Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

I was wondering for those that use classical education and use any of the Orton/Spalding Spelling programs.

 

I find myself learning more about Grammar Stage, and how easier is memorization for young children, and how logic, and a more analytical approach is best employed in 5th grade or so, depending on the child.

 

Then I come to ask the wisdom from all of you that have used Spalding methods of spelling and agree with the classical aproach, I have used SWR and have read most of the other ones.

 

Is the marking of the words a form of analylsis of the word, it is to me almost like a diagraming of the word. Am I asking too much from my K-2nd graders to do? Should they memorize the marking instead of being asked to analyze and mark?

 

I wonder how many of you have used SWR/or other in a Classical way. Has anyone twicked these programs to better fit the grammar stage, with what results?

 

I don't think I can compare a classical spelling program, like the ones sold at Memoria press, or other, as their aproach is different, teaching the long or short vowel sounds, instead of all the phonograms first.

 

I ask because I am having a hard time with my children enduring markings, and they are little and really not understanding, they are K and 2nd.

 

Could it be that their brains are not up to par? Belive me I have gone throught the guilt of thinking is just me, that I am not a good teacher. So far they can handle the phonograms, some of the rules, We have the SWR app.  They are great readers! they have learned how to read with this program, now the spelling... my K is slow, my 2nd grader can spell great, I think is all the reading she does.

 

back to the issue; grammar stage vs Orton methods.

 

I would love to hear from both sides. and specially those that have noted something like what I say. I cannot go buy something different right now, so I have to make work what i have. How does that look for all you SWR/Spalding users?

 

to mark or not to mark for grammar stage, that is one of my questions,

 

k

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand exactly what you are saying, and it's why as much as I find O-G a fascinating hobby for ME to self-educate, and sometimes use with older dyslexic students, I don't believe it's the best default way to teach all little ones to read. And a student that is not fully logic stage and entering  rhetoric stage just isn't going to be able to apply the rules to SPELL, even if it helped them read.

 

O-G is a tool, and an important tool, but it's a tool that is sometimes used incorrectly, and much too early.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are doing cursive-first, the syllabary is a HUGE help. In WRTR 4th, Romalda Spalding mentions that students are not ready to write in cursive until they are spelling in syllables, instead of still with phonograms. Explicitly teaching from a syllabary gets a student reading in syllables faster than expecting them to gradually infer for themselves from a phonogram and rules based program.

 

I'm really oldschool. I do actually use a Scottish Psalter to teach reading. :) Don Potter has a free one here, with syllabled divided.

http://donpotter.net/pdf/psalmsreader.pdf

 

Here are some free vintage books with syllables divided.

http://users.gobigwest.com/rosegate/HSbooks.html#young

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was taught using "El silabario" I attended school abroad, so I learned Spanish that way. BUT Spanish has only one sound per vowel, till they teach you the diphtonges, then they teach you "ortografia" However, a silaba in Spanish cannot be divided the way we do in English,

 

Plant-ed

 

in Spanish it should be:

 

Plan- ted

 

I didn't know, other than Rod & Staff, any other English curricula that did that.

 

So does the WTM suggest a method vs another?

 

I can see how to practice Cursive by practicing el silabario, haven't said that word in decades!

Link to post
Share on other sites

O-G hasn't been a good fit for my young kids. Two taught themselves to read, so just staying out of their way worked best. The other one needed explicit instruction, but he could not handle Spalding type instruction. R&S Phonics and Reading has turned out to be the best thing for him.

 

Honestly, pick whatever works for your child and don't worry about whether it's classical or O-G or whatever. :) I find some of the O-G rules helpful, but if I try to immerse myself in it, it just makes it more confusing, particularly when you get into large words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Spalding is too much for young students. I don't even think it's the best thing for older, remedial students. It is good for teachers to know.

 

 

For the K student, copywork is all I'd do for spelling. For the 2nd grader, copywork and a smidgen of studied dictation. Good spellers are good visualizers. It has little to do with rules or knowledge of phonograms. I'd spend this time teaching them to hold the words in their mind. Look at a word, cover it, spell it out loud...then write.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Spalding is too much for young students. I don't even think it's the best thing for older, remedial students. It is good for teachers to know.

 

 

For the K student, copywork is all I'd do for spelling. For the 2nd grader, copywork and a smidgen of studied dictation. Good spellers are good visualizers. It has little to do with rules or knowledge of phonograms. I'd spend this time teaching them to hold the words in their mind. Look at a word, cover it, spell it out loud...then write.

 

Wow, I completely disagree with the bolded, generalized statements. Spalding, or one of its spin-offs (e.g., SWR), certainly can be a perfect fit for the classical grammar stage and foundational for eventually the logic stage, imo.

 

From our experience, I wouldn't have wanted to use anything but SWR from the very beginning. My little man literally learned to spell his way into writing and reading using Spell to Write & Read. Now as he's entering the logic stage, I witness him still using the SWR method daily to help him break down new words, learn to spell them, and find their meaning. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's priceless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering for those that use classical education and use any of the Orton/Spalding Spelling programs.

 

I find myself learning more about Grammar Stage, and how easier is memorization for young children, and how logic, and a more analytical approach is best employed in 5th grade or so, depending on the child.

 

Then I come to ask the wisdom from all of you that have used Spalding methods of spelling and agree with the classical aproach, I have used SWR and have read most of the other ones.

