Talk to me about delayed reading instruction - Page 2

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

But I'm trying to figure out what happened to my post that you're responding to here - my response to Jessica - it just seems to be gone.

Well, I wondered if I was more tired than I realize from the event I just put on this past weekend, but I've looked all through this thread, and all the numbers from 1 to 20 are there, and my post about the various learning-to-read styles I've heard of directly from parents is gone .

I used to argue the value of the phonics method till I was blue in the face in forums like this, and be blown down by many people who insisted they and their children had learned to read in other ways that worked much better for them. So while research may seem perfectly clear in its conclusions, I'm a lot less likely these days to embrace it in isolation from all the things people who have been up close and personal with their own homeschooled children have to say. - Lillian

[Plummeting]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

I think that's probably very true - good point.

But I'm trying to figure out what happened to my post that you're responding to here - my response to Jessica - it just seems to be gone. But in it, I mentioned a number of different ways I've personally known of children learning to read - and some of them who simply taught themselves without phonics instruction were able to maintain high level reading way into college. I couldn't have done that, and my son couldn't have done that - but it's done...

Lillian

lol I don't know. I don't disagree that some people can do it. Some people can also tell you what day of the week it will be on March 23, 4028, without thinking on it for more than 5 seconds. They just happen to be the exception and not the rule.

[Plummeting]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

I used to argue the value of the phonics method till I was blue in the face in forums like this, and be blown down by many people who insisted they and their children had learned to read in other ways that worked much better for them. So while research may seem perfectly clear in its conclusions, I'm a lot less likely these days to embrace it in isolation from all the things people who have been up close and personal with their own homeschooled children have to say. - Lillian

You might as well say that no one should ever research anything at all, because there are always (or almost always) exceptions to every rule. It seems to me that you're essentially willing to say that all the available data is completely meaningless and I simply cannot agree with that. It's not meaningless at all! But no point in belaboring it anyway. We have to agree to disagree, I think. I'm happy to let parents choose to teach however the heck they want. I'm just not happy to let them say that, since they know of an exception to the rule, the rule is meaningless.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by Plummeting

You might as well say that no one should ever research anything at all, because there are always (or almost always) exceptions to every rule. It seems to me that you're essentially willing to say that all the available data is completely meaningless and I simply cannot agree with that. It's not meaningless at all! But no point in belaboring it anyway. We have to agree to disagree, I think. I'm happy to let parents choose to teach however the heck they want. I'm just not happy to let them say that, since they know of an exception to the rule, the rule is meaningless.

No, I'm not saying it's meaningless - I'm saying it's part of the picture, and it's the piece I'm personally most familiar with.
Here are other pieces:
How My Children Learned to Read
Two Brothers Who Learned Differently
Four Children Now Reading
Persephonics

I've had lively debates with some of these people on the issue, and the conclusion I'm come to is that there are simply a lot of different facets to the learning of reading. Phonics worked for me - but it's not the be all and end all for everyone.

And maybe why current research on this doesn't reflect and include these other ways of thinking is that it hasn't included the homeschool community - maybe the researchers are not familiar with all the alternatives that get pursued outside of institutional settings. It's not necessarily a matter of lining up look-see or whole word or phonics curricula against one another, but about individual families working things out in their own unique ways.

Lillian

[jessicaSAR]

It would be really interesting if the homeschooling community were somehow included in reading research. It is true that virtually all of this research is school-based, since that's where most of the kids are. And, as was pointed out, even while the whole language/phonics debated raged, schools rarely had a coherent method on either side. Even as it has become increasingly clear that certain types of phonectic instruction are the way to go, schools and teachers find it hard to really make wholesale changes in what they are doing.

