Is a sight-words approach more "classical"?

[Wilma]

Hey y'all,

 

in talking with a friend, we came on the topic of how to teach reading classically.  I'm a Spell-to-Write-and-Read fan, and that's how I've taught my people thus far.  She posited that a sight-words approach may actually be more classical. 

 

Her idea was that offering kids the words rather than requiring them to sound anything out is more of the "feast-of-information" that's desirable at the grammar stage.  She also suggested that the sounding-out is really more of a logic-level abstract skill that's not well-suited to the little ones learning to read.

 

What do y'all think?  I feel pretty sure I'm right (ha!), but I'm having a hard time with the rhetoric part of it - being able to speak my thoughts well.

 

-holly

[boscopup]

Does she also have her kids write full original paragraphs before learning how to write individual letters?

 

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. I'd just say that I believe in a phonics approach, whether it's "classical" or not. I'm sure the ancients had some things wrong, and the neo-classicists have some things wrong. Take what works for your kids and use it without worrying about how classical it is. :)

[kiwik]

I think with reading whatever works for your child is the best method. Whether it is more classical or not is less relevant.

[Wilma]

Right, y'all.  I'm not jumping ship over her ideas, just kind of turning it over in my mind.

[kiwik]

It doesn't sound like a good arguement to get in to. You may have to agree to disagree.

[beaners]

As a "just hypothetical" discussion, you could say that frequently reading aloud beautiful literature for children is the grammar stage. You bathe them in words and print, then explain how letters make sounds.  Phonics may be a logic level skill, but logic doesn't need to mean "approximately middle school level." The grammar/logic/rhetoric model is just a basic outline for how skills may be developed.

[Lecka]

Offering kids words sounds random to me. You could say you want to offer kids letter-sound associations, and the sentence makes sense.

 

One kind of information is not more or less information than another.

 

And sorry but sounding out words is a very rote skill. It is not a logic-level abstract skill.

 

Yes kids have to understand the concept of linking sounds to letters.... But for sight words they must link something about the written word (what?) to the spoken word also.

 

I think it is true that it is abstract to link written words to speech. I do agree. But that is happening with sight words the same as with teaching kids their letter sounds.

 

Try reading a book about this process! My favorites include: Overcoming Dyslexia, Phonics A-Z by Wiley Blevins, and Straight Talk about Reading by Louisa Moats. These are all available from my library.

 

I am a little crazy as someone whose oldest did not learn from a non-explicit approach.... Kids who are taught with sight words really are asked to come up with a lot of rules on their own, instead of having them taught. They learn enough words to figure out the rules for themselves. It is great when it happens, and works for many kids. But it is not how my son learned and he also deserves to have the code unlocked.

 

I think I would argue that an explicit approach is much more in tune with a child's needs, compared to implicit with sight words (not teaching kids how words work, expecting them to figure this out on their own).

 

If she wanted to argue that reading was not appropriate at all, I think she might have a logical argument. Not one I would agree with.

 

But if you accept a premise that sight word teaching asks kids to figure out phonics on their own without instruction, as I do, then it just doesn't make sense.

 

But to have that premise I accept that to store a word it has to be sounded out correctly a number of times, and only then becomes automatically recognized, which gives adult reading the feel of reading by sight. But I do not believe that newcomers to written English have the same process when they are still beginners. I think until their skill is developed they need to sound out, they can't just skip to reading by sight as I do (bc I am a fluent reader).

 

Though if her instruction is helping her kids I think it is a fine choice.

[Lecka]

In things I read they estimate that 30% of kids will be able to figure out how to read unfamiliar words with a sight words approach . They learn from the word they know, how to read the words they don't know.

 

Then it is estimated that about 20% of kids will have severe difficulty in analyzing the sight words they know and using that knowledge to read words they don't know .

 

At some points people must read words not directly taught to them. But for the 20% they are not given that tool with a sight word approach.

