OK, for next year ~ SWR, is this just too hard and complex?

[debbiec]

This is for my 12 yr old with Down Syndrome, who is reading about 2nd grade level.

 

Spelling/Phonics ~ SWR ~ I have not been able to find a soul locally who uses SWR to look at it. I think I may want a pared down version of it, if there is something like that? I have looked at AAS, but someone mentioned on the K-8 boards that she uses word families and not phonograms, though on her site, it states she uses the same phonograms (plus 2 extra) as SWR.

 

 

Thanks for looking and offering warnings and suggestions. My main concern is SWR and how to get this kid going with reading. HE learns well, but everything with him just takes more repetition and takes l-o-n-g-e-r. Son #1 I didn't homeschool until he was in 3rd, so I missed that whole reading issue. He was always a really great reader, we worked through MCP in 3rd and after that just SWO. I'm on the other end of the spectrum with this kid (son#2)and need help with reading. I don't know how to do that for slower paced kids, though I have read A LOT on line.

 

TIA ~ Debbie in BNA

[Claire]

Okay. I've read the information in your posts under decoding/encoding, so I'm going to give this a shot.

 

Orton-Gillingham forms the basis for traditional methods of teaching phonics. It has been around something like 30 years and is very tried-and-true. I would venture to say that all MSSL reading approaches (Multi-Sensory Structured Language) owe much of their components to OG. Many programs are offshoots of OG that offer slightly different approaches. Original OG, for example, means a fully trained tutor works one-on-one with a child, tailoring each lesson to that child's individual needs. Wilson is an OG program that provides a step-by-step approach with materials to teach either an individual child or a group of children, and requires you to start at the very beginning no matter what the child already knows. Here is an article that describes some of the major MSSL programs. SWR is a more user-friendly version of Spalding in that SWR provides materials and explanations so an untrained person can use the approach.

 

All of the OG-based programs teach a sight-to-sound methodology. This is why there is an emphasis on phonograms -- the symbols used in reading. Phonograms are the "spine" of the approach. You show a child a phonogram, then teach a sound associated with it. Some programs teach phonograms that combine sounds ("sl" as a phonogram, for example); however, that is considered bad practice now by many researchers.

 

Phono-Graphix (the professional version of the book Reading Reflex) and ABeCeDarian are newer and use a sound-to-sight methodology to teach reading. The "spine" of these programs are the sounds (phonemes). The theory is that the child already knows how to talk, so it makes sense to teach from the known to the unknown -- start with the sounds that make up words, and from there teach the symbols.

 

To those of us who already know how to read, it seems as if these are just two sides of the same coin. It can be very hard to figure out the significance of teaching one way instead of the other. However, in practice, there are quite a few ramifications to teaching one way instead of the other. I will tell you right now that I am biased in favor of sound-to-sight. (I have had licensing training in both Phono-Graphix and Orton-Gillingham.)

 

To get more of a feel for sound-to-sight, I highly recommend reading the first three chapters of the book "Reading Reflex" by McGuinness. (Libraries often have it, bookstores carry it for under $20, and sometimes you can find it remaindered online for $5 to $10.) This will provide a more thorough explanation of the reasoning behind sound-to-sight than I can give here.

 

With sight-to-sound, you are teaching based on a spine of 300+ phonograms (number of phonograms varies by program). Many of those phonograms have more than one sound associated with them. For example, the phonogram "ea" can represent the sound in "bead" or the sound in "bread". The sound in "bead" can also be represented by the phonogram "ee", and the sound in "bread" can also be represented by the phonogram "e". The way these overlaps are handled is to teach only one phonogram and one sound at a time, with lots of practice before the next overlapping phonogram is sound is introduced, to prevent confusion. This takes a lot of time.

 

Another aspect of sight-to-sound programs is that they emphasize teaching spelling simultaneously with teaching reading. A student is not considered solid on a phonogram until he/she can not only read that phonogram with accuracy, but also can write that phonogram with accuracy. Since research shows that most children can acquire reading skills much faster than they can acquire spelling skills, this emphasis tends to slow down progress in reading a *lot*.

 

Sound-to-sight programs are working from a much simpler spine -- the 70+ phonemes of the English language. Basically, these programs teach one *sound* at a time in a very structured way. Most OG programs (Barton is an exception) do not explicitly teach phonemic awareness skills -- segmenting, blending, and manipulating phonemes -- and just plan on the student acquiring them through repetitive use. Sound-to-sight programs *do* explicitly teach these skills, right at the beginning, and incorporate exercises to strengthen them.