Homeschoolers are interesting on two fronts. The first is the more unschooling crowd that Lillian is referencing. There are lots of stories on homeschooling boards of children seemingly learning to read virtually overnight at later ages. These would be really interesting to research. Although, if you read MDC you see an enormous number of postings about 2 and 3 yo readers. I think these are really the exception, and either MDCers are disproportionately precocious, or more likely, we don't really remember what age we learned to read, and are just repeating the stories we have been told. My Uncle insists that his daughter was speaking in complete sentences at six months. I think he just doesn't remember having small babies all that well. And, of course there are also many homeschoolers whose children are still struggling to read at ages 7 and 8, but, they may not be posting about it quite as much as the more advanced readers. Don't we all love to post about our children's successes.

The other group of homeschoolers who would provide interesting research material are those who have stuck to more classical, traditional phonectic approaches to reading all along. It would be interesting to see if the rates of reading difficulties vary when this population is compared to the schooled population.

What I find most interesting in the reading research is that there is a clear population of students who struggle to read regardless of background. There are many who are struggling because they have had almost none of the exposure to language that they need, but there is also a group that has had a rich, literate environment and that still struggles. So, it is not necessarily the case that providing the right environment is enough.

Anyway, I am being too long winded, but there is a great website here

http://www.childrenofthecode.org/

that has tons of interviews with researchers in this field. I found the information here really fascinating and a good jumping off point for doing my own research.

[MyLittleWonders]

Originally Posted by Plummeting

Lillian, I think we need to draw a strong distinction between what actually is research-based and what educators have been told was research-based. The schools have followed the fads all willy-nilly for years and the way they justify their haphazard approach to education is by saying it's all based on the latest and greatest. The reality is that it's usually just not true.

And since I said I told you all I haven't even started homeschooling yet, I think I need to explain, however, that I've read tons of actual research into different educational methods and the results they produce. A few things are certainly true and actually are verifiable according to research. There's really no basis at all for the idea that referring to the research is useless since the schools say *everything* they want to do is based on research. There is research out there that is both valuable and informative and parents should study it.

As to the whole word vs. phonics argument...it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that phonics is superior. The research on that is pretty much definitive. The only people still disagreeing are the ones who sell whole word curricula and the ones who believe that all learning occurs without instruction. Some people will learn very wel by the whole word method. Most people won't learn well that way. It's really not in question at this point.

In many ways, I agree with you. I have read research on both sides of the reading debate (my master's degree was in reading instruction). I can argue equally well for phonetic instruction and whole-word instruction. I agree that the schools go with what is in vogue. For many years that was whole-word (really, look-say) instruction. Some of the students thrived, many learned how to read, and others (like an older cousin of mine) lament because they never learned phonics. Now, the tide has turned and phonics is the way to teach reading. Actually, it's touted as the only way to teach reading. Many students thrive with phonics instruction. I've personally seen it. But, there are those who don't. (I'd argue that more thrive with phonics instruction than whole-word instruction, just to be clear.) Unfortunately, those who do not often get let behind and struggle for years with reading. I've personally taught them. In school settings, if you are not reading fluently by 2nd grade, you are a detriment to the school as most states begin standardized testing by then. Schools panic.

I think that attitude has seeped into the homeschooling community. We hear the push for reading by 6 or 7 through the media, though friends/family members who are teachers or were teachers, or through friends/family members in the school system. Even curriculum focused on homeschoolers tends to focus on phonics instruction. Classical education is based on early phonics instruction being the key to raising good readers.

We started early (well, about 4 1/2 to 5 years) with phonics instruction. We made sure ds#1 knew all his letter sounds, moved onto word families with short vowels, blended consonants, etc. We started the Explode the Code first book. He did great with it, but when we'd try BOB books, he struggled. He could spell phonetically, but not read phonetically. I have since done more research and realized ds is much more of a visual-spatial learner. Reading for him is whole-word. If he were in school, were a very well researched phonics-based instruction were taught, he'd struggle. He'd be in reading classes because at 7 1/2 he is still learning to read beginning primers. Pushing phonics on him at home, no matter how much research there is to support it, highly frustrated him and threatened to make him turn-off to reading (when in fact he LOVES books and LOVES stories and LOVES learning).

