S/O on Rod's post

[MicheleB]

Yes, I'm interested in the multisyllable approach you mentioned in my thread, Rod. http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59947

 

One question I have, since you mentioned it is *not* vision-related, is: *How* does it work for a child whose problem seems to be or at least was dx as being vision-related? Or is it something you'd suggest after the vision problems are fixed?

 

This is where I feel stuck. If I need to work on a phonics program, it would be almost entirely orally and I could not at this point consistently count on my boys looking at a letter and knowing the sound. BUT if I 'say' the letter name to them, they often know the sound.

 

Just curious how it all works together.

[MicheleB]

Bumping up....

[Rod Everson]

One question I have, since you mentioned it (your phonics program) is *not* vision-related, is: *How* does it work for a child whose problem seems to be or at least was dx as being vision-related? Or is it something you'd suggest after the vision problems are fixed?

 

This is where I feel stuck. If I need to work on a phonics program, it would be almost entirely orally and I could not at this point consistently count on my boys looking at a letter and knowing the sound. BUT if I 'say' the letter name to them, they often know the sound.

 

Just curious how it all works together.

 

It doesn't work "together" Michelle. That's the point. Think about what you're saying here. Your boys can only learn to read via oral instruction. But reading is entirely a visual process, in the sense that we look at print and decode it to match a known, spoken word. Without print to view, reading is a nonsensical process. How the reading researchers manage to ignore this obvious point amazes me, but they do, or worse, they seek to discredit the role of vision in the process entirely, and unsuccessfully, I would add.

 

Again, before a child is going to be able to handle print visually, he needs to have an efficient visual system. It makes far more sense to tackle the vision first, especially since it would appear that you already have a diagnosis of vision skills deficits.

 

If you can't afford VT, then I believe instructional time is better spent on overall education of your children, so that they can be convinced that they learn as well as any of their peers, just not via the same route. Besides, for most younger kids, learning by doing is more fun (and more effective) than learning by reading anyway. Instead, however, we seem to cut out instructional time in other subjects and devote more and more time trying to teach them to read when they don't yet have the necessary visual skills to be successful. In the meantime, the child feels less and less successful with each passing day.

 

Schools are filled with teachers and administrators who have bought into the prevailing thinking of the reading researchers. They also have plenty of LD classes and resource rooms filled with kids who struggle with reading and are falling behind in all their other subjects. This should tell you somebody is missing something somewhere, should it not? (This is not to say that some schools, in absolutely failing to teach their students phonics, don't have lots of kids in resource rooms who were just never effectively taught to read, by the way. Those schools most certainly do exist.)

 

Anyway, while I'd be happy to discuss the ins and outs of my phonics program here, it appears we're back to the vision topic again. And yes, the phonics program should follow remediation of vision skills deficits. :001_smile:

 

Rod Everson

OnTrack Reading

[MicheleB]

Anyway, while I'd be happy to discuss the ins and outs of my phonics program here, it appears we're back to the vision topic again. And yes, the phonics program should follow remediation of vision skills deficits. :001_smile:

 

Rod Everson

OnTrack Reading

 

I think I am finally putting this all together in my mind and understanding more. It makes total sense to me that if a kid can't 'see' print properly, we can't teach that child phonics until the vision problem is corrected. I was just hearing so many other things and was confused. But what you said in your post makes perfect sense to me.

 

Thanks. :)

[Rod Everson]

It makes total sense to me that if a kid can't 'see' print properly, we can't teach that child phonics until the vision problem is corrected.

Thanks. :)

 

You're welcome.

 

And just to make my position clear, Michelle, it is possible to teach phonics to a child with a vision problem, as long as they can see the print (and most kids can.) However, it's usually much more difficult to do so, plus the kids usually don't enjoy the experience because of their visual discomfort.

 

It makes more sense to try to address the vision skills deficits first, if possible. Sometimes, for various reasons, it's not possible, and we have to forge ahead with phonics instruction under unfavorable conditions.

 

In your case, you indicated that your boys were so uncomfortable viewing print that they could hardly make sense of it. That argues all the more that you should take the diagnosis of vision skills problems seriously and attempt to address them somehow before expending a lot more effort on phonics instruction.

 

Rod

[MicheleB]

Thanks, Rod.

 

I know, as far as basic sounds, my boys understand and know. But since they can't view print like they need to, we've never got much past that.

 

I sat down the other day we 9yo ds, just to see how it would go if we worked on some phonics. He likes Explode The Code a lot, but not the pages that require reading *and* writing both. So we usually skip those. Typically, these pages have sentences with one word missing, which the student finds at the top of the page with 5 or 6 other words (enough to complete the entire exercise).

 

Ds did great on the pages he just had to match the word (mixed up a few), but when we got to the page with reading and filling in the blank, it took approximately 1.5 minutes before he was rubbing his eyes, shaking his head and then crying.

 

Dh and I are looking into another VT and her costs (the first VT's costs were prohibitive); whether she'd be interested in less 'in the office' time (particularly since she's 2 1/2 hours away); etc. I'd like to at the very least get an evaluation from her and recommendations. I think it just makes sense to do this (VT) if we manage it somehow.

[ELaurie]

Did you see my post in your previous thread about Dr. Herzberg, who provides VT in our area? I included a link to his website. He is working with a friend of mine to provide VT for her dd using a computer based program at home. Perhaps you could contact his office to see if there is a provider in your area who will work with you.

[MicheleB]

Did you see my post in your previous thread about Dr. Herzberg, who provides VT in our area? I included a link to his website. He is working with a friend of mine to provide VT for her dd using a computer based program at home. Perhaps you could contact his office to see if there is a provider in your area who will work with you.

Not sure I did. I'll go back and check. Thanks Laurie! :)