What is phonics for? - Page 4

[cottonwood]

I'd also like to see the specific studies that the NIH panel looked at. (Couldn't find reference to them on the website -- anybody have more luck with that than I?) It seems to me that there is a huge bias towards the phonics theory in our society, and that people (yes, even the "experts") have a hard time thinking outside of that mindset and that that could have a huge effect on how the studies are done and analyzed.

Okay, going all the way back to LeftField's post:

Are people saying that our brains naturally work out phonics when left alone (whole word approach)? And are they saying that directly teaching phonics is like a short-cut or an attempt to get a head-start to what a kid would intuitively work out at a later point anyway?

Probably some are. But what I think is that the brain doesn't naturally break down words into individual components. Speech is a seamless stream of sound, and each letter's sound is part of and defined by the sounds around it. You can't separate it out -- it becomes something else if you do. Kuh - aa -- tuh bears a resemblence to [kat] but it is not the same thing, no matter how fast you say it.

The other day at the grocery store, my son pointed to the word, "Veggie" and asked if it said, "Venus". Will his brain figure out some odd reasoning for why the "e" has a short sound in one word and a long sound in the other?

No, his brain will simply note that in certain circumstances it will sound one way or another.

[Dar]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

I'm curious-- are you assuming that all self-taught children learn to read whole words, rather than phonetically? Because I know from experience that that's not true. I didn't have phonics instruction, but I did teach myself to read and I used a phonetic approach.

How could you teach yourself to read phonetically? If you're teaching youself, there's no one telling you that "d" represents the sound /d/, and so on. You'd have to start with that words and intuit the phonics rules, rather than the other way around, unless someone was there to teach you the rules of phonics... and then it wouldn't be self-taught.

And that's how pretty much all of the self-taught readers I've known have done it, in addition to asking questions.

Rain clearly understood about at least some consonant sounds very shortly after she'd began reading. At 2 1/2 she could read some short words, some taught to her by the 5 and 6 year olds who lived across the hall and loved to play "school" with her. Right around her third birthday, I remember her shaping blocks (regular unit blocks, not letter blocks) into the word cat, and saying "cat" under her breath... and then removing the "C" shape and forming an "M", and saying, "map". It was sort of mind-blowing to watch... but she apparently had learned enough words that started with /m/ to figure out that "M" represented the sound /m/... but it did start with the words.

I just have a hard time believing that *most* people are capable of becoming fluent readers with whole word instruction, or even whole language instruction

And, see, I *know* that most people are capable of becoming fluent readers with absolutely *no* instruction at all. Read A.S. Neill's "Summerhill", among others... or hang out with unschoolers

Dar

[ShannonCC]

Eilonwy, no, I said phonics instruction. I mean, I sound out a word and I'm using phonics right? Even if I can't rattle off the rules and can't explain why I'm pronouncing it the way I am, I'm still using phonics (if I'm understanding correctly). Bridget also sounds out new words and usually gets it right (she messes up the foreign ones just like I do ) I just know many kids who learned to read without being sat down and taught phonics. I keep reading how important it is for kids to have lots of phonics instruction or they'll never read (or never read well) and know so many homeschooling moms who make sure to get it in there daily or at least weekly. It just doesn't mesh with my experiences at all.

I also have no idea what the official name is for what we did and my friends do I didn't subscribe to any particular theory of reading instruction, I just did what came naturally to us I read to her a lot. Whenever she asked to be read a story, I did. When she asked what a word was I told her. I didn't sound it out, I just flat out told her. If someone (not me) did sound it out phonetically or try to make her sound it out it just pissed her off When she started writing (before reading which I've read is quite common) and she asked me how to spell a word I'd spell it out for her. She dictated stories a lot and then I'd read them back to her, exactly as she dictated. She also played computer games and starfall.com and stuff like that whenever she wanted so yeah, there would have been phonics games in there too. We just never saw the need to make sure she got X number of reading lessons (phonics or otherwise) a week, but no, she was not in a vacuum, left all on her own to figure things out.

This is how my dd learned to read and this is how many unschooled kids learn to read. It just seems weird when I hear that it must be a fluke that it worked for us. Like, all unschooled kids are coincidentally gifted in reading? Or only kids who are pre-destined to read this way will be unschooled? *That* is the part I can't get my head around.

