Why are we still teaching reading the wrong way?

[Anonymous]

I don't remember it being boring except for when my teacher picked a read aloud book I didn't like. Reading was decoding and we were good at it. I remember reading from basal readers after first grade. They will sometimes boring. I don't think I read a real trade book during school until 8th grade when I was in a pull out group once a week for advanced students. We read The Once and Future King. The boys liked it but I didn't. I was taught how to read and was successful at it. Students these days don't have enough time in school learning how to decode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We do not (as advanced readers) decode every word. We read by sight. The earlier a child can do this the better. Kids can not comprehend well until they are reading by sight. Children (nor adults) do not need to sound out long words. We scan the whole word as well as the words after the word to guess the meaning of that unknown word. We are doing this constantly.

Phonics is fine to get a start.

Spanish and Latin is great for strengthening reading skills later in middle or high school.

It's true that, as proficient readers, we no longer need to decode every word. Just as in math, we no longer have to think about what 5 + 7 is (most of us don't). We have solved that problem often enough to realize it is 12. We have seen the phonogram "igh" together in words so often, we just "know" that they represent the "long I" sound in most words. So we see a word like sigh, or high, or flight, and the word just pops into our brains. We don't have to sound it out.

However, if we are reading, say, a fantasy or science fiction novel and see a nonsense word for example, "Mr. Depsigh", we might need to fall back on our basic decoding skills.

I strongly disagree with the second bolded statement. Poor readers who never properly learned to read phonetically? Yes they need to be constantly scanning ahead to try to guess meaning of words. Because they didn't learn to decode.

If you have learned to decode properly and thoroughly, you seldom need to guess a word from context.

If you have learned to decode syllables efficiently, you do not need to sound out long words. You can quickly look at each syllable and chunk it. The syllables are based on Latin and Green roots, prefixes and suffixes. A key way to improve reading comprehension in grades 4+ is to be sure students can quickly decode these roots and affixes, and know their meaning.

-tion, -ture, aqua- circum - graph, photo, chron-, hypo-

Once you are able to decode the above roots and affixes such as the ones above, you can read almost any word in the English language -- no scanning or guessing based on context necessary. In this manner, you are able to learn by reading. You don't need to ask anyone what a new word is, because you don't need them to read it out loud to you. You have the magic of decoding at your fingertips, and you can read the word to yourself.

If you can decode, you can read "synchronicity", "indeterminate", "hypothyroidism", "aquaculture". No guessing required.

I have studied the science of reading. Good readers decode sentences at a time—not words at a time. Readers scan ahead. It’s not guessing per se. it’s efficiency. It’s much faster. Decoding is slow. For kids with low working memory it’s doing them no favors. Comprehension is the only thing that matters. A child does not need to decode an unusual surname. They just need to recognize it as a name.

[Anonymous]

I have studied the science of reading. Good readers decode sentences at a time—not words at a time. Readers scan ahead. It’s not guessing per se. it’s efficiency. It’s much faster. Decoding is slow. For kids with low working memory it’s doing them no favors. Comprehension is the only thing that matters. A child does not need to decode an unusual surname. They just need to recognize it as a name.

This. Decoding is an important skill and it should be taught. It is not the only skill needed to read. And, some children have great difficulty learning to decode. These are sometimes the kids who never learn to read.

A good teacher uses whatever works with a child and all good teachers know this.

Relying only on decoding is like relying only on calculations to learn math. You can learn it--but, if you cannot figure out how to use it, it doesn't do much good. It's like teaching math without ever giving the kids a word problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is just an example of a sorry teacher. I taught K and First. I cannot imagine not knowing if a child I was evaluating did not know his letters and sounds. I am a teacher who believes in using "all of the above" methods when teaching reading. Children do not all learn in the same way and some need tools besides phonics to learn to read. I believe that phonics is essential--but not the only tool to be used in teaching kids to read.
And, reading comprehension is the purpose of reading and needs to be developed along with phonics and sight words. I cannot imagine relying on phonics alone to teach reading.

So many K and 1st grade teachers I come into contact with (I'm an ESOL teacher who moves from school to school) truly do not test for letter sound knowledge, that I have to believe it is by curriculum design and not just because they are crummy teachers. They test for letter NAME (both upper and lowercase) but not for letter sound, which of course as a former K teacher yourself, you know is a completely different thing.

I have come across several children who through the letter W should be used to show the sound /d/ because of only learning letter names!