So, while I agree with you about the need to do your research as homeschoolers, and really seek out true research, we also need to really listen to our children. That is something that we can afford that isn't afforded in the school system. When you have 20, 30, 35 students in a classroom, it is very hard to structure any learning to individual needs. You go with what works for most and hope the others catch on along the way. At home, we can go with what works individually for our children. There isn't any real harm in necessarily starting phonics instruction at age 5 or 6, but if there is resistance, we, as homeschoolers, need to respect that resistance and go back to the drawing board. We ended up stopping all reading "instruction" until this current school year. Even then, it wasn't until a month ago that I found readers that seem to work with ds#1. He's still a bit reluctant, but we are slowly pushing forward. As we learn whole words, I am throwing in some phonics instruction too, if anything, to help eventually with his writing.

But, phonics versus whole-word instruction is not a closed-cased, regardless of what the research seems to say. There are still many children out there that will not learn with phonics instruction because their brain is not wired that way. And though the majority of students do well with phonics instruction, that does not mean that whole-word instruction should be thrown out with the bathwater. Some curriculum creators are trying to address this, for instance Patricia Cunningham and Dorothy Hall with Four Blocks approach. But, even that will have its limitations for children who are whole-word learners. It is a better approach, though, than straight phonics instruction.

[jessicaSAR]

Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders

We started early (well, about 4 1/2 to 5 years) with phonics instruction. We made sure ds#1 knew all his letter sounds, moved onto word families with short vowels, blended consonants, etc. We started the Explode the Code first book. He did great with it, but when we'd try BOB books, he struggled. He could spell phonetically, but not read phonetically. I have since done more research and realized ds is much more of a visual-spatial learner. Reading for him is whole-word. If he were in school, were a very well researched phonics-based instruction were taught, he'd struggle. He'd be in reading classes because at 7 1/2 he is still learning to read beginning primers. Pushing phonics on him at home, no matter how much research there is to support it, highly frustrated him and threatened to make him turn-off to reading (when in fact he LOVES books and LOVES stories and LOVES learning).

So, while I agree with you about the need to do your research as homeschoolers, and really seek out true research, we also need to really listen to our children. That is something that we can afford that isn't afforded in the school system. When you have 20, 30, 35 students in a classroom, it is very hard to structure any learning to individual needs. You go with what works for most and hope the others catch on along the way. At home, we can go with what works individually for our children. There isn't any real harm in necessarily starting phonics instruction at age 5 or 6, but if there is resistance, we, as homeschoolers, need to respect that resistance and go back to the drawing board. We ended up stopping all reading "instruction" until this current school year. Even then, it wasn't until a month ago that I found readers that seem to work with ds#1. He's still a bit reluctant, but we are slowly pushing forward. As we learn whole words, I am throwing in some phonics instruction too, if anything, to help eventually with his writing.

I think this is a really interesting example, and just goes to show that it is hard to design a reading program that works for everyone. I also think it is an example of how the argument for phonics gets conflated with the argument for early academics. So, the question is, was it the phonics that didn't work for your ds, or was it that he was too young altogether at 4 1/2 to 5?

It has been the case that many who have argued for a phonetic approach to reading (and I would point out here, as I am sure you know, that there are different ways to do phonics and the current research shows that many schools doing phonics are not doing it in the most effective way) have also argued that reading instruction should start in pre-school. That is where I disagree. I think 6-7 is the perfect age. And, phonics can still be taught to fluent readers through spelling, especially since we know that there are many fluent readers who cannot spell well. So, I am adamant about wanting to split these connected arguments. Delayed reading instruction can still be pro-phonics (ie delayed until age 6 or 7).

Does your ds still resist phonics now that he is 7 1/2?