 

Sound-to-sight programs start out by teaching about 9 simple sounds that can be mixed and matched to form words ("fat" "cat" "sat"). These simple sounds are then used in exercises (some of which incorporate manipulatives) to explicitly teach segmenting and blending skills plus the concept of sequentiality in reading (the order of the symbols is important) and reinforcement of left-to-right sequencing. Throughout all this, writing is used only as a reinforcement for reading. Spelling is not emphasized, and mastery of spelling is not required before moving on to new sounds.

 

After basic sounds, the next step is teaching adjacent consonants ("cl", "sp", "mp", etc.). There is no change in concept here, because each symbol still has its own sound that needs to be said in order. However, practice is provided in the context of words ("flat" "cast" "spat") to develop automaticity in blending skills for these common combinations.

 

The next step is teaching the concept that two letters can combine to make one sound ("ay"). There is no teaching of "silent-e". The combination of "a-e" in "take" is taught as two letters working together to represent one sound. The student might be given the letters "a e" on a piece of paper and a pair of scissors, and asked to cut them apart. Whether they are next to each other or separated by another letter, they work together to make the long-a sound. Lots of practice is provided on recognizing this combination (and differentiating between "cap" and "cape", "tap" and "tape". (There are other neat tricks for teaching the child to look ahead in the word to recognize these combinations.) Once the child has mastered "a-e", the other long vowels are shown to follow the same pattern and are taught ("slope", "tube", "line") and practiced.

 

The last concept introduced is that the same letters can represent more than one sound. (There is a neat "caveman" explanation that makes this concept "stick" really well in the child's mind, but that would be going into too much detail here.) For example, the long-o sound can be represented by "o", "o-e", or "ow". There are exercises for the child to sort words into their phonogram categories, and to write words underneath their phonogram categories. The emphasis here is on achieving automaticity in recognizing these patterns when reading words. The writing is used simply to reinforce that recognition. There is very little emphasis on spelling.

 

I hope I have explained the basic differences between "phonogram" and "phoneme" reading approaches in a way that is understandable. From my experience, the end result of the difference is that it is *much* simpler to teach from a phoneme spine (sound-to-sight) and also much simpler for the student to learn from that approach. Emphasis is put on explicitly teaching subskills at the very beginning and concepts are explicitly taught and then practiced. There are many fewer phonemes than phonograms in the English language, plus phonemes are already known to the child. The phoneme approach can be slowed down very easily or speeded up very easily to accommodate the individual needs of the child.

 

Having said all that, I want to mention that *no* reading program works for every single child. There are a few children who cannot seem to access reading except through spelling. For these children, a phoneme approach may not work and OG is more effective. However, from my observations, I would have to say that these children are very few in number. In general, probably 9 out of 10 children will learn reading faster and more easily using a phoneme approach.

[siloam]

This is for my 12 yr old with Down Syndrome, who is reading about 2nd grade level.

 

Spelling/Phonics ~ SWR ~ I have not been able to find a soul locally who uses SWR to look at it. I think I may want a pared down version of it, if there is something like that? I have looked at AAS, but someone mentioned on the K-8 boards that she uses word families and not phonograms, though on her site, it states she uses the same phonograms (plus 2 extra) as SWR.

 

 

Thanks for looking and offering warnings and suggestions. My main concern is SWR and how to get this kid going with reading. HE learns well, but everything with him just takes more repetition and takes l-o-n-g-e-r. Son #1 I didn't homeschool until he was in 3rd, so I missed that whole reading issue. He was always a really great reader, we worked through MCP in 3rd and after that just SWO. I'm on the other end of the spectrum with this kid (son#2)and need help with reading. I don't know how to do that for slower paced kids, though I have read A LOT on line.

 

TIA ~ Debbie in BNA

 

Debbie,

 

What I am told AAS does (I put it that way because I haven't seen it, but I am confident about this) is they do teach the phonograms, but they group spelling words by word family where SWR will not.

 

Personally I like word families for reading and not for spelling. My kids are just too good at patterns, which was great for learning to read, but not remembered outside of spelling despite the fact they got all the words right.