In my opinion, children who have strong phonetic blending and segmenting skills AND letter-sound knowledge already in place at the time that sight words (and word families) are being taught can manage to essentially teach themselves how to decode. So to say they all don't learn the same way is correct -- some kids do not need explicit phonics. That's why the sight word method in use in our school, with a smattering of "word study" thrown in, plus probably a good bit of parental tutoring at home, works for maybe 70% of the students in my schools.

But explicit teaching of phonics ... NOT boring phonics workbooks, NOT ridiculous phonics "rules" -- but simply teaching the basic code, the advanced code, blending and segmenting, and then decoding polysyllabic words -- WILL work for all students (excepting those with severe memory or other deficits). Some students can whip through the lessons in just a few hours or weeks and probably would do fine without them at all, if they are able to pick it up on their own; although the lessons do help with spelling correctly.

Saying all students learn differently is like saying there are many ways to stay healthy. True, but the ability to handle words phonetically is the basis of all reading ability, just as sanitation is the basis to good health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is just an example of a sorry teacher. I taught K and First. I cannot imagine not knowing if a child I was evaluating did not know his letters and sounds. I am a teacher who believes in using "all of the above" methods when teaching reading. Children do not all learn in the same way and some need tools besides phonics to learn to read. I believe that phonics is essential--but not the only tool to be used in teaching kids to read.
And, reading comprehension is the purpose of reading and needs to be developed along with phonics and sight words. I cannot imagine relying on phonics alone to teach reading.

So many K and 1st grade teachers I come into contact with (I'm an ESOL teacher who moves from school to school) truly do not test for letter sound knowledge, that I have to believe it is by curriculum design and not just because they are crummy teachers. They test for letter NAME (both upper and lowercase) but not for letter sound, which of course as a former K teacher yourself, you know is a completely different thing.

I have come across several children who through the letter W should be used to show the sound /d/ because of only learning letter names!

In my opinion, children who have strong phonetic blending and segmenting skills AND letter-sound knowledge already in place at the time that sight words (and word families) are being taught can manage to essentially teach themselves how to decode. So to say they all don't learn the same way is correct -- some kids do not need explicit phonics. That's why the sight word method in use in our school, with a smattering of "word study" thrown in, plus probably a good bit of parental tutoring at home, works for maybe 70% of the students in my schools.

But explicit teaching of phonics ... NOT boring phonics workbooks, NOT ridiculous phonics "rules" -- but simply teaching the basic code, the advanced code, blending and segmenting, and then decoding polysyllabic words -- WILL work for all students (excepting those with severe memory or other deficits). Some students can whip through the lessons in just a few hours or weeks and probably would do fine without them at all, if they are able to pick it up on their own; although the lessons do help with spelling correctly.

Saying all students learn differently is like saying there are many ways to stay healthy. True, but the ability to handle words phonetically is the basis of all reading ability, just as sanitation is the basis to good health.

Have you ever taught reading in a classroom situation? How do you teach phonics? What are your methods of "simply teaching the basic code, the advanced code, blending and segmenting, and then decoding polysyllabic words ?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Have you ever taught reading in a classroom situation? How do you teach phonics? What are your methods of "simply teaching the basic code, the advanced code, blending and segmenting, and then decoding polysyllabic words ?"

I teach reading all day long, every day, in a classroom situation -- but not as a classroom teacher.

I am so mystified as to why classroom teachers are required to teach reading in an inefficient way. I don't understand why school districts require this, when it would be so much more simple to use small group reading time and small group intervention to just simply teach decoding.

There's no mystery as to how to teach these things; the methods are out there. We just need the will to do it and to believe that this is the fundamental part of the foundations of reading instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have studied the science of reading. Good readers decode sentences at a time—not words at a time. Readers scan ahead. It’s not guessing per se. it’s efficiency. It’s much faster. Decoding is slow. For kids with low working memory it’s doing them no favors. Comprehension is the only thing that matters. A child does not need to decode an unusual surname. They just need to recognize it as a name.

I have also studied the science of reading, and I agree with you that, initially, decoding can be slow. It takes a few tries of efficient phonological processing (sounding out a word slowly) for the process to become stored in a section of the brain for automatic retrieval.

So after a child has decoded a word a certain number of times (in a typical student, perhaps 4 times, in a slower learner it might takes 6 or 8 or more tries) that word becomes "learned
automatically. But it doesn't mean they have memorized the word by sight. They have memorized the process of decoding the words and have stored it in the "fast word retrieval" area of the brain.