[cottonwood]

"I know that it's possible to learn to read whole words, and I know that many will intuit the rules of phonics (my husband is one of these people, though he does have the reading vocabulary issue that I talked about earlier). I just have a hard time believing that *most* people are capable of becoming fluent readers with whole word instruction, or even whole language instruction (which is, imo, marginally better). It doesn't make any sense to me."

Well, how did you learn to read the word "piece"? How did you know that the "ie" should sound like [ee] and that the "c" should sound like [ss]? How about "love"? "Idea"?

[cottonwood]

"If someone (not me) did sound it out phonetically or try to make her sound it out it just pissed her off"

Same here. Not because someone was trying to "teach" him but because it was so frustrating for him. At one time he had the idea (got it from TV probably) that all you have to do to decipher a word is know what sounds the individual letters make. But he's found that it's hard for him first because the sounds of individual letters standing alone often don't sound the same as when flanked by other sounds, and second because there are often numerous ways to say a letter and no way to predict how it is used.

[amybw]

WOW! What an interesting thread!

A few things that came to mind as I read it.

My nephew will be 7 in December. He is in private school and learned phonics either there or from his grandma. (she is a teacher at his school. He and my sister, his mother, also live with that Grandma ) He cannot read very much and when he does try to read, he reads phonetically. He pronounces EVERY possible sound that letter could make.
For example, if he saw the word Circus. He would say out loud /k/ /s/ /long i/ /shorti/ /r/ /k/ /s/ /long u/ /short u / /s/ ( sorry i dont remember the symbols for everything) and then go from there using the process of elimination. I have to say, in some ways , i thought Oh cool! phonics! But then I also felt sorry for him to some degree. It seemed very difficult and he often mispronounced the word. I could tell he was getting frustrated.

He does not know the names of all the letters of the alphabet. For example, if i say, what letter is this "H" he doesnt know, but he knows the sounds it makes and calls it "that's the /h/ sound!" . We were trying to play a board game and that's how i found this out. Not sure how important it is to know the names of the letters. Maybe reading an eye chart anyway, it may be trivial but i was very surprised. Maybe that was his Grandma's way of getting him to see the letters as symbols that represent certain sounds instead of havng an actual name to get it confused with the sounds. Does that make sense?

FWIW....
I was reading by age 4. Highly doubtful there was any phonics involved.
Taught phonics in school in 6th grade though.

Excelled in French - started in 6th grade and continued through college. Took French phonetics. got an A That was one of my most favoritest classes!

Just an observation, but learning the French language phonetically was interesting. I learned how to say ( read aloud) lots of words and didnt know what their translation was at first.

My friend in college was an excellent singer. She would sing latin, French, etc... not knowing a single word of what she was singing, but would learn the songs phonetically. Sometimes I would correct her French, but it didnt flow as well is a song

anyway, just wanted to add soemthing in order to also subscribe. Having an almost 2 yr old at home, these things have crossed my mind.


Amy

PS: whoever it was above that mentioned having the captions on the TV. I do that too! I is on almost all the time! I use it in case i dont hear everything ( Darn people on CSI always talk in mumbles) and i figure if DS is in the room, he might as well get some exposure to words! :

[Dar]

Originally Posted by amybw

Just an observation, but learning the French language phonetically was interesting. I learned how to say ( read aloud) lots of words and didnt know what their translation was at first.

Yup. I can "read" anything in the world in Spanish - it's a completely phonetically regular language, so I'd sound perfect. I would have no idea what half of it meant, however...

Linda and Shannon, most of the kids I know who have learned to read naturally (those unschooler-types) have learned in the same way you describe... being read to, and asking questions. And yes, anyone who said "Sound it out" was in for an earful, because that was not what she wanted at all.

Dar

[momof3sweeties]

Right now I am doing phonics with my 7 yo. My 9yo I had pretty much unschooled, read to him, self led learning...he can read fairly good, probably a little behind for his age. But what concerns me very much is his spelling. His handwriting still mixing up d's and b's...writes his 3's, 7's and 9's backwards. He had to take his first standardized test last year and was below proficiency. My dh & ! thought we tried the self learning style for a few years and it seems like some basic skills haven't been mastered yet and we need to work on some of those skills. Last year I really didn't do as much as I should of with my kids because we were having a house built and I had all sorts of appointments and constantly picking out things which kept us running. We listened to LOTS of books on tapes an occasional project and that is about it! So this year I decided to be a little more structured. It really isn't my style but I have seen improvements and my kids seem to be happy so far with it.

