Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What most of you above are discussing is not "reading" per se, but rather decoding. There are many languages where one can learn how to decode rather rapidly.
And, there are many ways to decode. Phonics is just one way to decode in English. It's not the end all, but one of several tools to give students. Still, don't know why people are so against phonics
Last edited by YorktownGal; 03-09-2023 at 07:10 AM..
I’m not sure how they are related. When I read French, I know how the words are supposed to sound based on what I learned in French lessons about pronunciation. I have no clue what many of the words mean. Simply being able to sound out words and say them correctly isn’t going to help you be functionally literate.
Irrelevant.
The assumption is that children are being taught to read in their native language, that they already speak.
Don't change the subject. What is the rate of functional literacy today after some 50 years of the education industry selling schemes for the teaching of reading, and what was the rate of functional literacy in 1940 when reading was taught rather simply by teaching students how to "decode" as another poster puts it, the letters on the page by learning their sounds?
Again, I always go back to "follow the money". There's no money to be had in selling curriculum materials and re-training teachers, to teach something that anyone capable of reading can teach to normal children in a few weeks.
The assumption is that children are being taught to read in their native language, that they already speak.
Don't change the subject. What is the rate of functional literacy today after some 50 years of the education industry selling schemes for the teaching of reading, and what was the rate of functional literacy in 1940 when reading was taught rather simply by teaching students how to "decode" as another poster puts it, the letters on the page by learning their sounds?
Again, I always go back to "follow the money". There's no money to be had in selling curriculum materials and re-training teachers, to teach something that anyone capable of reading can teach to normal children in a few weeks.
I’m still not sure what that has to do with functional literacy, other than it is one tool of many. A person can decode a word to the point where they associate it with a word they’ve heard, but they may not actually know what that word means. That’s why phonics can’t be used in isolation. Other tools like using context clues must also be used to try to figure out what something means. That’s actually far more valuable now than it was in 1940 since so many people use tools like dictation and autocorrect to write things out and what they write is often wrong. A person who is a fluent reader will likely fill in the blanks even if the word is wrong. A person who hasn’t learned those techniques will just get stuck because autocorrect has stuck some random word in.
I wonder if we're mixing up concepts here. I see a difference between the basic skill of reading which is to translate a written word into the actual word and its pronunciation, combined with sentence structure on the one hand vs the vocabulary skill of knowing words and meanings with the ability to understand larger meanings in what was written. I would see these as separate but inter-related skills that build upon one another, starting from a foundation of decoding letters into words. Then applying meaning to words. Then decoding words into sentences, paragraphs, and so forth, applying more complex meaning to the more complex structures.
Like with math, we start with learning to count and introduce more and more complex structures from simple addition to multiplication to algebra, geometry, trig, and eventually we get ever more complex concepts. If the alphabet is like learning to count, the perhaps we consider phonics falls at the level of basic arithmetic.
I wonder if we're mixing up concepts here. I see a difference between the basic skill of reading which is to translate a written word into the actual word and its pronunciation, combined with sentence structure on the one hand vs the vocabulary skill of knowing words and meanings with the ability to understand larger meanings in what was written. I would see these as separate but inter-related skills that build upon one another, starting from a foundation of decoding letters into words. Then applying meaning to words. Then decoding words into sentences, paragraphs, and so forth, applying more complex meaning to the more complex structures.
Like with math, we start with learning to count and introduce more and more complex structures from simple addition to multiplication to algebra, geometry, trig, and eventually we get ever more complex concepts. If the alphabet is like learning to count, the perhaps we consider phonics falls at the level of basic arithmetic.
Reading is actually looking at symbols and deriving meaning from them. You don’t actually need to know the pronunciation of a word to derive meaning from it, nor do you actually need a “word” at all. People read EKGs or x-rays, and neither of those have words. A doctor can just look at the EKG strip and say “Oh that’s normal sinus rhythm” or one of many other interpretations. Phonics is a good tool for English because it can help you say the word, which then helps you attach the meaning. On the other hand, a deaf person would never have that association and would either associate the word with a sign, symbol, or maybe specific mouth movements.
And the Spanish name of the letter S is ese, two syllables. It's even less like the sound ssss than "ess" is. The reason Spanish-speakers tend to say "estop" is that in Spanish, no word can begin with ST-., but words can begin with EST-. So until they have some fluency in English, it's difficult for them to pronounce a word like "stop."
Spanish is certainly easier to learn to read because the spelling is generally consistent, there are only five vowels sounds, and most alphabetic letters have only one pronunciation. It has nothing to do with stress vs. syllable-timing unless you mean that vowels in English words tend to be reduced in unstressed syllables, but English-speaking children learning to read do know Englishand it doesn't take them very long to recognize that a word like "lemon" is not pronounced "Lem-On."