[MyLittleWonders]

Originally Posted by jessicaSAR

I think this is a really interesting example, and just goes to show that it is hard to design a reading program that works for everyone. I also think it is an example of how the argument for phonics gets conflated with the argument for early academics. So, the question is, was it the phonics that didn't work for your ds, or was it that he was too young altogether at 4 1/2 to 5?

It has been the case that many who have argued for a phonetic approach to reading (and I would point out here, as I am sure you know, that there are different ways to do phonics and the current research shows that many schools doing phonics are not doing it in the most effective way) have also argued that reading instruction should start in pre-school. That is where I disagree. I think 6-7 is the perfect age. And, phonics can still be taught to fluent readers through spelling, especially since we know that there are many fluent readers who cannot spell well. So, I am adamant about wanting to split these connected arguments. Delayed reading instruction can still be pro-phonics (ie delayed until age 6 or 7).

Does your ds still resist phonics now that he is 7 1/2?

I totally agree with you. I taught phonics to my fourth graders - it helped not only their fluency with multi-syllable words, but also their spelling. (The phonics was more geared towards their level and included learning many suffixes and prefixes, including their meaning.)

Ds still resists some phonics. (He really resists too much in-your-face instruction. He would love to unschool; I compromise and try to choose me-directed approaches that are respectful to his learning style(s).) He can sound out short vowel words, including words with consonant blends and digraphs. He's learning long-e rules (and exceptions). But on a whole, he recongizes words in their entirety. When he gets to a word he can't read (he hasn't memorized/learned yet), and it's one he can sound out, I encourage him to. But, I can still see "holes" in his ability to sound it out, blend it, and read it. We play with the words from his reader in spelling activities (ABC order, writing them in "boxes" that match the shape - I use graph paper). And, I will probably start doing a few other activities with phonics-type instruction. But on a whole, we focus most of his reading practice on whole-word instruction.

And it irkes me to no end that phonics instruction (or reading instruction at all) is so directly linked to early academics. But, that is how most all "research" is applied, not only in educational settings. The researchers find something that works, at least most of the time, and then start applying the concept to totally new situations without doing any new research.

[phathui5]

I think that the book The Ordinary Parents' Guide to Teaching Reading might be good for you to look into. I switched to it after trying to use the 100 Easy Lessons book with my oldest and neither of us liking it.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders

So, while I agree with you about the need to do your research as homeschoolers, and really seek out true research, we also need to really listen to our children. That is something that we can afford that isn't afforded in the school system. When you have 20, 30, 35 students in a classroom, it is very hard to structure any learning to individual needs. You go with what works for most and hope the others catch on along the way. At home, we can go with what works individually for our children. There isn't any real harm in necessarily starting phonics instruction at age 5 or 6, but if there is resistance, we, as homeschoolers, need to respect that resistance and go back to the drawing board.

Yes! That's what I was trying to say. One thing we can say, those of us who have been in homeschooling circles for a long time, is that we've heard a variety of ways in which different children take on reading and thrive, and also about the processes and successes of those who struggle. But our children have the benefit of being able to be the center of the process, rather than being lined up around a preapproved process. - Lillian

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by jessicaSAR

It has been the case that many who have argued for a phonetic approach to reading (and I would point out here, as I am sure you know, that there are different ways to do phonics and the current research shows that many schools doing phonics are not doing it in the most effective way) have also argued that reading instruction should start in pre-school.

I don't know why I've missed this connection, because, as you may have noticed , pushing early instruction is something that really rubs me wrong. But now that I think about it, I can see this connection.

The funny thing about all this is that I honestly can't even begin to fathom how people learn to read without learning about phonics - it's just that I know for a fact that it's not at all uncommon...among homeschoolers. Lillian

[Plummeting]

Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders

In many ways, I agree with you. I have read research on both sides of the reading debate (my master's degree was in reading instruction). I can argue equally well for phonetic instruction and whole-word instruction.

