Rachel TX Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I have a 7yo who is a natural reader and a 4yo who is beginning to learn the phonogram sounds. I want a program to help me teach spelling and reading. It doesn't have to be scripted. I read Uncovering the Logic of English for my personal reference, and I have the LOE phonogram app which is an excellent use of $3. I appreciate how LOE, Spalding, and SWR can help struggling students with reading and spelling, but my children aren't struggling. Is it still worth doing what I consider to be intensive phonics? I like the idea of learning the phonograms and spelling rules instead of memorizing word lists. My 7yo attended public school until this year. She doesn't have a strong phonics foundation, and her spelling reflects that, but she can read easily. She has started reviewing the phonograms informally as I teach them to my 4yo. I just started using Wheeler's Elementary Speller, and I really love how it combines phonics with sentences from literature, but I wonder if it's enough. Do you think the "less is more" approach is better for natural readers, or is intensive phonics worth the investment? I don't need a program for handwriting, writing, grammar, or vocabulary. I can teach handwriting myself. We're doing well with WWE. Grammar will be simple until they get older, and Latin will cover vocabulary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Well, is your natural reader also a natural speller? If not, then, no, they wouldn't necessarily be overkill. Just remember that they teach children to read by teaching them to spell, so in that sense, they are not intensive phonics. Also remember that merely learning the phonograms and spelling rules may not be enough; it is the application of the rules in analyzing the words in the spelling lists that makes all the difference in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel TX Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 Well, is your natural reader also a natural speller? If not, then, no, they wouldn't necessarily be overkill. Just remember that they teach children to read by teaching them to spell, so in that sense, they are not intensive phonics. Also remember that merely learning the phonograms and spelling rules may not be enough; it is the application of the rules in analyzing the words in the spelling lists that makes all the difference in the world. Good question, I'll have to think about that. It might be too soon for me to tell. Her public school spelling training was "look at this word and memorize it." I hope that a better phonics awareness will help her improve quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Some students will get little more benefit from an O-G programs than memorization, and there is very little time and other resources to devote to it. In that case, it is not worth it. Maybe the student would be a little better of a speller, but at what cost? On the other hand O-G is a TOOL that is of great benefit to SOME families, and worth every minute and every penny devoted to it. There is not one answer for all families. It depends on the strengths and weaknesses of the students, and the amount of resources the family has in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellie Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Good question, I'll have to think about that. It might be too soon for me to tell. Her public school spelling training was "look at this word and memorize it." I hope that a better phonics awareness will help her improve quickly. Phonics awareness has nothing to do with spelling. :-) Children who are very visual may have good spelling skills because they can *see* the words, but just phonics awareness alone doesn't necessarily mean that good spelling will follow...unless the child is also very visual. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I think they are overkill for a natural reader unless perhaps the child really struggles with spelling. Not that they would have no benefit, but I would rather invest money and time in areas where my child will see a great return on investment. In other words, there are a lot of things that are higher on my priority list for a child who doesn't need so much specific teaching I order to read and spell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blondchen Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Reading and spelling are different. Both require phonics, but reading is decoding, and spelling is encoding. My almost 7yo reads very well - FAR above her ability to spell. We used OPGTR to teach reading, since getting her reading quickly was important to me, and I didn't want to bog down that process with thorough spelling rules, etc. But spelling is a different animal, so I decided to use LOE Essentials to just teach spelling, because I wanted her to learn the phonograms and spelling rules thoroughly, even if she doesn't end up needing them all the time. I figure it's better to teach the rules and then let the child use them if/when they're needed. Of course, if the child can easily memorize word lists and is a natural speller, then maybe another approach would be more efficient and cost effective. But it may take time to figure that out, and I wasn't willing to wait and see. So far we are happy with LOE, and while spelling isn't exactly fun for my whimsical DD, she never complains about it, and definitely understands what she's doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel TX Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 Reading and spelling are different. Both require phonics, but reading is decoding, and spelling is encoding. I remember reading about this on the AAS website. I don't plan to teach reading and spelling at the same time, but I like the idea of keeping things simple by using the same program to teach spelling to one child and reading to the other child. Unless it would be more simple to use a simpler program, if that makes any sense at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrale Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I am a natural reader, my son is too. I am also a horrific speller, my son is too young for me to know yet. I absolutely love O-G and spalding programs. They just make so much sense to me. And I would rather learn the rules and formulas, and the logic than to learn a bunch of lists. I could memorize how to spell boy. But I love knowing that boy would never be spelled boi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I am a natural reader, my son is too. I am also a horrific speller, my son is too young for me to know yet. I absolutely love O-G and spalding programs. They just make so much sense to me. And I would rather learn the