My 7 yo is almost a better speller than my 9yo right now and I think it might be because of the phonics I have been working with him on. I am seriously thinking of having my 9yo do the same phonics with us. The thing that concerns me and I am sure concerns other homeschool moms is that if something would ever happen to me I would want to make sure my kids are well prepared so if they had to go to school they would do fine academically.

I also have read that homeschooled kids sometimes test lower in the early grades and then test way higher...so maybe I have nothing to worry about. I also remind myself my kids are incredibly smart. They have learned all sorts of stuff they would never learn in school. Like building our house and the whole process. We also will follow their interests and that is when learning really happens for them. They know all sorts of stuff!! My 9 yo actually knows some algebra but it won't be on a standardized test for him for years and there is so much more he knows but will never be tested on. (I hate the standardized tests!! But that is for a NEW thread!!! )

So....what should I be doing? Should I just relax and slow down on this or should I work with my 9 yo more?

[LindaCl]

Rats

I can't find the particular study now, and I've referred back to it probably 60 times in the past! I'll tell you what I remember now, but the danged study is sure to be online somewhere - I just keep getting dead links at the moment.

There was an agency in the NIH (headed by a G Reid Lyon who has since left the agency and works in research on learning disabilities) which for several years conducted good science-based research to tackle the question of reading failure in this country (about 35% of students fall under this category, I think). They examined everything, not just phonics, but a broad spectrum of issues that factor into reading skill. They didn't conduct just one study, but many, to assemble a picture of how students learn to read, and why they fail to learn to read. The research was longitudinal (following the students all the way through school). There was no pre-existing prejudice towards systematic phonics instruction at all, and it was really just one of many issues the research looked into. Their findings concluded that phonics instruction was just one necessary element--there are others as well, phonics alone isn't the whole ball of wax. And the research explored the nitty-gritty of which elements are necessary in the phonics instruction - what works and what doesn't.

As I said, they found that for about 30% of readers, phonics instruction doesn't really matter...these students can read well with no phonics at all. There wasn't a prejudice towards phonics, but the studies were intended to develop an understanding of reading failure, and that's where the phonics instruction emerged as 'non-negotiable', in their words. Students who struggle to learn to read need phonics...that was the clear finding. They also found that there are about 2 students who show significant improvement with phonics instruction to every 1 where it doesn't make any difference.

Now for the caveats (sorry this is so long ). This research looked at students in schools. Tangled up in this phonics question is their findings that if a student who can't read well by age 9, the odds aren't good they will ever catch up and be successful in school. The odds are very much against them. If you read the analysis carefully, it becomes clear that much (but not all) of the reasons for this don't apply in the homeschool setting. A 9 year old who can't read well develops a bad self-image in comparison to peers, and in terms of the evaluations he or she receives from school, and students of course tend to live up to the expectations they have of themselves. Also school curriculum are overwhelmingly dependent upon textbooks...so a non-reader or struggling reader is at a disadvantage in nearly every subject. And a further reason is that a 9 year old has struggled in the typical school setting for several years already--several years of misery trying to read, building up a lot of stress toward the subject, which leads most to kind of 'shut down' and stop trying. These problems are hard to overcome in a typical school situation. They are easier to avoid in a homeschool situation.

So the point of this is it is a big deal if phonics instruction help students learn to read well faster in the context of public education. The research had demonstrated that reading well faster (at least by age 9) is practically essential. But as I explained, many of the reasons why early reading success is so critical there won't necessarily relate to homeschooled students.

The one issue that I can remember that would factor into homeschooled students too is that students who do develop reading struggles, those who you find who will need phonics instruction to 'get it', are much easier to help sooner rather than later. Even students who start off okay can then kind of plateau because they just haven't developed effective strategies on their own. They may rely on context or picture clues, and kind of 'good guessing' strategies based on the beginning of the word, for example, and that kind of skill doesn't build, or lend itself well to more complex reading. But if students rely on this in the beginning, it becomes a reinforced pattern that can be challenging to overcome. I've worked with a lot of struggling readers that have this problem. Again, these are the students who we know can't read without this help...that's not all students, but those that fall into the statistical 1/3 of students who fail to do well and really have to have the systematic phonics skill building. It is tough for them to break the bad habits of guessing first, and go with method second. And it is a bad habit because it interferes with good reading in other ways, especially in the fluidity and automaticity, which are ultimately critical elements as well to good reading skill.