 

Yes I have found SWR to be complicated. I have doubted myself a lot. I have wanted to throw it out a window so many times I can't count how many. But I don't regret sticking with it. My kids have dyslexic tendencies, and as of my ds 5yo b-day we still couldn't understand what he was saying. We could tell he was talking, and in full sentences, but it didn't sound like anything we understood. Because of my last year of battling SWR I was able to sit down and work with him on correctly forming the phonogram sounds, and in just a few months we can now understand over half of what he says.

 

The more traditional, 3 year, word family reading program I started my oldest with would have never given ME the skills to help my ds.

 

I do like the philosophy behind Reading Reflex. But when it came to teaching it I hit a wall. It was with my 2nd dd , and remember at this point that I barely know my phonics (roll eyes). She could take words apart without problems but she had a hard time reading. So the exercises in Reading Reflex she could do and would do to a high level (sorting the letters into words), but when she went to read an easy reader she would have to sound out every word and often would completely forget sounds. When she freezes like that she can't remember he own name (not literally, but it seems that way when I was teaching her). Anyway for her it was the drill of phonograms, covering them daily, burning them into her head that finally got her over the hurtle to reading.

 

If I had understood phonics better I probably could have made RR work for her, but I needed instruction, which SWR I feel does better, though not painless.

 

My oldest doesn't have dyslexic tendencies and could have learned from any system, or probably would have taught herself if I had waited much longer.

 

But in the end I really use a combination of both methods, and don't rely on either one.

 

Heather

 

[siloam]

Claire,

 

That is fascinating. Thanks for typing it out.

 

I really like parts of both programs, so I use SL and Explode the Code (Sound to Sight) for reading while covering only the sounds of the first 26 phonograms, via sand letter cards or writing in sand so they also work on handwriting and letter formation.

 

Then in 2nd grade I start teaching all the phonograms for spelling purposes along with spelling rules, which also reinforces their reading, which is a must for my 2nd dd who is still so tentative. She refuses to guess at anything. She is a person who either knows it or doesn't, no gray.

 

Heather

[debbiec]

Thanks Claire so much for the information. It was so helpful. I read it late last night and will have to get back on later this morning and read it again more slowly. You don't know how much I appreciate it. Our library had RR, so I'll read it this weekend to understand the sound/sight approach ~

[debbiec]

Thanks for the info, Heather. I think I'm more confused than ever :)

[debbiec]

Sound to sight ~ the sound /f/ can be spelled by "f" or "ph" (or whatever else, don't have a reference in front of me)..

 

sight to sound ~ the "ch" can have the sound of /ch/ or /k/ or /sh/ (or whatever).

 

Is this the gist of the difference (beside the longer outcome of quicker reading with sound to sight)

 

You're right, to the novice like me, it does seem like two sides of the same coin. You still have to learn the sounds and the phonograms in both cases, just which will reference the other. But then, like you said, kids already know the sounds, so they learn the phonograms that go with the sound. It would seem like one approach would work better for reading (sight to sound, what sounds can these letters make) and the other for spelling (sound to sight, what are my options for spelling this sound), but that seems backwards from what you said. So, I obviously don't have this completley figured out yet.

[debbiec]

You may have read my post to Claire about my confusion between the Sound to Sight and Sight to Sound. RR and SWR sound like they are opposites in that regard, but at the same time, they both have things to offer.

 

SWR seems to me to be a better spelling program, while RR seems to work well for reading. Could you use both somehow together? Or modifiy SWR to work with RR. Or would it be best to work through RR some and later add in SWR when reading skill are improved?

 

Am I making any sense at all?:o

 

Debbie

[Stirsmommy]

 

You're right, to the novice like me, it does seem like two sides of the same coin. .

 

I have just started going through RR thanks to Claire's suggestion. I think some of the examples make it a bit clearer but I can not explain.:rolleyes:

I do have SWR and the combo of it being so much for me to try to wrap my wee brain around and ds's issues I have bagged it. I will just have to deal with it later. Or sell it.

I think my biggest issue right now is I want instant gratification. I want to understand, know and start doing...yesterday. I need to learn some patience with my self and the process.

[debbiec]

Well, I have RR coming from the library. I'll read it and see if it's clearer ~

[Claire]

Sound to sight ~ the sound /f/ can be spelled by "f" or "ph" (or whatever else, don't have a reference in front of me)..