 

But for my son he couldn't even retain sight words. He did not have any logic in how he remembered what seemed to be lists of letters to him. It really showed up when there would be two words about the same length, both starting with s. Then you see -- it is just a list of about 5 letters starting with s to him. Where to kids who "get it" they are seeing the letters and making connections between the word and the letters. I can just say -- my son did not make those connections on his own.

[Heathermomster]

nm

[Lecka]

I think it is fairly easy for a phonics approach to include words, because it is reading, there are going to be words.

 

I think it is harder to have an idea that kids will learn by osmosis, and then add a little phonics here and there.

 

That is my bias.

 

For a parent who sees a child succeeding with an osmosis approach, with just giving some hints here and there, that is great.

 

If it is a classroom teacher wanting to teach that way, and having some platitude (mom didn't read enough in the home! Too much stress with dad deployed!) to explain why osmosis didn't work ---- that is a different story.

 

Then I don't really care about the kids who learned from the osmosis approach, my son also deserves to learn to read.

[Farrar]

Does she also have her kids write full original paragraphs before learning how to write individual letters?

 

 

But this - which I see a lot on this board - conflates whole language with sight words.  They're not really the same, even though many schools ended up turning whole language into sight words on a practical level.

 

That's kind of an aside though.

 

I agree with everyone else that learning the phonics rules and then applying them is clearly a rote skill that can fit fine into the grammar stage.

[KathyJo]

There's a constant emphasis in TWTM to give children in the grammar stage the tools they need in order to do abstract and creative work later on. That's what teaching the phonograms and spelling rules does. Giving children words without the information necessary to decode them is not a "feast of information." It's giving them tiny little dribbles. You want to talk feast of information, that's giving children the phonograms and 30 spelling rules. At that point, you've given them the information necessary to decode most of the English language. Sight words--dribble by dribble, one word at a time. Eventually--hopefully--the child will get an instinctive feel for the phonics so he won't spend the rest of his life guessing at words and struggling to read.

 

Classical education, in my mind, is about using old methods because they've been proven to work. Teaching reading through sight words has NOT been proven to work. In fact, some research suggests that it can actually cause dyslexia. I've read other studies that indicate that children who are taught to guess are still guessing when they read as adults. And our literacy rates certainly don't indicate that there's anything to be gained from it. While some people learn to read through sight words with no issues, many others develop problems reading. The only research I've ever seen that suggested that phonics doesn't work was based on an idiotic definition of phonics--they seemed to be teaching only the most common sounds of the letters, and then pointing out that children get confused when they encounter words where the letters make other sounds. To this, I can only say, "Duh."

 

Phonograms are completely concrete. Here's a group of letters, it sounds like this. Period. The symbols represent the sounds. If a five year old can't understand this, then we shouldn't expect him to understand that numbers represent something, either. 8 means ........ and PH means /f/.

 

The sight word argument is based on this idea that eventually, we just look and words and recognize them, so we can cut out the middleman by just teaching children to recognize words by their shape. DH read recently that according to new research, this doesn't happen; it was a flawed premise from the beginning. We actually just begin to sound out words really fast with experience. 

 

Not all children can learn to read with sight word approaches, but barring any unusual issues, any child should be able to learn by learning the phonograms and spelling rules. Indeed, these are often the methods used with dyslexic children.

 

*sigh* Sorry. I'm almost at the point of standing on my chair and shaking my fist. :-)

[HS Mom in NC]

The reason we have so many letter combinations for each sound in English is because of the origins of all the words we've borrowed and anglicized from other languages-mostly German, Latin and Greek.  With a phonics approach, children are memorizing all those letter combinations and the sounds they make.  This also affects spelling rules.  Both of those things fall into the grammar stage: memorizing the sounds letter combinations represent for reading and for spelling the word correctly. Looking words up in a dictionary that you don't already know how to spell requires memorization of those phonics rules and all the possible letter combinations for each sound  and logically deducing through the process of elimination which one it is.  Note that deduction doesn't require abstract thinking.  It's essentially marking things off a list until one remains. How could that type of memorization not be a classical grammar stage approach to reading and writing?