Just looking at a word, say "milk", and reading it over and over again will not develop this fluency. But knowing the sound each letter makes, and sounding out the word over and over again, WILL develop it. And then that rapid decoding ability will transfer over to any syllable with a similar structure; essentially any cvcc short vowel syllable.

So that's why this method is faster. Once the students have mastered the basic code (consonants and short vowel sounds plus blending CCVCC syllables) and then the advanced vowel team code, they are well on their way to being able to decode ANY one syllable word. From there they have a strong base to move onto 2 syllable words and more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Comprehension is the only thing that matters. A child does not need to decode an unusual surname. They just need to recognize it as a name.

The point is, a reader should be able to decode ANY unfamiliar word. For us as adults, usually we only see unknown words in a Science Fiction novel. But for an 5th grader reading a science article, there could be 8 or 10 unknown words on any page!

The student cannot learn new words through reading if she hasn't even a clue how to pronounce the words.

Imagine a child trying to read the following paragraph. This is an example of a text I once had a 6th grade student read, and I have bolded words she failed to read, and put in italics her guess instead. You may say she failed to "guess" the words or "scan ahead and use context" but I will tell you she just had NO CLUE what the word was.

For most animals, climate (climbing) change is seriously (suddenly) bad news. By 2050, it will be the fastest growing threat to biodiversity (i don't know b-b-universe) in the Americas, and by 2100 it could have wiped (whipped)out more than half of African (after) bird and mammal (maimed) species (special). From sea turtles to polar bears to pikas, many of our most charismatic (charmed) species are in jeopardy (jealous).

The only things wrong with the above student was that she had not yet learned how to wound out one syllable words. She knew the meaning of climate, wiped out, mammal and African. But there was NO WAY she could have guessed those words in context of the paragraph. There were just too many unknown words for that to be an effective strategy.

A far more effective strategy was to go back to basics and teacher her how to sound out first the one syllable words, and then how to handle the two syllable words. Obviously this was not a simple "mini-lesson" word study, but a systematic, organized approach to decoding. If someone had done this instruction in 1st and 2nd grade it would have saved her a lot of trouble.

[Anonymous]

I teach reading all day long, every day, in a classroom situation -- but not as a classroom teacher.

So, you teach small groups of children for short periods of time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Comprehension is the only thing that matters. A child does not need to decode an unusual surname. They just need to recognize it as a name.

The point is, a reader should be able to decode ANY unfamiliar word. For us as adults, usually we only see unknown words in a Science Fiction novel. But for an 5th grader reading a science article, there could be 8 or 10 unknown words on any page!

The student cannot learn new words through reading if she hasn't even a clue how to pronounce the words.

Imagine a child trying to read the following paragraph. This is an example of a text I once had a 6th grade student read, and I have bolded words she failed to read, and put in italics her guess instead. You may say she failed to "guess" the words or "scan ahead and use context" but I will tell you she just had NO CLUE what the word was.

For most animals, climate (climbing) change is seriously (suddenly) bad news. By 2050, it will be the fastest growing threat to biodiversity (i don't know b-b-universe) in the Americas, and by 2100 it could have wiped (whipped)out more than half of African (after) bird and mammal (maimed) species (special). From sea turtles to polar bears to pikas, many of our most charismatic (charmed) species are in jeopardy (jealous).

The only things wrong with the above student was that she had not yet learned how to wound out one syllable words. She knew the meaning of climate, wiped out, mammal and African. But there was NO WAY she could have guessed those words in context of the paragraph. There were just too many unknown words for that to be an effective strategy.

A far more effective strategy was to go back to basics and teacher her how to sound out first the one syllable words, and then how to handle the two syllable words. Obviously this was not a simple "mini-lesson" word study, but a systematic, organized approach to decoding. If someone had done this instruction in 1st and 2nd grade it would have saved her a lot of trouble.

So, what is wrong with teaching other techniques along with decoding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is just an example of a sorry teacher. I taught K and First. I cannot imagine not knowing if a child I was evaluating did not know his letters and sounds. I am a teacher who believes in using "all of the above" methods when teaching reading. Children do not all learn in the same way and some need tools besides phonics to learn to read. I believe that phonics is essential--but not the only tool to be used in teaching kids to read.
And, reading comprehension is the purpose of reading and needs to be developed along with phonics and sight words. I cannot imagine relying on phonics alone to teach reading.

