Letter names vs sounds

[ReadingMama1214]

DS just turned 2 on 1/24. He loves leapfrog letter factory. He sees DD4 reading and is really starting to notice letters. He calls every letter "A" or "M" and every time he colors he says it's an "A". But he knows a lot of letter sounds. He can't match them to the letter, but just has them stored probably from DD and Letter Factory. for example, if we ask what "c" says he will say /c/ /c/ car or say /a/ /a/ apple. And he says /m/.

 

We taught dd letter names first she's doing fine and began reading before 4. But is it best to teach sounds first? I know that in school assessments they ask letter names, but I know if I care how he does on those.

 

He seems to be an auditory learner and mimics extremely well

[EKS]

I taught sounds when my son was 2yo.  I figured that since he was learning the words for everything else, calling letter shapes by their sounds would be just one more "word" to learn.  It made learning to blend fairly seamless, and he eventually learned the letter names too by the time he was 3-4yo.

[ReadingMama1214]

I taught sounds when my son was 2yo. I figured that since he was learning the words for everything else, calling letter shapes by their sounds would be just one more "word" to learn. It made learning to blend fairly seamless, and he eventually learned the letter names too by the time he was 3-4yo.

I think we will do sounds. DD4 learned names first, but now that's she's starting to read she calls them by their sounds half of the time anyways. It will be my own little experiment. See if teaching sounds first is different than letters.

[EKS]

I think we will do sounds. DD4 learned names first, but now that's she's starting to read she calls them by their sounds half of the time anyways. It will be my own little experiment. See if teaching sounds first is different than letters.

 

Experimenting on my children is one of the great joys of my life.  :D

[mathmarm]

I misread the first sentence as "DS just turned 2 and 1/24" and I was like wow that is some precise age tracking right there.

DS just turned 2 on 1/24. He loves leapfrog letter factory. He sees DD4 reading and is really starting to notice letters. He calls every letter "A" or "M" and every time he colors he says it's an "A". But he knows a lot of letter sounds. He can't match them to the letter, but just has them stored probably from DD and Letter Factory. for example, if we ask what "c" says he will say /c/ /c/ car or say /a/ /a/ apple. And he says /m/.

We taught dd letter names first she's doing fine and began reading before 4. But is it best to teach sounds first? I know that in school assessments they ask letter names, but I know if I care how he does on those.

He seems to be an auditory learner and mimics extremely well

We taught Jr to read via phonics and we lean very heavily on the sounds, not the letter names. 99% of the ABC books we've read to him, we have read the alphabet by their most common phonic sounds, not their names.

 

When we decode words for him, we decode by sounds. Jr has taken to reading beautifully and we have no intention of teaching the letter names soon.

[ReadingMama1214]

I misread the first sentence as "DS just turned 2 and 1/24" and I was like wow that is some precise age tracking right there.

We taught Jr to read via phonics and we lean very heavily on the sounds, not the letter names. 99% of the ABC books we've read to him, we have read the alphabet by their most common phonic sounds, not their names.

 

When we decode words for him, we decode by sounds. Jr has taken to reading beautifully and we have no intention of teaching the letter names soon.

 

Hahaha! He's the second child. I am lucky if I can remember how many months old he is! 

 

DD is learning to read with phonics and did learn letter names first, but she probably cemented down the letter names about the same time she cemented down the sounds. Once she knew the sounds, she started decoding.

 

DS is definitely more of an auditory learner. He knows songs better than DD did at his age and he seems to be able to mimic something and remember it. Although he isn't as verbal as she is, he is definitely more analytical and a problem solver. I think learning sounds will work well for him. I will have to remember to do sounds when we read ABC books. I hadn't even thought of that! I am sure he will learn some of the names as he is exposed in tv and such, but I am interested to see if there is a difference in learning names vs. sounds first. We shall see!

[HS Mom in NC]

Sounds first.  You don't need to know the name of a letter to actually read, so it's cumbersome to teach the names first when it's not necessary for reading.

Some children have a hard time remembering which is the letter name and which is the letter sound when it's time to actually read.  For them, they it's like deciphering vanity license plates.  Kids who learn letter sounds first and letter names much later never have that problem.

[HomeAgain]

Letter names have nothing to do with reading.  I honestly think it's one of the weirdest, meanest tricks adults pull on children.  They get them all pumped up, teaching them the alphabet song, how to recognize and write uppercase letters............and then a year later pull the rug out from under their feet while claiming, "Ha! Ha!  That's not reading AT ALL!"

