics program to help with spelling. My younger kids have all done K12's phonics program, which teaches some sight words alongside phonics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, you should be teaching sight words. Some words cannot be sounded out phonetically, including some very common words such as have, are, some, was, come, etc. A child must master these in order to read fluently.

But those words *are* phonetic. In fact, very few words do not fit any phonics or spelling rules, and even those which have oddities (such as "people") can be decoded enough to recognize them.

 

If sight reading was all that it was cracked up to be, there wouldn't have been millions of children through the fifties and sixties who barely learned to read, and even into the 80s and 90s with the "whole language" debacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But those words *are* phonetic. In fact, very few words do not fit any phonics or spelling rules, and even those which have oddities (such as "people") can be decoded enough to recognize them.

 

If sight reading was all that it was cracked up to be, there wouldn't have been millions of children through the fifties and sixties who barely learned to read, and even into the 80s and 90s with the "whole language" debacle.

 

How are come and was phonetic? English is full of riddles and exceptions. You have to learn and memorize words like that. I am not saying don't teach phonics, but of course teach kids the exceptions. Phonics is only one part of being a strong reader. I really don't understand the aversion to knowing sight words around here. Phonics is not everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are come and was phonetic? English is full of riddles and exceptions. You have to learn and memorize words like that. I am not saying don't teach phonics, but of course teach kids the exceptions. Phonics is only one part of being a strong reader. I really don't understand the aversion to knowing sight words around here. Phonics is not everything.

 

not completely sure on "come", but "was" seems to be using third sound of the letter a, along with letter s saying its second sound of z (especially when used at the end of a word)

 

Here is an interesting list that groups some common sight words into phonics groups

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Reading/Resources/sight%20words%20by%20sounda.pdf

 

interesting.

 

-crystal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to use both phonics and some sight words. My oldest was a self-taught early reader who primarily read by sight. I still had her go through a phonics program to help with spelling. My younger kids have all done K12's phonics program, which teaches some sight words alongside phonics.

 

 

 

this is what I use with my son - I love how they do it. A few common sight words at a time when reading is introduced. Eventually they don't need to learn the sight words because it comes naturally to them as they learn more phonics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope nobody judges me on these forums. I tend to type here and on other social-type sites (Facebook) in a conversational tone, using a lot of funky punctuation (---- )and (.... )and fragmented possibly grammatically incorrect sentences. Because I'm trying to type in the way I would speak or talk to a person. Not in the way I would, say write a formal essay. :lol: because as even SWB-her highness says, if we were to transcribe our conversations they wouldn't fit with most conventions of written grammar.

 

I think it's called meta-posting, or something like that, when someone dissects the actual form of a post, instead of merely commenting on the content. Anyway I think it's rude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean it in a snotty or judgmental way. I screw things up all the time, too, bigger errors than spelling, and I am usually grateful when someone lets me know. We're all trying to educate our kids and need to know this stuff, right? I'm sorry if it came off to the OP as unsupportive.

 

That's what I thought. I knew it was an e-mail glitch. I have to use emoticons a LOT and also a lot of creative punctuation to prevent people from misunderstanding me. My words alone do not match my intent.

 

It looks like cagirlintexas has thicker skin than some newbies. I'm glad all is good with everyone. I just got a little worried, not knowing cagirlintexas yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading this, it's a fascinating read for me. This morning, I came across this: "English words like *come* were once spelled with a U, but . . . The way Frenchmen said the /u/ sound in some stressed syllables sounded more like /o/. While French leaders controlled education, the spelling changed to O, but native Englishmen continued to say /u/." (p. 82)

 

And this: "Our phonograms cover some ghost letters. In Chaucer's day, the K and G were pronounced in *know* and *gnat*... The GH in phonograms IGH, EIGH, AIGH, and some AUGH and OUGH words represents an Old English sound now lost...." (87)

 

She has a list of "Sillent Letters in the root word" which "may be still heard in derivatives": thumb (from thimble), debt (from debit), heir (from inherit), for example.

 

I don't know how dependable her research is, and I'm sure there are various schools of linguistic thought on the evolution of English sounds. I personally love it all: sight reading, phonics programs, whatever. A few "misspelled" words never stopped me from appreciating literature from more than a few decades ago. Nor has it stopped me from appreciating literature from England or Canada or Australia, with their assorted misspelling ways.