So many K and 1st grade teachers I come into contact with (I'm an ESOL teacher who moves from school to school) truly do not test for letter sound knowledge, that I have to believe it is by curriculum design and not just because they are crummy teachers. They test for letter NAME (both upper and lowercase) but not for letter sound, which of course as a former K teacher yourself, you know is a completely different thing.

I have come across several children who through the letter W should be used to show the sound /d/ because of only learning letter names!

In my opinion, children who have strong phonetic blending and segmenting skills AND letter-sound knowledge already in place at the time that sight words (and word families) are being taught can manage to essentially teach themselves how to decode. So to say they all don't learn the same way is correct -- some kids do not need explicit phonics. That's why the sight word method in use in our school, with a smattering of "word study" thrown in, plus probably a good bit of parental tutoring at home, works for maybe 70% of the students in my schools.

But explicit teaching of phonics ... NOT boring phonics workbooks, NOT ridiculous phonics "rules" -- but simply teaching the basic code, the advanced code, blending and segmenting, and then decoding polysyllabic words -- WILL work for all students (excepting those with severe memory or other deficits). Some students can whip through the lessons in just a few hours or weeks and probably would do fine without them at all, if they are able to pick it up on their own; although the lessons do help with spelling correctly.

Saying all students learn differently is like saying there are many ways to stay healthy. True, but the ability to handle words phonetically is the basis of all reading ability, just as sanitation is the basis to good health.

The DRA test specifically tests for letter sounds. So do many other similar tests. I'm doubting this person is a teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is just an example of a sorry teacher. I taught K and First. I cannot imagine not knowing if a child I was evaluating did not know his letters and sounds. I am a teacher who believes in using "all of the above" methods when teaching reading. Children do not all learn in the same way and some need tools besides phonics to learn to read. I believe that phonics is essential--but not the only tool to be used in teaching kids to read.
And, reading comprehension is the purpose of reading and needs to be developed along with phonics and sight words. I cannot imagine relying on phonics alone to teach reading.

So many K and 1st grade teachers I come into contact with (I'm an ESOL teacher who moves from school to school) truly do not test for letter sound knowledge, that I have to believe it is by curriculum design and not just because they are crummy teachers. They test for letter NAME (both upper and lowercase) but not for letter sound, which of course as a former K teacher yourself, you know is a completely different thing.

I have come across several children who through the letter W should be used to show the sound /d/ because of only learning letter names!

In my opinion, children who have strong phonetic blending and segmenting skills AND letter-sound knowledge already in place at the time that sight words (and word families) are being taught can manage to essentially teach themselves how to decode. So to say they all don't learn the same way is correct -- some kids do not need explicit phonics. That's why the sight word method in use in our school, with a smattering of "word study" thrown in, plus probably a good bit of parental tutoring at home, works for maybe 70% of the students in my schools.

But explicit teaching of phonics ... NOT boring phonics workbooks, NOT ridiculous phonics "rules" -- but simply teaching the basic code, the advanced code, blending and segmenting, and then decoding polysyllabic words -- WILL work for all students (excepting those with severe memory or other deficits). Some students can whip through the lessons in just a few hours or weeks and probably would do fine without them at all, if they are able to pick it up on their own; although the lessons do help with spelling correctly.

Saying all students learn differently is like saying there are many ways to stay healthy. True, but the ability to handle words phonetically is the basis of all reading ability, just as sanitation is the basis to good health.

The DRA test specifically tests for letter sounds. So do many other similar tests. I'm doubting this person is a teacher.

Not every school or system uses the DRA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So, what is wrong with teaching other techniques along with decoding?

Decoding would be the most efficient strategy. Other strategies such as "look for the word within the word" or "scan and guess for context" should be used but only once you have reached the limits of decoding, and still don't know the word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The DRA test specifically tests for letter sounds. So do many other similar tests. I'm doubting this person is a teacher.

I am a teacher. Our school uses the DRA for grades K-2, and does a letter name inventory but not a letter sound inventory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who's this "we"? My kid is in first grade in a DCPS and is getting explicit phonics instruction, along with learning sight words (which aren't pronounced phonetically).

My DCPS also teaches FUNdations (phonics) as well as trick words (ones that don’t follow the rules). They also in first grade teach specific decoding strategies ( tap it out, chunk it, look for word parts you know).