Then starting all over with sounds and lowercase.  The child gets frustrated, the parent starts to wonder if the kid 'isn't ready' because they're not getting it (and they learned the names so well!), and the problems carry over...and over..and over...into spelling.  Into decoding.  Into trying to recognize it all by sight and pictures because that's the format they started with.

 

Teach reading skills.  Not party tricks.  They're not nice.

[shawthorne44]

I really regret teaching the names first.  I didn't know any better.  It doesn't seem to have scarred DD, but it in hindsight it does seem like a mean trick.  

[Chris in VA]

I think there's some support for calling the letters by their sounds, but the problem is, the letters have multiple sounds, and they are affected by the letters around them in words. So you could still cause confusion--"Hey, I thought you said this was Eh. Now you are saying it's EE. and when it's with I it's sometimes called I. So which is it?" LOL 

 

I teach letter names, and then sounds. I teach short sounds of vowels first, then some consonant blends, then long E, then...well, basically, I followed Phonics Pathways.

 

But, you CAN teach the sounds, it's just complicated.

[ReadingMama1214]

I think there's some support for calling the letters by their sounds, but the problem is, the letters have multiple sounds, and they are affected by the letters around them in words. So you could still cause confusion--"Hey, I thought you said this was Eh. Now you are saying it's EE. and when it's with I it's sometimes called I. So which is it?" LOL

 

I teach letter names, and then sounds. I teach short sounds of vowels first, then some consonant blends, then long E, then...well, basically, I followed Phonics Pathways.

 

But, you CAN teach the sounds, it's just complicated.

Wouldn't it be no more complicated than introducing the various sounds after the child had memorized initial sounds? My daughter new names first and learned the primary sound a letter makes first (consonant and short vowel sounds) she knew these for a while before learning of other sounds.

[HeartatHome]

I taught my daughter the sounds first and will do that again with my next child. I really liked it that way. They don't really need to know names of the alphabet to learn how to read. I actually explained to my daughter that the letter "a" for example has more then one sound but I'm teaching you the main sound for now and we'll learn the other sounds later which was helpful and there were no surprises later. :-)

[HomeAgain]

I think there's some support for calling the letters by their sounds, but the problem is, the letters have multiple sounds, and they are affected by the letters around them in words. So you could still cause confusion--"Hey, I thought you said this was Eh. Now you are saying it's EE. and when it's with I it's sometimes called I. So which is it?" LOL 

 

I teach letter names, and then sounds. I teach short sounds of vowels first, then some consonant blends, then long E, then...well, basically, I followed Phonics Pathways.

 

But, you CAN teach the sounds, it's just complicated.

 

There are no sounds called "double-you", "aitch", etc.  It's an extra step, adding extra "sounds" that students don't need.

[FO4UR]

I emphasize sounds, but it's a both/and for me.

 

I'd rather go slower and have each letter learned fully.  If they can learn that a cow says "moo," they can learn that B says /b/.  Dogs sometimes bark, sometimes growl.  Vowels sometimes say one thing and sometimes another. Kids are smarter than we think.  They simply need things put into terms they understand.

[HomeAgain]

I emphasize sounds, but it's a both/and for me.

 

I'd rather go slower and have each letter learned fully.  If they can learn that a cow says "moo," they can learn that B says /b/.  Dogs sometimes bark, sometimes growl.  Vowels sometimes say one thing and sometimes another. Kids are smarter than we think.  They simply need things put into terms they understand.

 

You're right, but it really does hinder the process.  Many of us who hear have learned basic ASL, right?  It is very hard to progress in finger spelling if you have to constantly translate in your head, especially for longer words.  If you spell out G-h-e-n-g-i-s-k-h-a-n and use all the letter names, you then have to go back, see the letter names in your head, translate them to sounds, and understand what you spell.  If you learn to recognize each hand symbol by sound, you are not looking for word pattern anymore, but reading for meaning the first time around.  If you learn a new alphabet like Hangul or Cyrillic, it is much harder and a longer process if you are taught to recognize them all by name, and then have to read them by sound.

 

The point is not whether children can overcome the hurdles placed in front of them, but whether they should have to.

[MerryAtHope]

I emphasize sounds, but it's a both/and for me.

 

I'd rather go slower and have each letter learned fully.  If they can learn that a cow says "moo," they can learn that B says /b/.  Dogs sometimes bark, sometimes growl.  Vowels sometimes say one thing and sometimes another. Kids are smarter than we think.  They simply need things put into terms they understand.