rules and formulas, and the logic than to learn a bunch of lists. I could memorize how to spell boy. But I love knowing that boy would never be spelled boi.I, too, love how O-G has helped MY spelling. Other primary programs have helped me in other academic areas, too. It's hard for me to separate sometimes, what is benefit to ME at THIS point in my life, compared to what a STUDENT needs to know as their FOUNDATION. I want to shove in the BEST of EVERYTHING at the BEGINNING, and I'm learning that it is absolutely essential that I don't try to do that. I have, and will continue, to use O-G curricula as important tools when I need them, but I need to be careful to choose what is best for each student at the time, and not get too distracted about what works for ME. I also struggle with what to teach for punctuation, and what grammar I need to teach to prepare a student to understand advanced punctuation lessons. The more I study punctuation, the happier I am with MY ability to write like I talk, but...how much of all this should I share with students. And math–don't even get me started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracy Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 My natural reader is not a natural speller. She is a good speller, but I wouldn't say natural. Using SWR has kept her spelling skills at (almost) the same level as her reading and composition skills, greatly reducing her reluctance to write. She can't tolerate writing anything she cannot spell on her own, so keeping her spelling skills high is a great boon for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerilynn Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Hi Rachel TX, Of course you will have to choose what you feel best fits you and your family, but, since you asked for some input...;) First, your 7 yo may already be a natural reader, but with a 4yo coming up, I'd say better safe than sorry. Better to give a solid foundation than wait until later to find out if they struggle. I also have never subscribed to the idea that the OG style programs are overkill for 'natural' readers. Even a natural reader may struggle when they are older and encountering more difficult content if they don't have the tools and rules at hand to apply. I've actually never understood why the OG concepts are not used in the regular classroom. (And I think the sight/whole-word and memorization approach in schools now is doing more harm than good.) I definitely feel more is more when it comes to encoding and decoding skills. I only have experience with LOE, AAR & AAS. I like them all, but LOE is my favorite. Foundations would be a great place to start with your 4yo now because LOE includes strong phonological awareness skills and has so many fun games. It is a good program for reading and includes spelling, but it is expensive. Since you don't need a scripted program you might be able to save some money with a different program. Good luck finding a solution that is right for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachel TX Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 Update: I administered a reading test (it was Miller Word-Identification Assessment) for my 7yo and she did great on sight words, but her lack of phonics slows her down significantly on unfamiliar words. She relies heavily on high-frequency words in context. Her spelling skills are a year ahead, but I think she's a great memorizer. She has no tools to figure out how to spell a word that hasn't been on a list. We're going to remediate. I just got a copy of WRTR, and I'm reading it using a pencil to underline, 4 highlighters, sticky tabs and post-its. So far so good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boscopup Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I think teaching phonics is good for natural readers. I don't think OG is necessarily the best use of my time though. My struggling reader is doing better with R&S Reading and Phonics than he did with Spalding, and I wish I'd skipped AAS and just done R&S Phonics 2 with my oldest (who taught himself to read). I could have gotten everything taught in a year and been done. My youngest (also natural reader) will do R&S Phonics. The best thing is for YOU to understand the phonics and rules, and then you can explain things that come up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a27mom Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I am currently using LoE Essentials with my 6 y/o. I can't see how it would be overkill. The lessons are easily adapted to be short or long depending on the needs of the child. (I take 1-2 weeks a lesson for my non-natural reader, but they could easily be covered in 1 to 2 days for a natural reader). The lessons also include grammar and composition skills which you can choose to use or not. If your 7 y/o struggles a bit with spelling Essentials would be an excellent program. It is really easy to use and modify. I am actually planning on "switching" to foundations and using it with both my 4 and 6 y/o. 4 y/o is a natural reader, but I want her to have foundational phonics knowledge covered. My 6 y/o will participate in the foundations lessons and the games with us, so we will take a break from essentials for a few months now that 4 y/o is ready to start doing lessons on a regular basis. Since you kids are similar age this may work for you. A 7 y/o would likely find the lessons and games in foundations to be "fun", and may pick up the phonograms and rules easily. To be honest I think the phonograms and spelling rules are very basic and structural to the English language. Now that I have "discovered" them I have a hard time understanding why anyone wouldn't desire for their kids to know them. And they are not difficult or time consuming to teach. (At least I have not found LoE to be difficult or time consuming) :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blondchen Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The best thing is for YOU to understand the phonics and rules, and then you can explain things that come up. This is a good point. I didn't/don't use LOE to teach reading, but my knowledge of the LOE phonograms and rules is something that has been very helpful as I use OPGTR with DD4. The LOE stuff fills in gaps and make sense of things that would otherwise be confusing, and it's great to have the tools to explain them. I didn't have that when I started DD6 and it would have been very helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korrale Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The best thing is for YOU to understand the phonics and rules, and then you can explain things that come up. Very good point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.