This research aside, having worked with students with reading problems myself, if I had my way phonics would be cut loose from reading and firmly attached to spelling, and then composition, to start with. This is just maybe a crazy notion of mine, but I really think there's a lot to be said for this idea. We push reading too much early on, and that puts out the idea of 'right ways/wrong ways' to read a book to solve the problem the pushing created. There are excellent phonics curriculums out there that demonstrate English 'follows the rules' much better than most of us realize, and if students learn those rules to spell, they can transfer the rules from composition to reading too.

Too much bad phonics instruction does hinder good reading. It destroys the lyrical 'sound' of good writing. And beginning readers do need to read good writing, not just the 'mat had a fat cat'. I think Dr Suess was an excellent exception, but most early phonetic readers I've seen are ugly sounding blecht. Reading ultimately isn't a mechanical process, it's lyrical and literary one.

Linda

[RedWine]

Linda,

Very, very interesting post. Thanks.

[dharmamama]

I think that different methods work for different people because we all have different interests and abilities. I also think that saying "thus and such didn't work for my kid/nephew/friend's son/neighbor's granddaughter, who is 4/5/6/7/8/9" is not necessarily accurate, because there's no reason a 4/5/6/7/8/9 year old SHOULD be reading at that age. Some kids can learn at 4, however they are instructed. Some kids won't learn until they are 11, however they are instructed. Another of the beauties of homeschooling: if phonics/whole language don't work for our kid, we can change our approach rather than redoubling our efforts with something that's not working.

That said, here's my experience:

I was taught to read with phonics (in Kindergarten; I don't remember whether I could read before then). I LOVED it and didn't find it dry/boring at all. It made sense to me and gave me a feeling of real accomplishment. (I also had parents who read to me very frequently, and we had at least a zillion books in our home.) I grew up to become a foster care social worker in a big city where the city schools used whole language instruction. Almost to a one, my foster kids struggled with reading. They didn't understand what they read, they didn't know how to make sense of words they didn't already recognize, and they couldn't read things that didn't contain almost exclusively words they already knew. Now, my kids generally came from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, but I have a hard time believing that my kids' environmentally influenced reading potential was the only thing holding them back. I think more kids need phonics instruction than don't. I'd imagine that most parents who choose to homeschool are themselves very interested in reading and learning, and maybe homeschooled kids therefore genetically disproportionately (disproportionally?) represent kids who don't need phonics? I don't know. My personal experience is that kids of many ages, from 5 to 13, struggled with whole language instruction.

Namaste!

[eilonwy]

Dar-- Before I go into this, I want to address something. It's very clear to me that you don't like the concept of me that you've built up in your mind. I'm not sure if it's just that I am absolutely not in any way, shape or form an unschooler (and that I've thought about this, long and hard) or if it's something else, but it's really getting old. It doesn't really matter what my opinion is on most topics, it seems to me that you just want to tear them apart, prove them impossible or just "catch" me. I'm not trying to attack your positions in these posts, I'm just providing a different perspective. You will not convert me to an unschooler, because even though I've read Holt and Neill and loads of other books/blogs/whatevers on the subject, it just doesn't work for me. I've thought about the decision not to unschool just as much as you've thought about the decision *to* unschool. I can understand how someone might reach a different conclusion than the one I've reached, and I'm asking you to do the same: Can you just accept that we have diametrically opposed opinions when it comes to educational strategies and move on?

Originally Posted by Dar

How could you teach yourself to read phonetically? If you're teaching youself, there's no one telling you that "d" represents the sound /d/, and so on. You'd have to start with that words and intuit the phonics rules, rather than the other way around, unless someone was there to teach you the rules of phonics... and then it wouldn't be self-taught.

You're assuming that I started with books, then. I didn't-- I learned to read from a set of building blocks. Five years before I was born, my mother suspected that my then two-year-old brother might be dyslexic. She did a little bit of reading about dyslexia and decided that she would handle this potential problem by tricking him and teaching him to read while he was "too young" to become dyslexic. He was reading fluently and well a year later, and she was pleased. Then she started looking at kindergartens for him, and meeting teachers. She met several teachers who told her that it was a horrible, cruel, evil thing for a parent to teach a child to read before he got to school, because "he'll be bored in first grade." This message was pounded into her brain over and over again, along with all sorts of messages about the evils of pushing children. She took it to heart and vowed never to teach any more of her children how to read before they got to school.