 

Pei

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't teach "sight words" per se, but if we come across a TRUE sight word (one that really can't be sounded out, like "two"), I'll just say it, explain that it's a rule breaker, and move on. No big deal. The words on the Dolch K sight word list like "a", "I", "he", "she", "it", "the", etc... Those are easily phonetic. I taught DS2 open and closed syllables via Webster's Syllabary first, THEN we moved into CVC words and such. Now when we come across one of those supposed "sight words", we sound it out no problem - he has the tools to do so.

 

Now I do believe that a lot of repetition is required to have automaticity, but that's not the same as just memorizing that the shape "she" says /she/. If the child can see that it's /sh/-/ee/ (because it's an open syllable), and then you practice seeing it a lot, it will become automatic, but the child will also still have the tool to figure it out if they for some reason forget.

 

If your child starts guessing a lot, you're probably relying too much on sight words, and that will be a problem when you get to multi-syllable words (that's where my self-taught sight reader got temporarily stuck until he got some phonics under his belt).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son was taught via whole language at his pre-K and was only taught sight words. There was no attempt made to master phonemic awareness or to even try to sound out a word. This was extremely difficult for me to overcome because he just wanted me to tell him the words. It took me a few months of struggling to overcome this.

 

When I went to a homeschool convention, I talked to some reading specialists. They all seemed to agree that some sight words are necessary to learn because kids can't read most books unless they know some sight words. Honestly, most of the sight words can be taught phonetically, but you will not get to most of them until much later in phonics instruction. When I show a new sight word, I explain the phonics (if it isn't a word that doesn't fit any phonics rules) briefly and then I move on.

 

I use The Struggling Reader for most of my phonics instruction. It is based on playing games to learn phonics. They also have a sight word games book. At first, I started doing both together, but I realized that my son needed a stronger foundation in phonics before moving into sight words. We spent several months mastering CVC words and learning long vowels, silent e's, etc. Once he was reading fairly well, I started doing the sight words games. We would focus on 10 words at a time and he could usually master 8 or 9 of them in a week through the games. This combination has worked beautifully for us. My son can read most easy books from the library and most Dr. Seuss books.

 

There are a lot of phonics purists in homeschooling. I think everyone needs to do what is best for their family. However, it was really helpful for us to do a combination of the two because my son was so frustrated by not being able to read some of the more common words. It was really holding him back. We use ETC as a review (he can read at about book 4 or 5, but we are working through book 2 right now). That works really well for us to solidify the phonics. I also plan on using AAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter started to learn to read when she was a baby and naturally she learnt whole words since that is what gave meaning to print for her (most self taught early readers also begin with sight words) She knew a good many sight words by the time I started a phonics programme with her and in actual fact it made the phonics easier to teach because I could take apart words she already knew how to read and she would learn the sounds within the words (You know the word train, so now you can read rain, spain, main etc) She did also know the alphabet sounds at a very early age too however so the jump to sounding out wasn't a big one. She still reads a lot by sight, but knows exactly what to do if she comes across a word she doesn't know and can sound out words easily.

 

I do think both approaches together can lead to more enjoyment (sight words), better accuracy (phonics) as well as better fluency (both together). For me the cmbined approach makes far more sense than either alone - you get the advantages of both methods without the disadvantages of either if they are both taught concurrently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are come and was phonetic?

come: /k/ /o/ /m/ /no job e/

 

was: /w/ /a/ /z/. It's the 3rd sound of "a" and the second sound of "s."

 

English is full of riddles and exceptions. You have to learn and memorize words like that.

 

There are very few words you have to actually memorize, and very few exceptions.

 

This is one reason I am such a fan of Spalding. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I thought. I knew it was an e-mail glitch. I have to use emoticons a LOT and also a lot of creative punctuation to prevent people from misunderstanding me. My words alone do not match my intent.

 

It looks like cagirlintexas has thicker skin than some newbies. I'm glad all is good with everyone. I just got a little worried, not knowing cagirlintexas yet.

 

:D yup I got thick skin. Bad spelling runs in the family. Recently realized it might actually be dyslexia. At some point you just have to laugh at your faults. Some of my spelling errors are really funny too! Anyway on forums you can never take people to seriously because you can't convey tone very easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

come: /k/ /o/ /m/ /no job e/

 

was: /w/ /a/ /z/. It's the 3rd sound of "a" and the second sound of "s."

 

 

 

There are very few words you have to actually memorize, and very few exceptions.