Very interesting. Thank you.
In regards to the bolded, yes, I do think a key part of English-speaking children figuring out lemon is not pronounced that way is that they already know the language. In other words, the written English word is meant for those who already use the language. I asked a few foreigners what was the most difficult part of learning English and they said the pronunciation when reading, that is, until they used the language.
How long does it take to teach a student to read? A month? At the very most, the first six months of first grade? Teaching phonics is a short lesson plan. After learning to read, there is five years of introducing vocabulary words in grammar schools.
How has phonics become such a big issue?
I honestly don't know. I always say when a new program is in town, somebody's relative needed a job. I agree with you that phonics really should be a short lesson plan, and then after that, vocabulary should be the focus. But there still can be a strong emphasis on pronunciation when studying vocabulary, as in, "if the child just said the word correctly, they would understand."
I think the question becomes this. If the child is struggling with reading comprehension and says a word incorrectly, is it concluded that pronunciation is the key to its meaning? Well, phonics can't explain many words in English pronunciation, so the child would have to learn it by hearing it from another fluent English speaker. But if the focus is on forming independent meaning/comprehension, then the focus should be on other contexts as well. One context would be relying on the spelling of the word. The spelling should provide meaning. If that doesn't, then the context of the text should provide clues. If that doesn't, then a teacher or dictionary.
In this thread, there has been a discussion about phonics vs. whole-word. When a school moves away from one and focuses solely on another, then literacy rates drop. From what I gather, whole-word would seem to focus on vocabulary where the student sees the whole word and associates meaning to it. That doesn't take into account the structure of words that have a base and their different forms with prefixes and suffixes. It almost sounds as if students are studying one word, one meaning. That to me is very slow. Studying words in a family seems more efficient and it really doesn't depend on a student saying the words perfectly.
In regards to the bolded, yes, I do think a key part of English-speaking children figuring out lemon is not pronounced that way is that they already know the language. In other words, the written English word is meant for those who already use the language. I asked a few foreigners what was the most difficult part of learning English and they said the pronunciation when reading, that is, until they used the language.
My sister had an interesting take on this. She had minored in Spanish and then spent five years living in a remote area of Colombia, so she was pretty fluent. She was working as a bilingual instructor at a school in central Washington where most of the kids were the children of migrant fruit pickers. Most spoke primarily Spanish and some came from families that were so illiterate, they didn't even know which way to turn the pages of a book.
My sister was tasked with teaching them to read in Spanish. As they learned English, they were transitioned into reading English also, and for years this seemed to work quite well. Reading is a skill that only needs to be learned once, and then it can easily be transferred to other languages as you acquire them.
Then one day, the school district, or maybe it was the county or the state, I don't know, decided that "bilingual education" was the wrong thing. This is America and we only teach in English, no Spanish allowed in school.
My sister said this was an impossible task. She could not teach kids who didn't speak English to read in English! Whole language was useless because they didn't know the language. Phonics was useless too because English is just not phonetic enough. There are too many vowel sounds and not enough letters to cover them. Sure, you can teach that G-O is pronounced "go" but then how do you deal with with words like "come" and "to" and "off"? An English-speaking child knows all those words and quickly learns to recognize them, but if you don't speak English?
After a couple of years, my sister was so frustrated that she stopped trying to teach reading altogether and transferred to teaching middle-school science.
My sister had an interesting take on this. She had minored in Spanish and then spent five years living in a remote area of Colombia, so she was pretty fluent. She was working as a bilingual instructor at a school in central Washington where most of the kids were the children of migrant fruit pickers. Most spoke primarily Spanish and some came from families that were so illiterate, they didn't even know which way to turn the pages of a book.
My sister was tasked with teaching them to read in Spanish. As they learned English, they were transitioned into reading English also, and for years this seemed to work quite well. Reading is a skill that only needs to be learned once, and then it can easily be transferred to other languages as you acquire them.
Then one day, the school district, or maybe it was the county or the state, I don't know, decided that "bilingual education" was the wrong thing. This is America and we only teach in English, no Spanish allowed in school.
My sister said this was an impossible task. She could not teach kids who didn't speak English to read in English! Whole language was useless because they didn't know the language. Phonics was useless too because English is just not phonetic enough. There are too many vowel sounds and not enough letters to cover them. Sure, you can teach that G-O is pronounced "go" but then how do you deal with with words like "come" and "to" and "off"? An English-speaking child knows all those words and quickly learns to recognize them, but if you don't speak English?
After a couple of years, my sister was so frustrated that she stopped trying to teach reading altogether and transferred to teaching middle-school science.
What a disappointing decision, but it doesn't surprise me. The education system is still set up to be most advantageous for children who come from homes that prepare them for school.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
