Is writing really essential to phonics and reading?

[MouseBandit]

Finally started to dive into WTM last night. I was reading through the chapter on preschool/kindergarten, and it seemed pretty clear that they were emphasizing how important it was to simply get the little children reading as soon as they were interested and able, even if their fine motor skills were not yet ready for writing.

 

Having been diving in headfirst into Spalding, it is obviously emphasized there that writing IS essential to learning to read.

 

In my current state of information-overload, I'm having trouble picking out just WHY it is essential. Why wouldn't it be preferable to have that extra year (or more) of the child reading, reading, reading? Is it because of the tendency towards dyslexia? Is it because it is utilizing all the sensory pathways, and therefore will make both the letter formation AND the phonogram sounds "stick" better in the child's brain?

 

I feel like such a traitor (already, haven't even done a single WRTR lesson ha ha) but I'm thinking about scoping out SWR and LOE at the homeschool conference next month, if I can even hold myself back that long.

 

I want to do enough research to start off with this the way that we will continue, at least for a couple of years (dd is going to be 4yo in a few weeks, with at least 3 more coming up behind her).

 

I know there are lots of threads around comparing WRTR with the Spalding spin-offs, and I will be starting to investigate those.

 

This question about writing being essential though, really struck at me. In my mind, I would think an extra year or 18-months of reading, particularly independent reading, would vastly outweigh any benefits of waiting so that they could also integrate the letter formation simultaneously.

 

And, just have to say, I am TREMENDOUSLY impressed so far with the WTM book, and so happy that I landed on these forums! All these educational philosophies and methods just suit me to a tee, and make me feel all warm and fuzzy, like I found my home. :001_smile:

 

Tracey in Oregon

[boscopup]

I don't think writing is essential to reading. It can be helpful to reading IF the instruction is happening when a child is developmentally ready to write. Spalding recommends starting at age 5, correct? Most children are ready to learn to write their letters and simple words at that age.

 

If you really want to use it before 5 (and I understand... my kids are usually ready to read before 5 and before they're developmentally ready to write), you'd want to either let them use letter magnets or stamps or write with a finger in a salt box/sand/shaving cream/etc. The Spalding method does depend on somehow putting those letters together to form words, as they aren't learning to "blend" like traditional phonics programs do. There is no "sounding out". You will find that SWR and LOE work exactly the same way.

 

There is no perfect method, and no method works for all children. Most children learn to read somehow as long as you teach them, and I think we can easily make ourselves crazy trying to find the best phonics curriculum (BTDT ;)). I think the important thing is to pick one and STICK WITH IT. I drooled over LOE recently, but my son is doing well with Dancing Bears (which is NOT the same type of phonics program at all), and since he has confidence issues and just said yesterday that he can only read baby books (poor thing), I'm sticking with what is working well for him and giving him confidence! I think Spalding/LOE/SWR/etc. would work great for him, and I might use them eventually to help with his spelling if he needs it, but for now, I'm not switching him around. He needs something consistent. Once he's up and running, I could probably move him over to Spalding to get more of that phonics foundation, but right now, he just needs to read. He wants to read, and he's totally ready. In the meantime, I'm using the Spalding handwriting instructions with him, as I think they're excellent.

[Amy Jo]

You don't need to write to be able to read. BUT I think my eldest son was helped immensely by writing out the words in SWR. It added a hands-on element to reading, it slowed him done (so he would think and not rush) and it let him decode rather than encode (he could not blend at the time). It really adds the kinesthetic element, and it's much easier on me than a box of magnet letters or tiles.

 

I find it helps me in Latin to write down the text I am reading. And I always do better in lectures if I take notes. So I think for some people it is really helpful.

[eloquacious]

As the Mama of a four year-old boy who reads at a 2nd grade reading level, I can say that it is possible for both viewpoints to be correct. Yes, I believe that physical (sensorimotor?) feedback helps greatly...but there are ways to do this without having a child who is capable of writing. Montessori-style letter tracing (sandpaper letters), gross-motor writing (sand, sky, etc.) and various other techniques (iPad apps - there are fantastic ones), or spelling using a Montessori movable alphabet/letter tiles/magets helped us.

