The basic strategy of a phonics approach assumes that if you sound out the word and can hear it you will know what it means. For the most part it is an effective strategy and one that worked for me. On the other hand, those for whom it does not work, we simply call reading disabled.
The purpose of reading is to get meaning from the printed word. A phonetic approach requires you to look at the word and auditorize it (at least mentally) and when you hear the word, you will know what it means. This assumes that English is inherently phonetic and the reader knows the word to begin with. But let us accept the phonetic premise.
I learned to read in a phonics environment and fortunately it worked for me. But it does not work for everyone, so let us not mandate it for everyone. What alternative are there? One solution is a whole word approach, but the phonics proponents are wont to point out how the Chinese have to memorize 10,000 symbols rather than 26 letters. My first reaction is that the Chinese are a country with the largest population in the world, the fastest growing economy, and an impressive Olympic showing. They are not perfect...but they are patient. The Phonecians, on the other hand, have been all but absorbed in Lebonon. In Japan, children start out with phonetic Kana, but when they are ready to advance, they move to the pictographic Kanji.
That being said, let me assume there is validity in making a connection between the printed word and it sound. A phonics approach says let the sound be created by the student decoding. One alternative approach would be to pair the word with its auditory counterpart so the connection between the sound and the letters of the word are given to the student rather than requiring the student to produce the sound of the word.
Some students will learn to connect the printed word with its meaning better by speaking and phonetic decoding and others will learn better by hearing. The latter still teaches the connection between the printed word and its sound, but it does so by turning the standard phonetic approach upside down.
These two approaches will work best for students who learn best by speaking or hearing, but what about visual learners or those who learn by writing. There are as many ways to teach reading as there are people who want to learn to read. Phonics has its place as one of the ways to teach reading, but it should not be the only way. We cannot adopt a one size fits all mentality in Education.
Sight Words
I agree that one approach to teach all students is not a good strategy. We use what we call sight words, which I think fits the definition of what you are referring to as a whole word approach. Students are expected to know these words as a whole by sight. We find that this approach is a great compliment to phonics based instruction. Often these words are presented as parts of "word walls" to compliment instruction.
Can we test reading in different ways?
There are some children who seem to have a reading aloud problem. They are most likely the same kids I spoke about in my spelling comment who do not learn well by speakng. These are the kids who have difficulty with rhyming. Do bone and gone rhyme? Do though and rough rhyme? Yet they could pair the word with what it meant.
I can give you the results of research I did with my students if you want.
Perhaps the best way to evaluate whether a child with that kind of learning style can read is to ask him questions about what he read to himself rather than classical oral reading. Does the child make a connection between the printed word and a picture, The child can read but is not be a fluent reader. Teach decoding skills independently of reading.
I am, by no means, aware of the latest classroom procedures. Am I reinventing the wheel?
I agree with the blog. I
I agree with the blog. I work for a Montessori School. I teach the students to know the sound of the letter rahter than the letter itself.
The sound of the letter?
I am not sure what you mean by
"I teach the students to know the sound of the letter rather than the letter itself."
Can you give me an example?
When a Montessori 3-6
When a Montessori 3-6 teacher introduces "letters", s/he does it with sandpaper letters. Sitting with the student, the teacher shows the student the lowercase letter which has been cut out of coarse sandpaper and glued on heavy cardboard or thin wood. S/he then traces the letter and "pushes" the letter's sound out at the end of the tracing.
One on one Time!!!
I don't know much about Montessori, so please correct my misunderstandings, but it sounds like the 3-6 or 5-6 classes are much smaller than your average public class in 1st or Kinder. (My school has about 24 1st graders in a class; some local K classes are even bigger or the same.) We might do the sandpaper thing, but it's with four to six kids...at least...not one.
Also, I imagine that more parents are able to support early literacy which means your average Montessori student may have a few hundred more hours of literacy "lap time" than a student from a low income family. With students who have to get caught up, it's harder to allow much, if any, choice/free time.
I'm curious what a 1st grade Montessori literacy block might look like. I imagine much more choice time than public schools can allow with so many kids in a small space, management and the need to move kids forward.
I agree with your comment.
I agree with your comment. I have taught Pre-K to 1 for 23 years. All children do not learn in the same way. Our district is very committed to differentiated learning. We do teach phonics but we try to recognize the students who struggle with this approach. One problem, however, is that the strugglers are often not recognized until mid-First Grade or later and the already struggling students have to make up for once the lost time once a better approach is taught to them. Their self-confidence and self-esteem have already lowered. It would have been so much better for them if their needs had been recognized earlier.