 

sight to sound ~ the "ch" can have the sound of /ch/ or /k/ or /sh/ (or whatever).

 

Is this the gist of the difference (beside the longer outcome of quicker reading with sound to sight)

 

 

Actually, no, at least in my opinion. It isn't just the order in which the sound/symbol correlations are taught that is significant. It is also how they are taught, the exact language you use while teaching, how you work on subskills, and quite a few other concepts that are really explicit.

 

The first three chapters of RR will help you understand it a little better. To be quite honest, though, I did not grasp the significance of all this until after I had spent about 20 hours working one-on-one with my daughter. I had to actually *use* the approach in order to understand that there really is a huge difference between teaching sound-to-sight and sight-to-sound. Getting Orton Gillingham training confirmed for me that the two approaches are vastly different, even though the end result is that they teach the same phonics skills.

[Claire]

You would never want to use these two programs simultaneously. It would be too confusing to the child.

 

The RR approach is to focus on reading first. Once reading at about an ending 3rd grade level is achieved, you can add in a spelling program. RR does have some spelling you can incorporate, but IMO it's not particularly good. If you decide to use RR, my advice is to simply wait and add in a spelling program once your son can read on a mid-3rd grade level or better.

 

If you decide on SWR, you can certainly incorporate some of the phonemic awareness exercises of RR.

[Claire]

I do have SWR and the combo of it being so much for me to try to wrap my wee brain around and ds's issues I have bagged it.

 

I bought SWR also and spent *hours* putting studying the materials, assembling the log (or whatever it was), practicing what I had to do in a lesson, etc. (This was after she was remediated in reading. At that point, I really wanted to work on her spelling.) I actually got so far as to sit down with her for about 5 lessons before giving up. It was too complicated for me and moved too slowly for my dd.

[debbiec]

I have spent another full day on line trying to understand what you told me in the lengthy email. It's not that you were not clear, because you were. But, after your post, I could go back and read these programs and see what I couldn't see before. I totally get the difference between the sound/sight - sight/sound now. And, I am convinced, as you said, that sound to sight is best. I also found on a UK Down Syndrome website that they HIGHLY recommend sound to sight and listed all the reasons you had already given me so well. They particularly recommended REading Reflex (well, it is from the UK).

 

I plan to buy the book, but I'm picking it up from my library tomorrow morning (it was closed today) to read it through. I'm sure I'll have more questions later.

 

So flashcards are not a component of this program? Kids with DS are very visual ~ just wondering.

 

I cannot tell you how greatful I am for your help!

Debbie

[Claire]

I have spent another full day on line trying to understand what you told me in the lengthy email. It's not that you were not clear, because you were. But, after your post, I could go back and read these programs and see what I couldn't see before. I totally get the difference between the sound/sight - sight/sound now. And, I am convinced, as you said, that sound to sight is best. I also found on a UK Down Syndrome website that they HIGHLY recommend sound to sight and listed all the reasons you had already given me so well. They particularly recommended REading Reflex (well, it is from the UK).

 

I plan to buy the book, but I'm picking it up from my library tomorrow morning (it was closed today) to read it through. I'm sure I'll have more questions later.

 

So flashcards are not a component of this program? Kids with DS are very visual ~ just wondering.

 

I cannot tell you how greatful I am for your help!

Debbie

 

That's great!

 

I don't know about ABeCeDarian, but flashcards are not a part of Phono-Graphix at all. They could be incorporated into the program, but basically they're not considered necessary. Some children do benefit from flashcard drill, though, to develop fluency. If you get to this point, I can describe a flashcard drill I learned in OG training that incorporates lots of repetition (to improve automaticity of pattern recognition). You could add it into the lesson without confusion.

[siloam]

You would never want to use these two programs simultaneously. It would be too confusing to the child.

 

The RR approach is to focus on reading first. Once reading at about an ending 3rd grade level is achieved, you can add in a spelling program. RR does have some spelling you can incorporate, but IMO it's not particularly good. If you decide to use RR, my advice is to simply wait and add in a spelling program once your son can read on a mid-3rd grade level or better.

 

If you decide on SWR, you can certainly incorporate some of the phonemic awareness exercises of RR.