How can you argue "equally well" for both, when the research does not support and never has supported whole word instruction? Equally well based on what? Your own experience? The experience of a minority of people here and there who learned with a whole word approach? Where is the research supporting whole word? How does a child who cannot sound out words learn to read a new word? Is a child really supposed to learn to memorize the look of every single word in the English language? If not, then how is that child going to be able to read all of them? If he is able, then he will have had to at some point pick up on the correspondence between letters and sounds, which means he understands the phonics. There is literally NO WAY to read a word that one hasn't memorized in print without understanding the relationship between letters and sounds. Either you have to teach it or they have to pick it up on their own, but it HAS to happen for a kid to be able to read every word in the language. Therefore, phonics is pretty much an open and shut case. Kids have to learn what letters stand for. Most of them will understand it a lot more thoroughly and a lot sooner if someone tells them.

The research even shows that the kids referred to as visual-spatial learners learn reading better with phonics. And that was in two studies paid for by a company which was selling whole word reading curriculum at the time! Additionally, your son already knew the letter/sound correspondence. He just wasn't reading when you thought he should. He's not an example of a kid being taught strictly whole word and I'm surprised that you're using him, a child who knew all of the appropriate letter sounds at a young age, as an example of a kid who has to have whole word reading instruction. Maybe he needed that to feel confident. Who knows? But I highly doubt he's going through life oblivious of what you taught him about phonics. He's seeing the rules in action and getting comfortable with how it all works by memorizing words. That has nothing to do with teaching a kid strictly whole word.

We started early (well, about 4 1/2 to 5 years) with phonics instruction. We made sure ds#1 knew all his letter sounds, moved onto word families with short vowels, blended consonants, etc. We started the Explode the Code first book. He did great with it, but when we'd try BOB books, he struggled. He could spell phonetically, but not read phonetically. I have since done more research and realized ds is much more of a visual-spatial learner. Reading for him is whole-word. If he were in school, were a very well researched phonics-based instruction were taught, he'd struggle. He'd be in reading classes because at 7 1/2 he is still learning to read beginning primers. Pushing phonics on him at home, no matter how much research there is to support it, highly frustrated him and threatened to make him turn-off to reading (when in fact he LOVES books and LOVES stories and LOVES learning).

I don't understand what you're saying here, really. Maybe he's one of those kids who reads late and I don't see anything wrong with that (or him!) at all. I don't think this proves anything about whole word vs. phonics. How do you know it's the age and not the method?

So, while I agree with you about the need to do your research as homeschoolers, and really seek out true research, we also need to really listen to our children.

I absolutely agree we should listen to our kids and never said otherwise or even hinted otherwise.

There isn't any real harm in necessarily starting phonics instruction at age 5 or 6, but if there is resistance, we, as homeschoolers, need to respect that resistance and go back to the drawing board.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't learn phonics. It means we need to try a different method of teaching them phonics, give them a break to let them mature or mix in some whole word. It doesn't mean phonics doesn't "work" for them.

As we learn whole words, I am throwing in some phonics instruction too, if anything, to help eventually with his writing.

So again, your son is not a case for a strictly whole word method. He's a case for why whole word in addition to phonics might be good for some kids.

But, phonics versus whole-word instruction is not a closed-cased, regardless of what the research seems to say. There are still many children out there that will not learn with phonics instruction because their brain is not wired that way. And though the majority of students do well with phonics instruction, that does not mean that whole-word instruction should be thrown out with the bathwater.

If it whole word means not teaching phonics, which is what the letter sounds you taught your son are (pointing that out for emphasis, not because you don't know lol), then yes, it should be thrown out with the bath water. Kids need to know what the letters stand for. And until some good research comes out showing that whole word can even begin to compete with phonics, the case is closed on a population-wide level. Again, this doesn't mean there aren't exceptions to the rule, but I already said that! My mother has her Ed.D. She's taught remedial reading and special education for over 25 years now. She's been saying the case was closed for years. She's read the research. She's done some of her own research. So while her expertise in no way makes me an expert, I'm not unfamiliar with the body of evidence out there.