Even the casual observer of this post will notice I don't argue for the Phonics over the Sight approach, I'm just pointing out the characteristics of some forms of classical education and how Phonics fits them.

[FO4UR]

It sounds as if she knows just enough educational philosophy to be very dangerous.

 

 

Recommend Climbing Parnassus next time you see her. :lol:

[Wilma]

Great!  Thanks for thinking through this with me.  When talking with this friend, I felt sort of daft because I couldn't explain my position. 

 

I particularly like the point that the phonograms and spelling rules ARE the feast.  Because, really.  And the fact remains that the kid WILL have to develop some sort of logical sorting or storing of the sight words you're handing her. 

 

And I just put Climbing Parnassus on hold for me at the library.  :thumbup1:

[Tracy]

I am pretty sure I have read that the sight method was introduced some time after WWII, so I would hardly call it classical.  I remember reading one of the Little House books with my dd--there was a chapter where they had a spelling contest for fun, and it described in detail how it was done.  I was really surprised at how similar this was to our SWR dictation methods.  

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter which method is classical.  What matters is what works.  Teaching sight words does help them to learn to read faster in the short run, but I believe that it really robs them in the long run.  With sight words, they have to memorize each separate word, but with phonics, they only have to memorize about 70 phonograms and 28 rules.  

 

Both of my kids were early readers, and they learned by memorizing words.  I started SWR with dd when she was 5yo, and she was reading at about a 4th grade level.  But she could not read an unfamiliar word.  It was more than 2 years of SWR before she started to competently read unfamiliar words.  I firmly believe that if I had used the sight word method with her, that she would have stagnated at about that 4th grade level.  

[Haiku]

Classical is parts-to-whole. Phonics is parts-to-whole.

[Erin]

She's probably right. 

When you think about how people learned to read historically, they were just using ordinary books.  

Which means they were seeing full words first, then probably taking them apart to look at letter sounds and make connections for patterns...

 

I'm not sure why this is relevant, though.

[Hunter]

The older McGuffey are sight words; the newer McGuffeys are phonics based. I think webster's speller was kinda sorta phonics (depending on your definition) and is older than the older McGuffey's. From reading biographies, I think many children learned to read by sight methods only, often one word at a time with the Bible. Some children learned to read Latin before English. I've read numerous accounts of student that could speak, read and write in Latin, that could not read or write English.

 

Both my older son and I learned to read with sight words first and phonics AFTER. I was not introduced to phonics first, but just taught myself how to read. My son attended a phonics only kindergarten and failed to learn to read. HIs teacher and I decided to teach him sight reading and he not only learned to read in general, but then understood the phonics.

 

I teach intensive phonics to dyslexic adult students. But for NORMAL children I believe that sight words are an important part of learning to read in general, and essential for some students to start with.

 

Whole to parts is considered important to many members here for math, but some of those same members don't think it's necessary for reading. I think a combination of whole to parts, and parts to whole is essential in all subjects, and some students will need more of one than the other.

[HS Mom in NC]

Just because someone learned to read without a phonics reader, it doesn't mean they were taught one word at a time with a sight method.  Lots of older generation people learned to sound out words phonetically practicing on shorter, simpler words in their Bibles and real books and then progressing to more complex long words and weird biblical names.  My great grandmother talked about that to my grandmother frequently.  My great grandmother taught her husband to read using the Bible and sounding things out which is how she learned it as a child. Did some people use whole language in that situation?  Probably, but don't assume everyone did. I taught my older two to read phonetically using real books.

 

None of my children were taught to read with more than a handful of sight words for particularly rare odd ball situations: one, asile, and the like.  There's no categorical reason to assume everyone needs both methods mixed.  Yes, there are people who have successfully learned each way and with a mixture of both, but that should reinforce the idea that there are exceptions to every rule.