 

That being said, I am teaching him to write now, and he'll be learning spelling at home using either SWR or Spalding, then moving to a local charter which uses Riggs (another Spalding spin-off) when he officially enters Kindergarten. (My husband is oh-so-ragingly anti-homeschooling, and we are blessed to have great classical charters nearby. Now to pray that we get a slot!!)

 

I believe, at least from my own experience, that for many learners, the feedback of writing things is invaluable. I used to copy my notebooks and notes over and over again as a way to study for exams, for instance. So even though our son learned to read quite well without writing the words, he'll be writing them as soon as he can, and I believe this will only serve to futher cement the learning in his brain. I don't really see it as an either-or-proposition, I guess.

[MouseBandit]

Okay, so I can clearly see that the handwriting portion of things is invaluable, and probably essential to the spelling portion of things. And I do realize that the spelling is intricately tied in with the reading, so that they are working out the phonics during the spelling lesson, and don't end up slowing down their reading due to sounding out the words right then.

 

But, as a child who learned to read spontaneously (I suppose sight-reading) at age 3, I know personally how much volume of reading got accomplished long before I had any fine-motor skills for writing. I think it would be a shame, maybe even a tragedy, to prevent a child from having all those reading / literature / vocabulary experiences UNLESS it was really, really crucial. (That said, I was a terrible speller until computers and spell check came along!)

 

So, I am leaning towards going for the phonogram sounds / flashcards right now. Maybe even check out the OPGTTR (which I have on the shelf, uncracked, LOL!).

 

It is very important for them to have letters of some type to tie-together the phonograms into words though, correct? Whether they are written by them via pencil, sand, sky, or tactile blocks or magnetics. Is that correct?

 

or can you just blaze through with the phonogram cards and into some basic readers?

 

Thank you all for your help and experiences and advice!!

 

Tracey in Oregon

[Tanikit]

No writing is definitely not essential to reading.

 

The definition of reading is: to gain meaning from text. This can be achieved as early as toddlerhood (and even for some babies) who can sight read a certain amount of words and know what they mean (eg give a clap when they see the word clap, know that the McDonalds sign they see from the car is about the place they eat at and so on) This means of course that sight word recognition is reading provided that meaning is associated with it and also that neither sight word reading nor the ability to decode is reading UNLESS there is meaning associated with it.

 

On to phonics - toddlers are also able to decode words if it is presented to them in a toddler friendly manner. My own daughter could fetch me the cards that spelt "at", "in" and "ash" around the time she was 2 years old and by 2.5 was trying to sound out the word "opposites." She could at that stage draw vaguely straight lines and curved lines. Now at 4.5 years old she is able to write all her small letters (haven't got through the capitals with her yet) and is reading at about a third grade level. She can copy a sentence but cannot write in lines yet.

 

Reading sight words is NOT a maturation issue - all children can do it as babies just as they can learn that a picture of a dog represents a dog and the letters dog together represent the same dog in the picture.

Phonics is partly maturational and has to do with the ability to hear sounds and be able to join/blend sounds into recognisable words thus requiring a certain amount of grammar and vocabulary. However phonics itself has a "sight" componant in that letters and combinations of letters must be recognised as sounds - the entire alphabet and all its phonograms need to be seen, heard and said and then blending can be done.

 

Blending is an issue for some children but I wonder how much is not due to the constant testing we place children under: What is this sound? Next sound? and so on while the child must say and remember it. Blending is actually more easily taught by just showing and telling - look c-a-t says cat. Nothing is expected of the child until they say "cat" after you leave a pause between the c-a-t. It could take months of saying these things before the child can blend, but the testing is removed from it and the stress is off the child and they learn (most of them).