 

I agree that with the way RR is structured it would be confusing to do both. Too many images that mean different things. For example, in one A would be /a/ as in map and the next it would be /A/, /a/, /ah/. The child would spend too much time memorizing that one flash card meant one thing and the other type of card meant something similar, but different. I wouldn't touch SWR till you finished RR and then you could use it for spelling...or just as a spelling list if you were worried about confusing the child with the phonograms.

 

While Sonlight uses progression to introduce letter sounds as RR does, it is writing based (copywork/dictation), so the child is processing the information in different ways. So we cover phonograms, as I stated, by sand letter cards or writing in sand. Then we do some dictation with SL where I read her a simple sentence to copy then the next day write out: The cat sat on a mat. Then we read a simple reader from the Bob books or Now I'm Reading Series.

 

In fact part of the reason why I like using SWR with Sonlight is because when I taught my oldest she would ask why the and a (in the above sentence) do not make the right sounds. Using SWR eliminates the need for sight words entirely, because you can explain those sounds now. :D

 

There is no way I could do just SWR spelling till reading "clicks." I don't know why but the progressive method makes so much more sense to me. But SL and RR do differ in SL uses sight words and RR does not, that I remember. I think RR also does a better job of teaching the child how different letters or letter combinations can make the same sound. SWR...in the way it is presented...gives the impression they will give you rules to figure that out. In some cases that does happen, but in many you are still having to memorize which ones to use (for spelling purposes).

 

That is why I don't bother with all the steps SWR recommends. I honestly don't have the time, so I streamlined it to fit the time I do have, working only with words they miss and actually need to cover in more depth.

 

Anyway, hope you love RR!

 

Heather

 

[debbiec]

No, he's not reading as well as 3rd grade yet, but he is reading late 1st/early 2nd grade level. So, I'm having to consider. I did email Marie at All About Spelling. She said she uses the same SWR phongrams, but she also does reverse sound to sight as well, but with one spelling at a time.

 

I read a really good article last night discussing the sound to sight, sight to sound methods. It said that the goal for both methods should be at the end of learning, the student can reverse. If learning sight to sound, the goal would be to be able to translate sound to sight as well.

 

But, I think you're right ~ initially, they would be confusing. My library opens in 20 minutes, so I'm spending the day (beween loads of laundry) to read RR.

 

Thanks, Heather ~ I've really found your experience helpful

 

Debbie

[Stirsmommy]

Hi Claire,

I am glad you are starting to get it. I had to reread some of reading reflex just to understand since my mind just wasn't programming well. I finished the first two chapters and just did the testing with my ds. It was definitely enlightening. I am now trying to get prepped for the teaching part so I can start Monday. If you decide you want to run with it the supply list is on page thirty. You may have most of it at home. I really needed just the dedicated small white board. I also got fun colored envelopes because they were there and color makes me smile.

Good luck.

Melissa

[debbiec]

I tested my ds yesterday and he would begin in chapter 5, exactly. He has the sounds in chapter 4 down very well, but chapter 5 he missed nearly everything on the assessment test, though he was getting tired of playing my "game." He can read those sounds in a word very well, but isolated, he can't tell me the sound they make.

 

Also, can I say I HATE the way she does handles multisyllable words in Chapter 6? I think one of her examples was "table" and she divides it as "tab le." Should it not be ta ble, making the a long at the end of a syllable? But I could just skip that part and teach it different later. I'm focusing on reading right now and not spelling rules. Right?

 

The O-E ~ he has already learned the "silent e" rules in school for years. I think teaching that the RR way would be too confusing for him. I may have to just let that go.

 

Thoughts? Or just march on through Chapter 5? Claire, I did see a post you made about Sequential Spelling and like programs? I'm wondering if that may not be an easier route for us at some point.

 

Debbie in Nashville

[siloam]

I tested my ds yesterday and he would begin in chapter 5, exactly. He has the sounds in chapter 4 down very well, but chapter 5 he missed nearly everything on the assessment test, though he was getting tired of playing my "game." He can read those sounds in a word very well, but isolated, he can't tell me the sound they make.

 

Also, can I say I HATE the way she does handles multisyllable words in Chapter 6? I think one of her examples was "table" and she divides it as "tab le." Should it not be ta ble, making the a long at the end of a syllable? But I could just skip that part and teach it different later. I'm focusing on reading right now and not spelling rules. Right?