 

You also have to distinguish between words that have been sounded out enough times that eventually a child instantly recognizes it by sight, and children who learned sight words but have no ability to sound out words by their letter combinations.  The former is a very effective thing in the long run.  Should the reader come across an unfamiliar word, he has a skill set to draw on knowing how to break it down and sound it out. The latter needs a more detailed visual memory.  Words that look very similar can be tricky.  If he has no skill set with breaking things down and sounding them out and no grasp of the different sounds letter combinations can make, he's reliant on context only.  If context doesn't do the job then he's in trouble.

 

Generally speaking, phonetic languages are better taught phonetically to most readers and pictographic languages should be taught pictographically.  But we have to be prepared for exceptions.  Also, people who've been taught no phonics are helpless when it comes to looking up a word they don't know how to spell and can't sound out on their own unfamiliar words.  That makes them more limited and dependent on others.

[NASDAQ]

Hunter, children at the era of the earlier McGuffey learned to read with the speller, not the primer.

 

Webster's Speller is not phonics; It's based on the syllabary.  It's phonics-like though. It's definitely not sight words. Hornbooks are earlier than either and contain the alphabet, then a syllabary, and only afterwards scripture.

[Hunter]

I think now, and in the past, sight words with absolutely no sounding out, is and was, a very rare thing.

 

People define "phonics" different ways. That's why I said Webster's is kinda sorta phonics depending on your definition. And many people don't call it "phonics" to merely sound out words, without being taught the phonograms systematically. It's all very complicated to discuss now, never try to figure out exactly what people did in the past.

 

There are no traces of systematic phonogram instruction before the era of the newer McGuffey's though, right? Syllabaries appear to have been common though, starting when?

 

And English reading and writing were not given the attention that Latin and Greek were? For a long long time? I guess if we are talking classical, then how the Latin and Greek were taught is the question. I no longer have CP and don't know if I'd consider that the best source on the topic, anyway.

 

I agree with the OPs friend that intensive and systematic phonics instruction probably isn't all that classical. But does that mean it shouldn't be taught? I certainly wouldn't take it that far.

 

I refrain from too many "alls" and it doesn't have to be so black and white. Some phonics, some sight words, old methods, new methods, play around, and get it done any way you can. And then move on.

 

I used a dictionary before I was taught the smattering of phonics that I was eventually taught. I applied enough of what I learned from the sight words to new words. I wasn't helpless and neither are most normal students. Dyslexic students need very explicit instruction. I'm fascinated by phonics so I enjoy learning about it and teaching it to this special population. Learning to read, whatever method is used just isn't that dire, when taught to students that are developmentally ready to learn to read, and who are being given enough practice, and are being exposed to a rich environment of literature and language in their home and community. The brain is USUALLY wired to fill in any gaps in instruction. Developmental readiness and environment play as big, if not a bigger, role in learning to read, than the primary method of instruction.

[SailorMom]

Phonics - meaning the systematic rule based method many use here - has never made any sense to me at all. It is not how my brain works. I learned to read from reading, guessing, listening, and was wayyyyy above grade level in Kindergarten, and never maxed out. There was some sounding out of words, but only on a basic level - I absolutely can't keep the phonics stuff straight.

Neither of my kids understood phonics either. My older DS learned to read much like I did... meaning - I have no idea how, he just did. It wasn't until I abandoned phonics that my younger dyslexic son learned to read. He caught up so quickly it was astounding and reads as fast as I do (500 page books in a day). And yes - he comprehends it.

I believe the way our (meaning, mine and my sons' - I have no idea about anyone else) brains work is by memorizing shapes. I know some one said "a study" disproved it - but - that's how I read. When you can read words as if they are pictograms (like other non-phonetic languages) you can speed through text like nobody's business!

Yes - you have to perhaps learn many words, but I have never met a 35 year old who still sounds out 'phone' using phonics rules.... so - we all learn to do without the actual phonics for the most part. It is more just how you get there. I also can sound out words I don't know using the parts of other words I do. I had my son memorize the shapes of common pieces od words at a very young age. For example, 'ough' and 'ent'. That can speed up the process of memorization considerably.