 

This is one reason I am such a fan of Spalding. :-)

 

This always makes me wonder..."no job e" sounds like code for 'you just have to memorize this word, there is no reason for the e'

 

What is the rule that dictates when the e has a job or just gets to sit on the sidelines with no job? If there is no rule for that then I see it as a sight word.:confused:

 

p.s. I am honestly curious so I hope I don't sound snarky.:)

 

p.s.s. I type like I talk, too. There aren't enough hours in the day to worry about composing well thought out, grammatically correct posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This always makes me wonder..."no job e" sounds like code for 'you just have to memorize this word, there is no reason for the e'

 

What is the rule that dictates when the e has a job or just gets to sit on the sidelines with no job? If there is no rule for that then I see it as a sight word.:confused:

 

p.s. I am honestly curious so I hope I don't sound snarky.:)

 

p.s.s. I type like I talk, too. There aren't enough hours in the day to worry about composing well thought out, grammatically correct posts.

 

I don't know if this totally answers it for you, but the "rule tune" (song that helps you remember the "rules" in Phonics Road goes like this:

 

(to the tune of The Farmer in the Dell)

 

The silent final E, the silent final E, English has 5 reasons for the silent final E.

 

It let's the vowel say it's name

 

You can't end a word in U or V

 

Let's C and G say /s/ and /j/

 

Every syllable must have a vowel

 

No job E

 

I think when you know the rule and can eliminate the options, you understand it more easily why there is a "no job E". It's not perfect, but my 5 year old gets it perfectly. And yes, we sing the above song ALL THE TIME. He knows it quite well, and can figure almost any word out when he applies the rules (this and others) he's learned. As far as the word "come" goes, he just learned that it's reason 5.

Edited by mandymom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this totally answers it for you, but the "rule tune" (song that helps you remember the "rules" in Phonics Road goes like this:

 

(to the tune of The Farmer in the Dell)

 

The silent final E, the silent final E, English has 5 reasons for the silent final E.

 

It let's the vowel say it's name

 

You can't end a word in U or V

 

Let's C and G say /s/ and /j/

 

Every syllable must have a vowel

 

No job E

 

I think when you know the rule and can eliminate the options, you understand it more easily why there is a "no job E". It's not perfect, but my 5 year old gets it perfectly. And yes, we sing the above song ALL THE TIME. He knows it quite well, and can figure almost any word out when he applies the rules (this and others) he's learned.

 

You can't end a word in U or V helps with have (I was wondering about that one too)

 

"no job e" may be one of those things where I say 'sight word', you (general you) say 'follows a rule'. tomato, tom(ah)to and all that:D

 

OP, I think phonics are VERY important, but I have no problem teaching a few words as sight words when they come up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this totally answers it for you, but the "rule tune" (song that helps you remember the "rules" in Phonics Road goes like this:

 

(to the tune of The Farmer in the Dell)

 

The silent final E, the silent final E, English has 5 reasons for the silent final E.

 

It let's the vowel say it's name

 

You can't end a word in U or V

 

Let's C and G say /s/ and /j/

 

Every syllable must have a vowel

 

No job E

 

I think when you know the rule and can eliminate the options, you understand it more easily why there is a "no job E". It's not perfect, but my 5 year old gets it perfectly. And yes, we sing the above song ALL THE TIME. He knows it quite well, and can figure almost any word out when he applies the rules (this and others) he's learned. As far as the word "come" goes, he just learned that it's reason 5.

 

Does Phonics Road teach other songs as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, you should be teaching sight words. Some words cannot be sounded out phonetically, including some very common words such as have, are, some, was, come, etc. A child must master these in order to read fluently.

 

Phonics teaches that the silent "e" is bossy and changes the other vowel sound. You still sound it out phonetically, it's just more advanced. "Brought" is real rebel though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are using Phonics Road and I love it. I think it is building a solid foundation. However, I've also used the compiled Frye/Dolch First Grade Sight word lists to help get my child reading more quickly. She wanted to be able to read and I think knowing some sight words and building confidence and the ability to read some easy readers can go a long way to helping a child feel encouraged about continuing to learn to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phonics teaches that the silent "e" is bossy and changes the other vowel sound. You still sound it out phonetically, it's just more advanced. "Brought" is real rebel though.

Only some phonics methods teach silent e that way. :-)

 

Spalding teaches 5 reasons for silent e, only one of which has to do with allowing another vowel to say its long sound. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We used a pragmatic approach that combined phonics (Explode the Code, Bob books) with Dolch sight words and Dick and Jane. I saw absolutely no benefit in not learning the most common words in early readers (things like "the, love, mother, father, said, please" or names of family and pets) from the start for more natural sounding sentences. My daughter was very frustrated initially because things like Bob books weren't "real" reading to her---they didn't sound like the books we'd been reading aloud for years. Yes, most of those words can be done phonetically, but many of them don't come up for quite a while in most phonics programs. I didn't do things like guessing words based on shape and certainly reinforced those sight words as they came up in the phonics.To me, it's no more problematic than teaching a child to read or write her own name before it comes up in the phonics program.