 

Anyway, writing clearly is not necessary in any of this. The same way that mental math (This was mentioned in another post but I forget the name of the book) was developed for children who battle to write but can handle numbers - they can do it orally.

 

Writing is probably nesessary for spelling because if you can read it but not write/type it then why on earth would you want to spell it?

[Dinsfamily]

As the Mama of a four year-old boy who reads at a 2nd grade reading level, I can say that it is possible for both viewpoints to be correct. Yes, I believe that physical (sensorimotor?) feedback helps greatly...but there are ways to do this without having a child who is capable of writing. Montessori-style letter tracing (sandpaper letters), gross-motor writing (sand, sky, etc.) and various other techniques (iPad apps - there are fantastic ones), or spelling using a Montessori movable alphabet/letter tiles/magets helped us.

 

That being said, I am teaching him to write now, and he'll be learning spelling at home using either SWR or Spalding, then moving to a local charter which uses Riggs (another Spalding spin-off) when he officially enters Kindergarten. (My husband is oh-so-ragingly anti-homeschooling, and we are blessed to have great classical charters nearby. Now to pray that we get a slot!!)

 

I believe, at least from my own experience, that for many learners, the feedback of writing things is invaluable. I used to copy my notebooks and notes over and over again as a way to study for exams, for instance. So even though our son learned to read quite well without writing the words, he'll be writing them as soon as he can, and I believe this will only serve to futher cement the learning in his brain. I don't really see it as an either-or-proposition, I guess.

 

:iagree: I had one boy just like this. He taught himself to read at 2 and was at a 2nd grade level by 4yo. He is now in K and using SWR. Although he already knew how to read, he has learned a lot through the SWR method and his reading level is improving through his writing and spelling.

 

Now my oldest wasn't this way. He had started learning to read at 4 but didn't really take off until he was 5 and had been learning to read the SWR way. The methodology including the writing was key for him. Once he started reading, he jumped 4 grade levels in 3 months.

 

I don't think the Spalding method is the only way to learn to read but I do think it has been great for my dc and I will continue to use it with my littles as they come up.

[SnMomof7]

My daughter wasn't ready to do a lot of writing when she learned to read. We did it all visually and it worked out fine :). Spelling on the other hand, we waited for writing readiness.

[lorisuewho]

I feel like such a traitor (already, haven't even done a single WRTR lesson ha ha) but I'm thinking about scoping out SWR and LOE at the homeschool conference next month, if I can even hold myself back that long.

 

I want to do enough research to start off with this the way that we will continue, at least for a couple of years (dd is going to be 4yo in a few weeks, with at least 3 more coming up behind her).

 

I know there are lots of threads around comparing WRTR with the Spalding spin-offs, and I will be starting to investigate those.

 

 

Regardless of whether you go with a spin-off of Spalding or not, I think that reading WRTR was a good choice. I'm glad I bought it. I have been wading through it, learning a ton, and I'm still probably going to go with LOE, but I, like you, am waiting for convention next month to see it in person.

[eloquacious]

Incidentally, we do a lot of oral encoding/decoding practice before we even look at words. And even now that my son is not writing yet, but reading well, we "spell" by breaking a word into sounds.

[Ellie]

But, as a child who learned to read spontaneously (I suppose sight-reading) at age 3, I know personally how much volume of reading got accomplished long before I had any fine-motor skills for writing. I think it would be a shame, maybe even a tragedy, to prevent a child from having all those reading / literature / vocabulary experiences UNLESS it was really, really crucial. (That said, I was a terrible speller until computers and spell check came along!)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that a child be *prevented* from learning to read on his own. :-)

 

So, I am leaning towards going for the phonogram sounds / flashcards right now. Maybe even check out the OPGTTR (which I have on the shelf, uncracked, LOL!).

You can do that, of course, but you may not say that you're doing Spalding (or any of the spin-offs), lol.

 

It is very important for them to have letters of some type to tie-together the phonograms into words though, correct? Whether they are written by them via pencil, sand, sky, or tactile blocks or magnetics. Is that correct?