I am a natural speller, as is my older son, but my dyslexic guy is a horrid speller. I truly think this is just the way his brain is wired and has nothing to do with the way he learned to read.

Anyway - I think any method that works is a good method, and I think every kid needs their own combination of methods.

People here can argue and shake their fists over whole language/sight words all they want, but that doesn't change that fact that it is a valid method for many people who could never have learned phonics.

[FO4UR]

Early and intensive phonics is most certainly (!!!) a part of a Classical education.  How phonics is taught might be debated for a year and a day, but it is taught. 

 

 

The phrase "feast of ideas" makes me think she may have listened to someone who knows someone who read some Charlotte Mason.  And...
(drumroll please)...Charlotte Mason teaches reading through word study (which looks a lot like PHONICS to me). :lol:

[Annie Laurie]

I think now, and in the past, sight words with absolutely no sounding out, is and was, a very rare thing.

 

People define "phonics" different ways. That's why I said Webster's is kinda sorta phonics depending on your definition. And many people don't call it "phonics" to merely sound out words, without being taught the phonograms systematically. It's all very complicated to discuss now, never try to figure out exactly what people did in the past.

 

There are no traces of systematic phonogram instruction before the era of the newer McGuffey's though, right? Syllabaries appear to have been common though, starting when?

 

And English reading and writing were not given the attention that Latin and Greek were? For a long long time? I guess if we are talking classical, then how the Latin and Greek were taught is the question. I no longer have CP and don't know if I'd consider that the best source on the topic, anyway.

 

I agree with the OPs friend that intensive and systematic phonics instruction probably isn't all that classical. But does that mean it shouldn't be taught? I certainly wouldn't take it that far.

 

I refrain from too many "alls" and it doesn't have to be so black and white. Some phonics, some sight words, old methods, new methods, play around, and get it done any way you can. And then move on.

 

I used a dictionary before I was taught the smattering of phonics that I was eventually taught. I applied enough of what I learned from the sight words to new words. I wasn't helpless and neither are most normal students. Dyslexic students need very explicit instruction. I'm fascinated by phonics so I enjoy learning about it and teaching it to this special population. Learning to read, whatever method is used just isn't that dire, when taught to students that are developmentally ready to learn to read, and who are being given enough practice, and are being exposed to a rich environment of literature and language in their home and community. The brain is USUALLY wired to fill in any gaps in instruction. Developmental readiness and environment play as big, if not a bigger, role in learning to read, than the primary method of instruction.

 

I agree with everything you said and think there's so much wisdom in this.

 

When my kids were learning to read they just "taught themselves." I read to them a lot, they looked at books a lot, we talked about letter sounds, we played word games, etc. The same as most people here do. My kids seem to be very visual and just picked up reading through these methods, some of them at very young ages, before I could even start a phonics program. Then I was so paranoid that somehow their reading skills would be shaky later, due to what I read on the importance of phonics on these boards, that I went overboard with phonics programs and forced them through reading programs that were boring them because they were reading fluently and happily already. (Don't worry, I've relaxed a lot since then. ;))

 

I understand that some kids do need explicit phonics instruction, and if my toddler turns out to need that then we will happily go through a simple reading primer, like Phonics Pathways. (Because I learned that the convoluted reading programs I tried with my other kids just don't work for me and created a lot of stress for us). But if he follows what they did, and learns how to read from our games and story time, I'm going to leave it be this time and focus on other things. We will do a phonics/rules based spelling program if need be for that when he gets older.

[Erin]

Phonics are valuable for teaching how unknown words can often be decoded.  

Sight-words are valuable because most of us actually read, not by sounding out, but by instant recognition of the word. 

 

 

 

 

I have simply never been able to figure out why there are those who think one needs to be taught to the exclusion of the other...  

[KathyJo]

Phonics are valuable for teaching how unknown words can often be decoded.  

Sight-words are valuable because most of us actually read, not by sounding out, but by instant recognition of the word. 

 

 

 

 

I have simply never been able to figure out why there are those who think one needs to be taught to the exclusion of the other...  