 

There's research to back up this approach too, that shows that children who know letter names generally have an easier time learning sounds and learning to read, and tend to be more motivated to discover more about the letters and words around them. (For anyone who has AAR Pre-reading, Marie Rippel cites a number of scholarly sources in Appendix B that bear this out, including articles in Reading Research Quarterly and Harvard Educational Review, as well as Theory and practice of early reading, etc...) As with any theory, there are always students who buck the trend and may learn better another way, but choosing to teach both letters and sounds is certainly a valid and appropriate approach for many children.

[ReadingMama1214]

There's research to back up this approach too, that shows that children who know letter names generally have an easier time learning sounds and learning to read, and tend to be more motivated to discover more about the letters and words around them. (For anyone who has AAR Pre-reading, Marie Rippel cites a number of scholarly sources in Appendix B that bear this out, including articles in Reading Research Quarterly and Harvard Educational Review, as well as Theory and practice of early reading, etc...) As with any theory, there are always students who buck the trend and may learn better another way, but choosing to teach both letters and sounds is certainly a valid and appropriate approach for many children.

I think we will do them both. DS seems to do this naturally anyways already. He knows several names and sounds, so why mess with it.

 

I also still have AAR PRe-reading and didn't get to use it all since my daughter started reading before we even finished it. So I think we will use AAR Pre next year with him very gently.

[FO4UR]

You're right, but it really does hinder the process.  Many of us who hear have learned basic ASL, right?  It is very hard to progress in finger spelling if you have to constantly translate in your head, especially for longer words.  If you spell out G-h-e-n-g-i-s-k-h-a-n and use all the letter names, you then have to go back, see the letter names in your head, translate them to sounds, and understand what you spell.  If you learn to recognize each hand symbol by sound, you are not looking for word pattern anymore, but reading for meaning the first time around.  If you learn a new alphabet like Hangul or Cyrillic, it is much harder and a longer process if you are taught to recognize them all by name, and then have to read them by sound.

 

The point is not whether children can overcome the hurdles placed in front of them, but whether they should have to.

 

 

 

Learning ASL and learning to read are two very different processes.  I think the analogy breaks down too quickly for that to be a guiding reason for teaching sounds only first.

 

If you read my post, you'll see that I said that I do emphasize sounds.  The ABC song is typically learned between 18mo and 3 years, long before kids learn letter sounds.  It makes sense to relate the ABC song and the ABC books and the ABC games that we play to the letters as they learn their sounds.  That said, when I begin teaching letter formation and recognition, I usually ask them for the sound of the letter and not the name.  They say /a/ as they fingertrace a sandpaper a, for example.  

 

I've taught 2 dyslexic children to read.  Believe you me, I have studied and analyzed the things that hinder and help children learn to read.  I'm not finished learning about early literacy, but I do know some things.

 

 

Pushing blindly toward a goal like "Do whatever it takes to get them reading asap!" is damaging.  Taking the time a child needs to master each letter is not damaging.  Teaching the letter names along with their sounds does not hinder the process.

 

 

There are 26 letters.  Take the years from 3-6 at the child's pace. There is plenty of time.

[HomeAgain]

There's research to back up this approach too, that shows that children who know letter names generally have an easier time learning sounds and learning to read, and tend to be more motivated to discover more about the letters and words around them. (For anyone who has AAR Pre-reading, Marie Rippel cites a number of scholarly sources in Appendix B that bear this out, including articles in Reading Research Quarterly and Harvard Educational Review, as well as Theory and practice of early reading, etc...) As with any theory, there are always students who buck the trend and may learn better another way, but choosing to teach both letters and sounds is certainly a valid and appropriate approach for many children.

 

I've read many of those studies, and they are all slightly flawed in how they approach the skill. It is the ones that compare English vs. American methods that are most interesting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671388/

"Several of the English children in our study performed at the first-grade level on the standardized spelling test even though they knew the names of just few letters. In contrast, a number of U.S. children knew a large majority of the letter names and yet performed at the preschool or kindergarten level. We did not find any evidence that learning the conventional names of letters first provides children with a boost that learning the sound labels first does not."

 

Eventually, both sets of children learn how to read.  With sounds.  Not with names.  When children get to a point where they need to alphabetize or spell more difficult words, the names come into play, not really the sounds.  Americans confuse the two skills, mostly because it is an insular country - the lack of need to study language in depth hinders their own skills.  I can read many different languages because I have learned their alphabet sounds.  I couldn't tell you the proper names for each of their letters, but I can certainly read them. 

 

Just because something is done one way doesn't make it valid.  It makes it something to consider and ponder and wonder why it is done that way, and if it provides any measurable use to the child.