And that's about all I have to say on the topic.

[Fairy4tmama]

:This thread really is so interesting and I am gaining valuable perspective on all sides, exactly what I was hoping for! Thank you to all of you for taking the time to get so detailed.

phathui5 can you tell me what you like about The Ordinary Parents' Guide to Teaching Reading ? How it differs from 100 easy lessons?

[jessicaSAR]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

The funny thing about all this is that I honestly can't even begin to fathom how people learn to read without learning about phonics - it's just that I know for a fact that it's not at all uncommon...among homeschoolers. Lillian

I guess there is a difference between "learning about phonics," (ie, being able to articulate the 70 or 72 different phonograms, and explain the rules for using them), and "knowing phonics" (which might mean intuiting the phonetic structure of the language, but not being able to articulate the rules). It seems clear to me from the research and from anecdotal evidence, that some children intuit the structure of language much quicker and easier than others.

But, understanding phonics (on either a conscious or subconscious level) is not the only issue. There are a whole host of other factors that go into reading. The speed with which your brain processes information, the way your eyes track and collect information, which brain hemisphere is active and many more factors impact reading ability. It is really a very complex learning process, and there are lots of places where it can go awry.


Anyway, I am really enjoying this thread!!!

[briansmama]

Go get a copy of Einstein Never Used Flash Cards: Why Our Children Should Play More and Memorize Less. Your library is sure to have a copy- it was a bestseller (edited to add that it's also an award-winner).

This book is written by educational researchers who specifically state in the book that children who are subjected to early formal academics are not reading any better than their peers who didn't have early formal academic training by third grade. However, the children who received early formal academics were found to be less creative, less enthusiastic about learning, and less likely to read a book for pleasure.

There's your evidence! Oh, and the book is pretty mainstream, and not a book about homeschooling. That really convinced my dh, who wasn't into homeschooling initially and now is a big advocate and supporter of natural and experiential learning.

[MyLittleWonders]

Originally Posted by Plummeting

How can you argue "equally well" for both, when the research does not support and never has supported whole word instruction? Equally well based on what? Your own experience? The experience of a minority of people here and there who learned with a whole word approach? Where is the research supporting whole word? How does a child who cannot sound out words learn to read a new word? Is a child really supposed to learn to memorize the look of every single word in the English language? If not, then how is that child going to be able to read all of them? If he is able, then he will have had to at some point pick up on the correspondence between letters and sounds, which means he understands the phonics. There is literally NO WAY to read a word that one hasn't memorized in print without understanding the relationship between letters and sounds. Either you have to teach it or they have to pick it up on their own, but it HAS to happen for a kid to be able to read every word in the language. Therefore, phonics is pretty much an open and shut case. Kids have to learn what letters stand for. Most of them will understand it a lot more thoroughly and a lot sooner if someone tells them.

The research even shows that the kids referred to as visual-spatial learners learn reading better with phonics. And that was in two studies paid for by a company which was selling whole word reading curriculum at the time! Additionally, your son already knew the letter/sound correspondence. He just wasn't reading when you thought he should. He's not an example of a kid being taught strictly whole word and I'm surprised that you're using him, a child who knew all of the appropriate letter sounds at a young age, as an example of a kid who has to have whole word reading instruction. Maybe he needed that to feel confident. Who knows? But I highly doubt he's going through life oblivious of what you taught him about phonics. He's seeing the rules in action and getting comfortable with how it all works by memorizing words. That has nothing to do with teaching a kid strictly whole word.



I don't understand what you're saying here, really. Maybe he's one of those kids who reads late and I don't see anything wrong with that (or him!) at all. I don't think this proves anything about whole word vs. phonics. How do you know it's the age and not the method?



I absolutely agree we should listen to our kids and never said otherwise or even hinted otherwise.



That doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't learn phonics. It means we need to try a different method of teaching them phonics, give them a break to let them mature or mix in some whole word. It doesn't mean phonics doesn't "work" for them.



So again, your son is not a case for a strictly whole word method. He's a case for why whole word in addition to phonics might be good for some kids.



If it whole word means not teaching phonics, which is what the letter sounds you taught your son are (pointing that out for emphasis, not because you don't know lol), then yes, it should be thrown out with the bath water. Kids need to know what the letters stand for. And until some good research comes out showing that whole word can even begin to compete with phonics, the case is closed on a population-wide level. Again, this doesn't mean there aren't exceptions to the rule, but I already said that! My mother has her Ed.D. She's taught remedial reading and special education for over 25 years now. She's been saying the case was closed for years. She's read the research. She's done some of her own research. So while her expertise in no way makes me an expert, I'm not unfamiliar with the body of evidence out there.

And that's about all I have to say on the topic.

I don't think even die-hard whole-word teachers would say never teach a child the sounds letters make. What I am arguing (and I think sometimes terminology can hinder a discussion big-time ) is the difference between part-to-whole instruction (phonics-based) and whole-to-part instruction (whole-word based). My son learned all the letter sounds. He can spell most all short vowel words without any help. He does not read that way. He does not break words down part-to-whole to help him read. Even when we are reading together and I have him sound out a word, it is unnatural to him and I only have him do it to exercise his phonetic skills, not because I think it's going to help him read better. The point of whole-word instruction is that they have a good working vocabulary of words they know by sight (and I'm not talking about teaching Dolch words along with how to sound out others). As they mature and their brain begins making sense of it all, they are able to start applying what they know about one word to others. There is no need to learn every individual word by sight. Eventually, they will be able to make sense of the pieces of words. But, from the beginning they do better with whole pieces - their brains process the bigger picture much more easily than the pieces of the picture. (You should see him do puzzles. He can solve abstract math problems in his head and yet struggles at times with simple computation written out on a paper. Unless you've tried teaching a visual-spatial child, the research can only tell you so much.)

We have differing opinions. That is fine. We don't need to agree. (Heck, some of the most "educated" people in education can't agree. ) You have your resources to back you; I have mine. Yes, I can equally argue why whole-word instruction (whole-to-part) is the best way to teach reading and why phonics instruction (part-to-whole) is the best way to teach. I have done so quite successfully for my master's degree. Overall, I am a proponent of phonics-based instruction, when it is part of a whole language program. But, I am never a proponent of any program is used to the detriment of students, no matter how well proven it is.

I am sorry if my comment about listening to our children made you feel that I insinuated that you didn't. It was not my intention. I was simply addressing that the best research is for naught if it does not address each individual child. My son can learn all the phonics rules he wants. He can learn to spell based on phonics words. But, it does not help his reading. He still is not reading anywhere near "grade level" (whatever that means ... I have issues with that ). I have faith that it will click for him eventually, but pushing him through a way of teaching reading that is not working for him serves only to frustrate him, frustrate me, and eventually turn him off to learning completely. (I've seen that happen too.)

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by jessicaSAR

I guess there is a difference between "learning about phonics," (ie, being able to articulate the 70 or 72 different phonograms, and explain the rules for using them), and "knowing phonics" (which might mean intuiting the phonetic structure of the language, but not being able to articulate the rules). It seems clear to me from the research and from anecdotal evidence, that some children intuit the structure of language much quicker and easier than others.

Yes, although I didn't phrase it well when I said "learn about." My own experience wasn't to "learn about" it - i went through the process of learning a lot of the rules in the process of learning to read. It was methodical, and it worked for me. But I really think there are a lot of people who absorb much of it without the kind of processes I went through.

But, understanding phonics (on either a conscious or subconscious level) is not the only issue. There are a whole host of other factors that go into reading. The speed with which your brain processes information, the way your eyes track and collect information, which brain hemisphere is active and many more factors impact reading ability. It is really a very complex learning process, and there are lots of places where it can go awry.