 

Because if you're right, then children who have been taught strictly through phonics will still attain instant recognition of words through reading practice. But if the research that I've read is right, the children who have had too much focus on sight words and not enough on phonics are often at a disadvantage. No one (whom I would consider sensible) argues that phonics will disadvantage children in the long run. Indeed, even those here who argue that sight words are helpful aren't suggesting that no phonics instruction should take place, even if it's just teaching the basic sounds of the letters. 

[KathyJo]

 I had my son memorize the shapes of common pieces od words at a very young age. For example, 'ough' and 'ent'. That can speed up the process of memorization considerably.

 

For the record, "ough" is a phonogram. When we talk about systematic phonogram instruction, we mean that we're having our children memorize these pieces of words from an early age. Yes, it can speed up the process of reading. But I don't have to teach things like "ent" because it's just a blend of letters. 

[Mountainmama]

well - I think both are appropriate and have used both. My oldest learned to read sight words before she was1. At 2 we used phonics with sight words. At 4 she was reading Shakespeare and understanding it. At 8 she compared and analyzed Divine comedy and Till we have faces. My 2nd and 3rd kids used sight reading after phonics failed them at age 5. Then I switched to learning to read using Hebrew phonics when at 6 they weren't reading. That worked and so we used the sight reading books as easy readers. Next 2 used phonics at age 2-3 and it worked fine. Next 1 didn't catch onto reading using phonics or sight reading - even tried a private school - then at age 7 he learned to read with whole word method. Never learned phonics and it shows in very poor spelling. So - I now know - whatever works and at whatever age.

[SailorMom]

For the record, "ough" is a phonogram. When we talk about systematic phonogram instruction, we mean that we're having our children memorize these pieces of words from an early age. Yes, it can speed up the process of reading. But I don't have to teach things like "ent" because it's just a blend of letters.

Yes - and for a child who is not dyslexic, I'm sure this works well. But for my son, individual letters move all over and trade places. So - rather than teaching them as distinct phonograms, I taught them as actual shapes - like - looking at the outline along the outside edge of the whole shape. Very different.

Now - does he sound out words? Sure - at times, but that was from learning how other words sounded, not from systematic phonics and phonics rules. Once he learned that 'cat' sounded like, well, 'cat', he could apply that knowledge to how 't', 'at', and words ending in 'cat' sounded. The 'at' and 'cat' shape had meaning to him on a very concrete level. There were no sound symbols (phonetic symbols?)to use, no sounding out individual letters, etc.

I tried three different phonics programs after I pulled him out of 1st grade two months in (they'd been using phonics) and he was so behind in reading they said he was at a 2.5 yo level in testing.... I didn't know there was a reading level that low, lol. After one year of abandoning phonics he was reading at a third grade level. After two years he was somewhere around a 6th grade level.

Possibly I was a horrible phonics teacher because none of it ever worked for me, but the schools had failed him with phonics as well, so - there ya go.

I am not saying phonics isn't a valid teaching method, but it drives me nuts to hear about how it is the only good one, and that dyslexics will fail without it.

[Hunter]

nm.

[ElizabethB]

I just moved and am surrounded by boxes, and will hopefully add more tonight, but for now a quick history-- phonics is classical. In fact, for centuries, children were taught first with syllables through Latin. Once the children could read and spell in Latin, they then learned to read and spell in their native language. However, at first it was syllables as a whole and not letter sounds, letter sounds in isolation began in 1655 with Pascal and were later popularized in Noah Webster's 1783 Speller.

 

Here is a history of it all with links from my website:

 

http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20Phonics/historyofreading.html

[KathyJo]

Yes - and for a child who is not dyslexic, I'm sure this works well. But for my son, individual letters move all over and trade places. So - rather than teaching them as distinct phonograms, I taught them as actual shapes - like - looking at the outline along the outside edge of the whole shape. Very different.