Fast forward to my second birthday. My mother read somewhere that "two year old children should be able to make a stack of ten blocks." She didn't know if I could do this or not, because I didn't have any blocks so she bought me a set for my birthday, that I might learn to stack them right on time, just the way the article said I should. I didn't really care about stacking them, I was much more interested in the letters on the blocks. Suddenly every episode of Sesame Street and The Electric Company that I'd ever seen became relevant. I started looking at the letters, learning to identify them all and the sounds that they made in very short order. I started making words with them; simple, formulaic words first and more interesting ones later. By the time I was 30 months old I was reading fluently and confidently. Throughout this, my mother could only stand by helplessly and watch. There was no stopping me. Finally she gave up and brought my older brother's picture books down from the attic; there was no point in trying to keep me from reading anymore because I was already doing it. She gave up entirely at that point and decided, much more wisely, that rather than avoid teaching she would instruct her children whenever they showed an interest and asked questions. It didn't quite work that way for my siblings, but it was much easier for them when they finally did learn to read, because they had all the help that they wanted, when they wanted it.

So you see, I didn't start with words because I didn't have any words to start with. I started with letters. I don't think I'd have ever made sense of the words, either. You mention that most children know words like "stop" and "McDonalds" before they go to school as evidence that children learn to read whole words. I disagree-- learning logos does not necessarily constitute reading. It's one thing for a child to point to a stop sign and say "stop," but it's another thing entirely for that same child to see the word stop printed on a sheet of paper in lowercase (or even uppercase) letters. Many, many children can read one but not the other. Some children will eventually learn to read from the logos-- they'll be able to distinguish, for example, the word "explorer" when they see it in a context other than Dora or a Ford commercial, but I've met lots of kids who immediately "read" Dora the Explorer but wouldn't know the word "explorer" from their own name on a sheet of paper.

And, see, I *know* that most people are capable of becoming fluent readers with absolutely *no* instruction at all. Read A.S. Neill's "Summerhill", among others... or hang out with unschoolers

I have read Summerhill, and I have even met some real live unschoolers. It's easy enough to accept the statement that eventually most people will learn to read with no instruction at all. But, as I've already covered, I don't believe that means that those people could all learn to read without phonics, not by a longshot.

Well, how did you learn to read the word "piece"? How did you know that the "ie" should sound like [ee] and that the "c" should sound like [ss]? How about "love"? "Idea"?

While the words "love" and "idea" are sight words, "piece" follows phonetic rules. If the point that you're making is that there are sight words to be learned in English then yes, of course that's true. There are some words that you have to learn to read but the overwhelming majority of the English language is indeed phonetic. If you've already got the rules of phonics under your belt, it's not too difficult to understand the words that are different, or to understand *how* those words are different. Moreover, it's not too difficult to accept that there are words which you ostensibly can not sound out, words to which phonetic rules can't/shouldn't be applied.

[Dar]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

Dar-- Before I go into this, I want to address something. It's very clear to me that you don't like the concept of me that you've built up in your mind. I'm not sure if it's just that I am absolutely not in any way, shape or form an unschooler (and that I've thought about this, long and hard) or if it's something else, but it's really getting old.

? I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I really don't have a "concept" of you in my mind - I tend to respond to ideas, not people, and I generally don't notice who is posting (it took me a really long time to figure out that one of my long-time email friends was posting here, for example). I do write a lot of pro-unschooling posts, but it really doesn't matter to me at all if you or anyone else agrees with me, or how anyone decides to educate their child. I do like to discuss things, though, and throw around ideas, which is why I'm here...

I was much more interested in the letters on the blocks. Suddenly every episode of Sesame Street and The Electric Company that I'd ever seen became relevant. I started looking at the letters, learning to identify them all and the sounds that they made in very short order. I started making words with them; simple, formulaic words first and more interesting ones later.

One could argue that you received phonics instruction from TV shows, then - that you were "taught" phonics by Sesame Street. My point is that to learn to read phonetically, someone - or a tv show, or a computer program nowadays, or whatever - has to instruct you on the sounds represented by the letters. I'd also be surprised if Sesame Street and The Electric Company covered every rule of phonics - my recollection, at least, is that there was nothing past CVC and CVCe words and a few consonant blends.

Dar

[ShannonCC]

Eilonwy, we're *all* just offering "different perspectives" here. Those of us who are disagreeing with you are just disagreeing. No one is trying to attack anyone but I understand that sometimes it feels that way in discussions like this (especially online). For the record I had the same thought as Dar when you said you taught yourself phonics (as in "how does someone do that?"). I thought it was a valid question.