Absolutely. The unique mind and body and environmental factors combined are altogether unimaginably complex. - Lillian

[jessicaSAR]

Originally Posted by briansmama

Go get a copy of Einstein Never Used Flash Cards: Why Our Children Should Play More and Memorize Less. Your library is sure to have a copy- it was a bestseller (edited to add that it's also an award-winner).

This book is written by educational researchers who specifically state in the book that children who are subjected to early formal academics are not reading any better than their peers who didn't have early formal academic training by third grade. However, the children who received early formal academics were found to be less creative, less enthusiastic about learning, and less likely to read a book for pleasure.

There's your evidence! Oh, and the book is pretty mainstream, and not a book about homeschooling. That really convinced my dh, who wasn't into homeschooling initially and now is a big advocate and supporter of natural and experiential learning.

This is exactly what bothers me. You are conflating the two arguments. I agree that early formal academics is not beneficial and may be harmful. That evidence is in no way an indictment of formal, systematic teaching of reading. It is just an argument against doing it in the pre-school years.

Delayed academics does not equal "natural or experiential" learning.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by Lillian J

The funny thing about all this is that I honestly can't even begin to fathom how people learn to read without learning about phonics - it's just that I know for a fact that it's not at all uncommon...among homeschoolers. Lillian

When I was in school we did whole word reading instruction and learned to "sound things out" later on with larger words. There was none of that "buh ah uhllll b-a-ll" stuff. I guess "a is for apple" is sort of phonics instruction, but that was it. By the time I entered 2nd grade (age 7) I was bringing books to school to read for fun and I know I was reading easily before that.

Now, my homeschooled little brother on the other hand got the Bob books and I remember Mom and him going through lists of phonemes (bah, beh, bih, bee, boh, boo, etc). And he wasn't reading easily until age 10 and still doesn't like reading much, likes books, just aren't his thing. And he spells worse than me.

Same amount of being read to, in fact, he got hours more since I'd read to him and all his schooling was with being read to.

I don't understand how anyone can enjoy reading if they have to fight through sounding out every little word.

[Lillian J]

Originally Posted by briansmama

There's your evidence! Oh, and the book is pretty mainstream, and not a book about homeschooling. That really convinced my dh, who wasn't into homeschooling initially and now is a big advocate and supporter of natural and experiential learning.

Originally Posted by jessicaSAR

This is exactly what bothers me. You are conflating the two arguments. I agree that early formal academics is not beneficial and may be harmful. That evidence is in no way an indictment of formal, systematic teaching of reading. It is just an argument against doing it in the pre-school years.

Delayed academics does not equal "natural or experiential" learning.

But wait... Even though they're not at all the same thing, there can end up being some overlap - in that by not starting all that so early, people have a chance to observe and see ways in which a lot of learning happens naturally and through experience, and they begin to move in that direction.

There would be children like I was (and my son, who never had any interest whatsoever in letters or reading till later he had something he wanted to read) who would just spend the early years in imaginative play, which is invaluable in its own rite, but there are others who would begin to take a look at reading and begin to learn naturally in their own unique ways. And that's not to discount the value of phonics at all - it's just that some children to seem to pick up reading in other ways.

And I totally understand your frustration! There have been any number of occasions when someone has asked online about how to teach a 3 year old to read, and I've commented that it's awfully young - only to have my hand slapped by people telling me the person hadn't asked about "unschooling" . It's not about "unschooling" - it's about honoring developmental readiness! But maybe it's just that many of us who are most concerned about that happen to also be people who are proponents of more natural learning. And maybe part of the overlap has to do with our also feeling it's not natural to try to teach things to children prematurely. There's a lot of complexity involved, and a new homeschooler coming to one of these forums to ask how to teach a young child to read has to sort out a lot of "stuff." Lillian