 

Is the marking of the words a form of analylsis of the word, [Yes] it is to me almost like a diagraming of the word. Am I asking too much from my K-2nd graders to do? [No] Should they memorize the marking instead of being asked to analyze and mark? [No]

 

I wonder how many of you have used SWR/or other in a Classical way. Has anyone twicked these programs to better fit the grammar stage, with what results? [Yes, I tweaked the program.]

 

I don't think I can compare a classical spelling program, like the ones sold at Memoria press, or other, as their aproach is different, teaching the long or short vowel sounds, instead of all the phonograms first. [http://www.bhibooks.net/f/Senate_Speech.pdf]

 

I ask because I am having a hard time with my children enduring markings, and they are little and really not understanding, they are K and 2nd.

 

Could it be that their brains are not up to par? Belive me I have gone throught the guilt of thinking is just me, that I am not a good teacher. So far they can handle the phonograms, some of the rules, We have the SWR app.  They are great readers! they have learned how to read with this program, now the spelling... my K is slow, my 2nd grader can spell great, I think is all the reading she does.

 

back to the issue; grammar stage vs Orton methods.

 

I would love to hear from both sides. and specially those that have noted something like what I say. I cannot go buy something different right now, so I have to make work what i have. How does that look for all you SWR/Spalding users?

 

to mark or not to mark for grammar stage, that is one of my questions, Yes to markings, especially for your 2nd grader. However, you could hold off for now with your K'er, at least until 1st grade. Just go through the lists "unofficially".

 

Before I introduced the SWR spelling lists and learning log to my little man, I began dictating only 3-5 simple words per day on K'er paper with no markings, as seen on our blog in Week 23 and Week 26 of our K4 Weekly Reports. Then I unofficially introduced him to the lists (WeeK 27 and Week 28) and eventually started adding markings but without syllable breaks (Week 31Week 32, Week 33, Week 35, and Week 36). We officially began the Primary Learning Log in Week 5 of K5. 

 

k

 

Perhaps if you share your (Spalding/or other) weekly lesson plan for each child, then we could offer advice/tips. 

 

I have weeks-at-a-glance from K4 thru G4 on my blog. You're welcome to take a look and see how I went about our daily routines with SWR. I'd be willing to answer any questions that you may have. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily believe you're asking your child to analyze off the whim. We are Spalding newbs, but the manual continually reminds and tells students what phonograms to use. It shouldn't be too difficult to mark what sound it says. It is working well with my 1st and 3rd graders. At different paces, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh goodness, I've known classical schools to use Spalding. Working through spelling that way you sort or end up with a chant as you spell which is how we were encouraged to teach k-6th ( WTM is the only place I've seen that calls 5th logic stage, though I have seen 6th elsewhere).

The markings seemed to work as a memory aid.

The

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use LOE with my 6 yo DD and she can mark, read, and spell words well.  Not all kids learn the same or require the same approach.  I agree with the pp that stated good spellers are good visualizers.

 

I don't see how we teach reading or spelling is relevant to classical ed. At the end of the day, what is most important is that the student can read and spell. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I learned about the method while visiting a classical school and the very classically-oriented teachers there sing its praises. I love how the syllables help the child spell correctly when the rules are remembered or internalized. Just break the word into the syllables, then spell the sounds/phonograms and apply the rules. Of course, English has a few of those crazy outlier words, but the great majority of the time if pronounced correctly, the child can come very close to spelling correctly (even though the wrong phonogram could be used for similar sounds, of course).

 

The Spalding method has worked very nicely for my not-so-natural reader/speller and my very intuitive speller. Very different kids, very different learners, same program. JMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I completely disagree with the bolded, generalized statements. Spalding, or one of its spin-offs (e.g., SWR), certainly can be a perfect fit for the classical grammar stage and foundational for eventually the logic stage, imo.

 

From our experience, I wouldn't have wanted to use anything but SWR from the very beginning. My little man literally learned to spell his way into writing and reading using Spell to Write & Read. Now as he's entering the logic stage, I witness him still using the SWR method daily to help him break down new words, learn to spell them, and find their meaning. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's priceless.

 

 

My statements began with "I agree..." and "I think..."  I stand by them, as my thoughts. 

 

I've used SWR extensively, and from the very beginning. My thoughts come from my experience in the same way that yours do.

 

The system of analyzing words does not mesh with the Trivium ideal of Grammar Stage mode of thinking. I don't necessarily follow the Trivium (at all really LOL), but Spalding vs Trivium is a valid question. No, they don't mesh. Yes, you can do SWR and TWTM anyway.

 

I see people try Spalding/O-G over and over again, spending a small fortune collecting slightly different packaging of the same method (that did not work...which is why we are buying another).  Try another method for students who struggle with Spalding!!!  It does NOT work for every student, and it is NOT more rigorous or thorough than what WORKS for your student.

 

 

My little man could spell sections A-I and still not read the basic Bob books. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Classical" is a very wide and overused word that really doesn't mean much of anything anymore.

 

As 4blessingmom said, "The system of analyzing words does not mesh with the Trivium ideal of Grammar Stage mode of thinking." It doesn't matter whether we agree or use the Trivium, we can still say whether or not the philosophies are compatible. They are not. 

Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...