It depends, although I'm not sure you have the concept quite right yet. You teach the children how to write each single-letter phonogram (i.e., the letters of the alphabet), with specific instructions, so that the children *hear* the sound while they are *writing* it and *reading* it. For very young children, using their fingers in the sand (or chocolate pudding :D) would be much the same, but tactile or magnetic blocks wouldn't involve the kinestic aspect. This may or may not be important to your child, but it is very helpful to many. IOW, it isn't tying phonograms to words. It's tying the sound, sight, and touch of each phonogram together. See?

 

or can you just blaze through with the phonogram cards and into some basic readers?

Some children can do that, but in general, just visually learning the phonograms won't be enough. Spalding and its spin-offs don't just depend on learning to read and write the phonograms; they continue with learning/analyzing/writing the words in the Extended Ayres List, and painlessly moving into reading real books, not just vocabulary-controlled basal readers.

 

Also, just doing the phonogram cards won't improve a child's spelling or handwriting. :-)

[jetted4]

Really depends a lot on the child.

My oldest had somewhat weak fine motor skills so writing by hand was something he balked at for quite some years. However, he was reading books like The Hobbit in 2nd grade on his own without having had any formal spelling lessons yet (we'd practiced phonograms and how to sound out words when he was younger). When we did do more with writing/composition, I let him use the computer for a good bit of it (got a lot more writing in that way). He developed strong writing and spelling skills...for him, writing would have gotten in the way of learning reading and spelling.

 

I tried SWR (which, if I recall, is based on Spalding) with my younger one (who has much better fine motor skills) and he found the lesson format tedious. We are using our own program and his spelling has advanced remarkably even though writing is not emphasized in our lessons nearly as much as in SWR. He also was reading above grade level before he had had any formal spelling lessons (beyond phonics), so writing definitely wasn't necessary for him either.

[Mommy22alyns]

No, IMO. Both girls taught themselves how to read at a pretty early age, when they could write maybe a letter or two at a time. I couldn't have held them back from reading!

[lea1]

I have two sons who are now around 6.5 years old (they are 'officially' Kindergarten's this year). One of them is stronger in fine motor skills than the other. I used OPGTR with them starting when they were around 5 YO. We just finished OPGTR a couple of weeks ago and they are both reading very well.

 

The son who is stronger with fine motor skills is reading at around a 5th grade level and he loves to write. He does extra pages of learning his cursive writing every day and we have already gone through the manuscript writing also.

 

The son who is less strong on fine motor skills is a stronger reader. He is reading at around a 6th grade level and he loves to read, much more so than his brother. He does not love to write and, although he is coming along, he only does as much as he is assigned to do. It is a much slower process with him.

 

I would guess that both of them are probably at about a first grade level with their writing. I am very glad that I taught them to read early, that they both love reading and read A LOT. They love to go to the library and bring back stacks of books. They love to read in the back of the car while we are driving anywhere. We keep a book basket between their seats. They love to read in bed before going to sleep. Sometimes I will go back upstairs to check on them and they are both together on the floor of one of the bedrooms, looking at a book together and they read to each other. They also love that they can read signs and menus and such.

 

They are proud that they can read so well and it helps give them confidence that they can do other things that take work. They know they were not always excited about sitting down to do a reading lesson (an understatement in the beginning:tongue_smilie:) but they saw how quickly they improved and that the hard work paid off. When they have had trouble with other schoolwork, I have been able to remind them of this and they smile when they remember and they find it encouraging.

 

There are definitely a lot of huge positives to teaching them early, if they are ready.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Lea in OK

[besroma]

:lurk5:

[Laura Corin]

FWIW, Calvin was reading fluently at five (Harry Potter) but didn't write adequately (as in, being able to write a sentence with all the letters formed more-or-less correctly) until he was about eight. His hands just weren't ready until then. He's doing well at school, but just gets a bit of extra time for writing exams.

 

Laura