 

The O-E ~ he has already learned the "silent e" rules in school for years. I think teaching that the RR way would be too confusing for him. I may have to just let that go.

 

Thoughts? Or just march on through Chapter 5? Claire, I did see a post you made about Sequential Spelling and like programs? I'm wondering if that may not be an easier route for us at some point.

 

Debbie in Nashville

 

You know your ds best, so I say go with your gut.

 

Long term I plan to go to Megawords because it still teaches spelling rules and doubles as vocab. I like double duty activities. But it starts at 4th grade, which may or may not work for your ds.

 

I have had SS before, and the only reason why I don't use it is because my dc and I are pattern people and it was too easy for us to figure out the pattern, get all the spelling words right, but not transfer it to spelling in real writing situations. For example I don't memorize phone numbers. I memorize the pattern in which you press the buttons to dial the number. :rolleyes: I was also going to have a battle on my hands because they didn't like having to switch colors to write out one word, just like we don't do the finger spelling with SWR for the same reason. It wasn't worth the battle.

 

If your ds isn't good with patterns they SS might be a great fit.

 

Hoping Claire has some great observation for you.

 

Heather

 

 

[Claire]

I tested my ds yesterday and he would begin in chapter 5, exactly. He has the sounds in chapter 4 down very well, but chapter 5 he missed nearly everything on the assessment test, though he was getting tired of playing my "game." He can read those sounds in a word very well, but isolated, he can't tell me the sound they make.

 

Also, can I say I HATE the way she does handles multisyllable words in Chapter 6? I think one of her examples was "table" and she divides it as "tab le." Should it not be ta ble, making the a long at the end of a syllable? But I could just skip that part and teach it different later. I'm focusing on reading right now and not spelling rules. Right?

 

The O-E ~ he has already learned the "silent e" rules in school for years. I think teaching that the RR way would be too confusing for him. I may have to just let that go.

 

Thoughts? Or just march on through Chapter 5? Claire, I did see a post you made about Sequential Spelling and like programs? I'm wondering if that may not be an easier route for us at some point.

 

Debbie in Nashville

 

I don't have the RR book here. Is Chapter 4 adjacent consonants? And Chapter 5 advanced code? If it's advanced code that you want to start working on, then to continue with RR I would highly recommend getting their "Parent Support Guide for Older Students" and switching to that as your spine. It is much easier to do advanced code that way.

 

Alternatively, go to the ABeCeDarian group and find out where you would want to start in ABeBeDarian. You might feel more comfortable with that program, as the parent materials are better and the email support list is excellent.

 

Carmen McGuinness does not always select the best examples to illustrate her points. I do not remember how well RR explains "chunking" vs syllabication. "Chunking" is a very well-accepted alternative to teaching syllabication rules. You are absolutely right that correct syllabication is necessary for spelling. However, "chunking" is an easier way for a student to divide words for reading.

 

Sequential Spelling is not meant to be used as an instructional reading program! It tends to be a frustrating program for students who do not yet read on at least a beginning 4th grade level.

 

Can you post your son's scores on the assessments in RR? You said there are sounds he can read in words, but that he cannot isolate those sounds. This usually means a problem with segmenting, and that he is probably using visual memory for words. Before moving into advanced code, you really want to make sure that his segmenting, blending and phoneme manipulation skills are in place. These are actually more important than code knowledge at his stage of reading.

[debbiec]

Well, his scores on RR were ~

 

Blending Test - 100% (15 of 15)

 

Phoneme Segmentation - 100% (42 of 42)

 

Auditory Processing - I fudged this one. He could do the 3 CVC words auditory, and the 4 letter words only if they were written down. He would write the word down, erase the letter to be deleted and then say it). Visual reliant. So, wasn't exactly sure how to score that one, he can do it visually for 4 letter words, and only auditory for 3 letter words. DS kids are known to not be the best auditory processors and are very visual learners. NOt sure how to record his scores here. Straight auditory, 30%.

 

Code Knowledge Cue cards - 72% Ok, here was the problem: he gets down to "QU" and gets them all perfectly. CE was strange, he was taught all these years the silent e rule, so that completely threw him for a loop and I have to say me too, since at that point I had not read the entire book. The following vowel pairs he was able to do some and the ones he could not isolate, he can read well in words, but not isolated. So, again, you are right, he is relying on visual memory a lot, which is not surprising to me.