Now - does he sound out words? Sure - at times, but that was from learning how other words sounded, not from systematic phonics and phonics rules. Once he learned that 'cat' sounded like, well, 'cat', he could apply that knowledge to how 't', 'at', and words ending in 'cat' sounded. The 'at' and 'cat' shape had meaning to him on a very concrete level. There were no sound symbols (phonetic symbols?)to use, no sounding out individual letters, etc.

I tried three different phonics programs after I pulled him out of 1st grade two months in (they'd been using phonics) and he was so behind in reading they said he was at a 2.5 yo level in testing.... I didn't know there was a reading level that low, lol. After one year of abandoning phonics he was reading at a third grade level. After two years he was somewhere around a 6th grade level.

Possibly I was a horrible phonics teacher because none of it ever worked for me, but the schools had failed him with phonics as well, so - there ya go.

I am not saying phonics isn't a valid teaching method, but it drives me nuts to hear about how it is the only good one, and that dyslexics will fail without it.

 

What you're describing, though, is having children figure out the letter/phonogram sounds for themselves instead of being explicitly taught. I honestly don't understand why you seem to say that phonogram instruction is completely unnecessary, but then acknowledge that phonetic awareness is important in reading. I'd rather teach it because no, not all kids can make those connections without help. I do understand how shapes can help in reading instruction; I've actually read the sentence "A rolling stone gathers no moss" just by the shape of the sentence and my knowledge of the sentence. However, I don't understand the argument that a word outline is more concrete than a phonogram. A useful teaching aid? Sure. More concrete? How? Besides which, in the end, looking at "cat," saying "cat," and recognizing "cat" in another word is really not any different than teaching "ph," saying "/f/," and recognizing "ph" in "phone." It's a recognition that combinations of letters make specific sounds, which is what phonogram instruction targets.

[FO4UR]

What you're describing, though, is having children figure out the letter/phonogram sounds for themselves instead of being explicitly taught. I honestly don't understand why you seem to say that phonogram instruction is completely unnecessary, but then acknowledge that phonetic awareness is important in reading. I'd rather teach it because no, not all kids can make those connections without help. I do understand how shapes can help in reading instruction; I've actually read the sentence "A rolling stone gathers no moss" just by the shape of the sentence and my knowledge of the sentence. However, I don't understand the argument that a word outline is more concrete than a phonogram. A useful teaching aid? Sure. More concrete? How? Besides which, in the end, looking at "cat," saying "cat," and recognizing "cat" in another word is really not any different than teaching "ph," saying "/f/," and recognizing "ph" in "phone." It's a recognition that combinations of letters make specific sounds, which is what phonogram instruction targets.

I'm not the poster you are quoting...and I am a phonics momma....but...

 

 

I've got a dyslexic dc.  I understand where SailorMom is coming from.

 

 

To throw another curve ball in the game, mine learned all the phonograms early.  We did SWR faithfully for a long, long time.  He could not read beyond a K level until we used Dancing Bears (which systematically works on visual tracking).  Phonics is only a portion of reading.

 

 

Mine would mix up phonograms.  "hp" is the same as "ph" to him.  sh is hs.  ir...ri.  ou...uo.   It didn't matter how well he memorized those phonograms or how well he could reason out fun-et-ick spelling.  "Shirt" might be "hsirt" or "shrit" and he will read it back to me and not catch what is wrong with the word.  He also mirror writes with perfection and in beautiful cursive. :huh:  :lol:   Using the clockface ala Spalding for handwriting doesn't work b/c his brain truly doesn't know left from right, clockwise from counterclockwise.  He can recite the cues for writing the letters and write them in a perfect mirror image as he goes...read them back and not catch that they are backwards.  He can read backwards as well as he can read forwards.  (We need to work on Hebrew.  LOL)

 

 

Some kids break every rule written in the books.  I would argue that phonics needs to be taught early and intensively, but not necessarily as it's taught in popular currics today.

 

As for sight words, learn them phonetically and then over-learn them until they become sight-words.  Don't memorize them blindly except for as a last resort for a severe LD.