 

FWIW, my daughter is an excellent reader, consistently scores extremely well on spelling on her testing (WJ-III), has held her own in spelling bees against much older children, and has no trouble with reading comprehension. I'm afraid I can't blame her punctuation issues on using a few Dolch flashcards when she was 4, unfortunately ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't teach "sight words" per se, but if we come across a TRUE sight word (one that really can't be sounded out, like "two"), I'll just say it, explain that it's a rule breaker, and move on. No big deal. The words on the Dolch K sight word list like "a", "I", "he", "she", "it", "the", etc... Those are easily phonetic. I taught DS2 open and closed syllables via Webster's Syllabary first, THEN we moved into CVC words and such. Now when we come across one of those supposed "sight words", we sound it out no problem - he has the tools to do so.

 

Now I do believe that a lot of repetition is required to have automaticity, but that's not the same as just memorizing that the shape "she" says /she/. If the child can see that it's /sh/-/ee/ (because it's an open syllable), and then you practice seeing it a lot, it will become automatic, but the child will also still have the tool to figure it out if they for some reason forget.

 

If your child starts guessing a lot, you're probably relying too much on sight words, and that will be a problem when you get to multi-syllable words (that's where my self-taught sight reader got temporarily stuck until he got some phonics under his belt).

I agree.

 

Some kids (like my DD) will start guessing with only a few sight words. I had to spend a few months with her only doing lists from Webster's speller and lists of nonsense words to break the guessing habit she got from sight words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Phonics Road teach other songs as well?

 

Lots of Rule Tunes in PR1. I think there are 14 but I'd have to look in my guidebook to know for sure. We sing rule tunes for a lot of words that are on our spelling lists each week. If a word has a rule tune that applies, we sing it. Some words have more than one rule tune.

 

One rule tune that has really helped my DD is:

 

(Pop Goes the Weasel tune)

 

"We often double "l", "s" and "f" after a single vowel at the end of a base word of one syllable."

 

I think any catchy tune makes most things easier to remember!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But those words *are* phonetic. In fact, very few words do not fit any phonics or spelling rules, and even those which have oddities (such as "people") can be decoded enough to recognize them.

 

If sight reading was all that it was cracked up to be, there wouldn't have been millions of children through the fifties and sixties who barely learned to read, and even into the 80s and 90s with the "whole language" debacle.

 

:iagree:

Some kids are going to learn some words by sight, even without being taught that way. My ds just turned 4yo, and we have done no spelling beyond phonograms, and he is already picking words out by sight, having learned them on his own. My dd learned to read by sight on her own even earlier. However, when I teach my kids to read, we only do so with phonics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are doing a phonic program is it bad if they learn some site words early on?

 

People have very strong opinions on learning to read methods. I think probably not all systems are excellent for all children...though children for whom reading comes easily will probably do fine with any of several methods.

 

My son started at 2 different bricks and mortar schools prior to homeschool. Both used variations on whole language/sight words primarily (one under the name of "word families")--both were disasters for my son. As I discovered that he had a dyslexia-ish type problem once I was homeschooling him, I searched for a reading program that would work for him. Some of what was recommended were strict phonics only methods (I think perhaps Spalding was in this group?)

 

Strict phonetics only systems also were no good for my son, particularly if they were full of rules like having multiple forms of a phonogram, which was overwhelming to him to try to deal with and did not lead into fluency of reading.

 

What worked for him was a system that was primarily phonetic, but with enough sight words incorporated that he could start reading books and gaining fluency fairly quickly. In this context, I am including words that "could" be sounded out phonetically as "sight" words, if they were taught as sight words. In other words, my son began his route to success with CVC words, but had a few other words learned as sight words that were needed to be able to read actual stories-- " the, of, a, was, by"--for example, were all early sight words, and I mean this with regard to the method of how they were learned, whether or not they can perhaps be fitted into some phonetic system and sounded out.

 

This is what worked for my son--a mostly phonics type system, but done in a very careful progressive, methodical way, not with a lot of alternative phonograms at once, plus some sight words--and which allowed a quick entry into use of actual books. Because I saw it work so well for him, especially when reading had been so very hard-- it is what I favor. But I know that other methods that did not work for him have worked for other children. The method that worked for him was recommended to me by a reading specialist as the method she had seen be most successful with most children who were, like my son, toward the high interest level, but with trouble in specific reading areas, sometimes also referred to as 2E.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...