 

So, yes, that placed him in Advanced Code overall, if I count a fudged auditory skill. Not sure how to interpret the auditory though or if that would warrant staying back to get that nailed down, or just continue to Advanced and continue to work on auditory skills.

 

Thanks so much for your time! I can't tell you how much I appreciate you ~

 

Debbie

 

PS ~ yes, Chapter 4 is adjacents and Chapter 5 advanced

[Claire]

Well, his scores on RR were ~

 

Blending Test - 100% (15 of 15)

 

Phoneme Segmentation - 100% (42 of 42)

 

Auditory Processing - I fudged this one. He could do the 3 CVC words auditory, and the 4 letter words only if they were written down. He would write the word down, erase the letter to be deleted and then say it). Visual reliant. So, wasn't exactly sure how to score that one, he can do it visually for 4 letter words, and only auditory for 3 letter words. DS kids are known to not be the best auditory processors and are very visual learners. NOt sure how to record his scores here. Straight auditory, 30%.

 

PS ~ yes, Chapter 4 is adjacents and Chapter 5 advanced

 

Okay, but how did he do on the segmenting test? Did he get 100% on that too? (I will assume he did.)

 

I really think you should switch to ABeCeDarian at this point, because of his difficulty with the oral phoneme manipulation. ABCD has specific exercises in it that will help develop his skills in this area. For example, there are exercises in which he can practice dropping just the last phoneme in words (easiest), just the first phoneme in words (next hardest), and the middle phoneme in words (hardest). You really want to start working on this skill now, as it will be very helpful to him later in advanced text. It doesn't mean you can't continue working at his level in advanced code; you would just incorporate these phoneme manipulation exercises into your daily lessons. This would be much easier to do with ABCD than RR, because ABCD has these kinds of exercises all laid out for you.

 

Since ABCD and RR are so similar, you can certainly continue to work in RR until your ABCD materials come. I just think ABCD is going to work much better for you.

[kfrench]

Concering All about Spelling. It is all the phonograms and rules of SWR but in an organized manner. You learn one rule at a time and use it with a list of words. Such as learning c ck and k and when to use each letter at the beginning or end of word. You learn the rule and then use the rule to figure out the spelling of words with c ck and k. Then after you have learned them the words and rules will be reviewed until mastered and you mix up all the words learned and have kids spell different one's each day. So you first learn the rules with the words but you also later have to remember the rules to spell the words that come up following that rule. It also teaches about sylables and how to separate them. I used SWR for 1 year and it was a love hate relationship. I hated the set up and how to teach it but I loved the phonograms and the rules as I learned why words were spelled certain ways. With AAS I love the whole program. It would definitly be easier to understand that SWR because you learn rules and phonograms one at a time and learn it one step at a time. With SWR you learn all the phonograms and rules or learn from whole to part. AAS takes it from part to whole. But with the same underlying goal and rules.

AAS is also spelled out word by word what to do each day and is nooret complicated and you do not have to read the book 3 times and ask many questions before you use it it is a pick it up and go.

 

Also it has colored phonogram tiles to spell the words with so requires less writing and more hands on learning. The tiles is what my daughter loves and it helps her see the rule and she can quickly try different letters to see which one is correct with out erasing. So it is much faster. Also you have a flash card for each thing the child seeing a phonogram and saying it, then another set for mom saying phonogram and child finding it on word tile or writing it, then there are the spelling rules used, and the spelling words. So what ever the child has not mastered it goes in the review slot and is reviewed daily until mastered. Everyone in a while you go over the mastered items and put any not mastered back into review. So you go at your child's pack and do not miss any unlearned item. And you get the review of what your child needs to learn with out the extras that he doesn't need.

kris

[debbiec]

Well, I've been busy researching, researching, researching. I REALLY like how SWR is integrated with grammar and writing, but I agree, for the child I would be buying it for, too much information at one time. I decided to buy All About Spelling but I'm having trouble forking out the money for two levels at once and pressing "check out" :) Mostly, because I know Level 1 will be a review and I doubt we'll use it over 2 months. I could be wrong. But, I figure mostly we'll be sitting in Level 2 for a while.

 

But, we're working through some of Reading Reflex right now so I'm not in a huge hurry to get it and am hoping it'll come up for sale on the boards soon.

 

Thanks for the quick review it ~ Debbie