[MerryAtHope]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671388/

"Several of the English children in our study performed at the first-grade level on the standardized spelling test even though they knew the names of just few letters. In contrast, a number of U.S. children knew a large majority of the letter names and yet performed at the preschool or kindergarten level. We did not find any evidence that learning the conventional names of letters first provides children with a boost that learning the sound labels first does not."

 

 

That's not really a comparison to what we're talking about either though, because knowing letter names doesn't mean a child knows sounds or understands segmenting and other spelling concepts. What we're discussing here is not really advocating the "American" way of teaching (that would be an entirely different conversation--huge percentages of students struggle with reading and writing in traditional American classrooms). 

[HomeAgain]

That's not really a comparison to what we're talking about either though, because knowing letter names doesn't mean a child knows sounds or understands segmenting and other spelling concepts. What we're discussing here is not really advocating the "American" way of teaching (that would be an entirely different conversation--huge percentages of students struggle with reading and writing in traditional American classrooms). 

 

Right, comparing sounds first to names first isn't what we're talking about.  Comparing learning other languages with different alphabets and how we read them isn't what we're talking about.  Comparing the need to give a child directly useful information only to giving a variety of information, some of which he won't use for a while until after reading, isn't what we're talking about.

 

I'm starting to see the difficulty.

[Jacbeaumont]

To those who chose to teach their children only sounds, when did you introduce the names, and how did you do so?

I'm specifically thinking about situations that would arise when teaching your child to print the letter. Do you say this is "ah" and point to the letter Aa or do you now teach the name?

 

Sent from my U9200 using Tapatalk

 

ETA:

I taught my DS the names first, than the sounds. Never had an issue. He is 5 and reading at a solid 3rd grade level.

Although, he is very good at memorizing so that has probably served him well.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Jacbeaumont

[FO4UR]

Right, comparing sounds first to names first isn't what we're talking about.  Comparing learning other languages with different alphabets and how we read them isn't what we're talking about.  Comparing the need to give a child directly useful information only to giving a variety of information, some of which he won't use for a while until after reading, isn't what we're talking about.

 

I'm starting to see the difficulty.

 

:confused1:  That is a confusing post. 

 

 

The OP asked for wisdom on teaching sounds vs names first.  Her child is 2yo and already picking up letter sounds.  Let him learn at his pace.  It's OK if he calls a C /c/ or a C "see".  By the time he's 3 he'll know all sounds and letter names if they only just keep doing what they are doing.  He's on a good track.  Keep going as you are.

 

On a broader scale, statistics say what they want to say.  If the posters here on this forum trusted the statistics, we wouldn't be homeschooling. :lol:  It would be reasonable to speculate that American kids pick up letter names from videos and video games withOUT adult instruction. Kids who learn the names in that manner will not likely be reading, no.  Most American kids don't learn the letter sounds until explicit reading instruction has begun. So...it makes sense that kids don't learn to read until they are taught to read.  That does not mean that learning the letter names first is the detail that held them back.

 

 

Until a child reflexively thinks the letter sounds when he sees the letter, reading will not take place.  That said, treating the teaching of the letter names as a hindrance to reading is preposterous! I believe this teaching of leaving out of the letter names is a pendulum swing that went too far.

 

 

I agree with giving a child the information he needs at the time and saving the plethora of rules for a gradual introduction.  That said... :confused1:  :lol:

[mathmarm]

To those who chose to teach their children only sounds, when did you introduce the names, and how did you do so?

Like I said, 99% of the alphabet books that we read we read by letter sounds, but occasionally we do use the letter names. We really only use letter names for oral spelling (as in, spelling bees or answering "how do you spell ____?" quickly.) I think that you could teach a child to write and spell using only phonograms.

 

We ignored/deemphasized the letter names because they aren't useful to reading and we are teaching him to read first. We will make sure that he learns letter names and the alphabet in sequence because we want to do alphabetizing, dictionary skills and oral spelling exercises with him eventually but we wanted to streamline the reading process and so we try and teach in the way that is most "efficient".

I'm specifically thinking about situations that would arise when teaching your child to print the letter. Do you say this is "ah" and point to the letter Aa or do you now teach the name?

For now, pre-writing is our focus. Jr traces basic strokes and does Kumon books on tracing, mazes and cutting. We haven't began to focus on teaching English handwriting just yet, he does trace letters some times and we always demonstrate for him the correct stroke order for letters.

Sent from my U9200 using Tapatalk

 

ETA:

I taught my DS the names first, than the sounds. Never had an issue. He is 5 and reading at a solid 3rd grade level.

Although, he is very good at memorizing so that has probably served him well.