[Girl Named Sandoz]

I'm doing a degree in Language Studies and just this past year we looked at teaching/ learning reading and writing. The conclusion was basically that 1) all children learn differently (as we know!) and that 2) generelly a 'mixed' approach, i.e. phonics and 'real books' in combination had the most success. Another major factor in literacy success is reading aloud to children.

My son is 3, and has known the letter sounds for a while now. I'm not doing a curriculum with him. We learn through play. Ds can read his name, and simple words like MAMA (easy phonetics).

He seems to be learning by osmosis. He will try to read my books and magazines, and I sound out whole words for him.

We are doing a mixed phonics and 'real books' approach. I like him to see that words and reading takes place within a context and is useful, not just an end in itself, kwim?

[DesertMommy]

Out of lurking for my favorite subject! Phonics/ whole language discussions always seem to get so heated and political. The politics and trends in public education really interest/scare/worry me. I always blame the politics and trendiness in curiculum for some holes in my own knowledge.

That is actually one of the main reasons I am so anti-public school for my son and considering HS. At my monthly SnB (stich and you know) many of the ladies are public school teachers/support staff. They unknowingly turn me anti-public school when discussing work because they mention all the politics and trendiness of various teaching methods and I don't want my son to be a pawn in that game. The last disscusion was about some math program that one teacher could still use in her class but the other one couldn't at her school because they have such different "populations" (Race, economics etc.) What does any of that have to do with MY son? I am hoping my son and I will use phonics or whole language, or combination etc. that works for HIM. HS'rs don't have to worry about the politics and trends, just about their own kids.

[OhTheThinks.....]

Interesting thread, referred to it from another discussion thread.....
My two bits...........In summary I recommend a combined approach. Having said that, I really like phonics. I learned phonics and my dh learned whole lanquage. I see the difference in our approach to reading and everyday lanquage. We both love to read. However he is a faster reader, he does not mind skipping words he cannot make out and basically goes for the "whole" understanding of the book. I tend to read more methodically and will sound out words I do not know and even look them up later. We usually both come to the same ending, but the whole language reader does not get "caught up" in the "wording" and can get through books faster.
Now in everyday situations I notice a greater difference. DH and lots of other whole language learners have a bit of trouble pronouncing correctly new words verbally as they are talking. If they come across a new word, most times it is pronounced incorrectly if it is not part of their "data bank". Phonic learners tend to be able to pronounce new words correctly the first time. Which I feel on this point makes it easier for them in public speaking or verbal reading.

[eilonwy]

Originally Posted by OhTheThinks.....

My two bits...........In summary I recommend a combined approach. Having said that, I really like phonics. I learned phonics and my dh learned whole lanquage. I see the difference in our approach to reading and everyday lanquage. We both love to read. However he is a faster reader, he does not mind skipping words he cannot make out and basically goes for the "whole" understanding of the book. I tend to read more methodically and will sound out words I do not know and even look them up later. We usually both come to the same ending, but the whole language reader does not get "caught up" in the "wording" and can get through books faster.
Now in everyday situations I notice a greater difference. DH and lots of other whole language learners have a bit of trouble pronouncing correctly new words verbally as they are talking. If they come across a new word, most times it is pronounced incorrectly if it is not part of their "data bank". Phonic learners tend to be able to pronounce new words correctly the first time. Which I feel on this point makes it easier for them in public speaking or verbal reading.

This is almost exactly the way that my husband and I are, except that I am by far the faster reader. He has told me, though, that before he met me he'd never met anyone who read even as quickly as he did, to say nothing of moreso, without "speed reading" (which I never do with novels, and rarely do with textbooks-- what's the point?).

[OhTheThinks.....]

My DH and I just had a recent conversation about reading............he (whole lanquage learner) said jokingly.....Yep! if I come to a word I can't pronounce I just skip over it or make up a word!.

But he noted that now that he has a dd, he is working on "pronunciation" , "spelling" etc, as he does see it has a hinderance when he is "discussing" the book verbally or needs assistance in spelling. He would have also like to have a bit of phonics in his past schooling.

I also hope my dd will pick up his love of books and reading (and speed). He is such and avid reader HAHA he even reads the manuals to tools, electronics, cars, projects etc etc BEFORE working on them!