At the beginning of an all-day training session, the trainer asked us who had been taught phonics as a child. Fourteen of the fifteen trainees raised their hands. She repeated over and over again the motto, "Phonics is no fun." She went out of her way to convince us that knowing phonics contributes nothing to reading success. Here is how she did it. She began by showing us a paragraph of nonsense words on an overhead projector that was very similar to Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky so I'll just use that to replicate the activity:
And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came
whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came!
After one of the tutors-to-be read the passage aloud to the class the trainer asked us comprehension questions such as, "What did the Jabberwock do through the woods? What kind of woods were they? What sorts of thoughts did Jabberwock have? And to be honest, the passage she used was almost entirely nonsense words so the answers to the questions had to use them as well. One could easily tell by the morphemes what was a noun or verb, but they were not real things. I didn't follow the comprehension questions as she asked them and had to look back at the passage, (which was much longer than the above) to find the key words. Meanwhile, one student was quickly and vociferously answering all the questions which were fired off in rapid succession; the rest of the class was very quiet. Victory in hand, the trainer triumphantly announced that even though we used our knowledge of phonics to say the unknown words in the passage, and even though we successfully answered her reading comprehension questions (all one of us, actually), that our failure to identify the meaning of the individual words was proof that phonics doesn't work.
She was so pleased with this air tight proof.
No one said a word.
Then she gave us a paragraph which appeared to be a bunch of techno-garble, and this was supposed to show how "knowing the words" doesn't work either. (It was actually a passage on material atomism by Bertrand Russell, and I wondered if this wasn't intentional since he was the inventor of the "Quadruplicity drinks procrastination" phrase that's inflicted on college students in any sort of classroom discussion on how nonsense phrases can be grammatical.) A very sweet white-haired older lady sitting next to me started slowly sifting through the meaning out loud, and it became clear to me that she had some background in either philosophy or linguistics. Simultaneously, I recognized it as Bertrand Russellish...and after hearing us collaborate, the trainer abruptly interrupted us within only 30 seconds to announce that the failure of the class to extract meaning from the passage was another successful demonstration. The white-haired lady and I were still talking to each other so I missed the trainer's specific point on that one.
There was yet another demonstration about how whole language worked and phonics was pointless. In a given normal English paragraph several words were replaced with what was supposed to be nonsense symbols. She told us the meaning of those words and then held up a card with those words on them and asked us to tell her what the word said. The class obliged and parroted back the words and this was then pronounced more proof that whole language worked. Then she did something really sneaky, she held up two cards with words which were not in the passage and that we hadn't seen before. What did they mean? No one could answer. Except, the "nonsense" symbols were Attic Greek and so were the words. Because I have studied Attic Greek I was able to call out the English meaning of one of the cards that no one was supposed to know. (I never imagined that studying this language would pay off in such a delicious way--although trivia. It was a beautiful Myrtle moment.) The trainer ignored my out of turn response and told the class that these words, the meanings to which they couldn't identify, were proof that words can't be learned outside of "the whole context". I didn't come there for a confrontation so I didn't say, "But I learned all those words from vocabulary lists and I learned to read Attic Greek by studying rules of how it's pronounced." Nope. I kept my mouth shut. The white-haired old lady nearly high-fived me.
Turned out she's a retired public school reading specialist with a couple of decades of experience under her belt.
And now the punchline: The trainer was proud of the fact that she had three successes in five years. I've had three successes as well with my own three children who are reading at grade level thanks to phonics. That gives me a 100% success rate.
Next Saturday we'll learn how to teach ESL to Mexican immigrants. Since I can speak Spanish and I've taught ESL this should be interesting.
18 comments:
That was the experience, Myrtle!
Looks like the WL people assume everyone to be on the same level of not-knowing anything about sentence stucture or other languages!
This is terrible, sure....
Playing with language as Carroll did is an art.
I read Carroll's books inluding "Logic Games" - he is treating language as math, and it's fantastic! Of course, I read his books firs in Russian - imagine perfect poetic translation of Jabberwock! And when I read it in English - it was still perfect! All with nonsense words! Would I be able to enjoy it if I'd be taught by WL to read in Russian or in English? I doubt...
Hysterical, Myrtle.
You must keep us posted on this. I feel bad for those poor adults who have to go through this a second time.
one that uses phonics, one that uses whole-language and I signed with up with the wrong group
priceless!
I love the fact that one can be hapless even in one's efforts to Serve the Community.
No good deed goes punished.
Remember that, Myrtle!
Well, the good news here is that the white-haired lady was a reading specialist in the public schools!
Of course, those white-haired folks are all retiring.
Unbelievable!
From what I gather, the WL folks believe that readers with decoding abilities don't have a regular, active vocabulary and only know nonsense words.
One of the interesting differences between the phonics crowd and the WL crowd is that the phonics crowd considers that the child (or adult) already knows a lot of words by sound and that phonics helps them to decode the words. The WL crowd seems to believe that decoding is wrong/bad/ineffective, and thus starts from scratch teaching what the words look like and what they mean at the same time. This is much like learning middle Egyptian today.
The "obvious" flaw is that:
a) Many kids *do* know how to say a lot of words. If they could decode them, they could read them, and
b) Decoding is much easier than memorizing tons of words by shape/color/context/pictures/etc.
Now for my point: Does anyone know if the WL crowd suggest teaching morse code by decoding (only about 26 dot-dash patterns)? Or would they suggest letting the kids figure it out on their own? Same question for totally phonetic languages (e.g Spanish and Finnish, I think ...)
-Mark Roulo
This is much like learning middle Egyptian today.
N.B.: I originally wrote Latin, but then realized that English has a number of words derived from Latin, so this didn't quite make my point :-)
Question on Morse code still stands.
-Mark Roulo
The other big big topic in the workshop was "self-esteem." The session ended with more rhetoric being heard about self-esteem than specific teaching strategies. I know that's a hackneyed criticism, but it's true. It really was true.
I've also had a closer look at the tutor's manual and it seems like the objective of the manual is to get tutors to stop going off on pedagogical tangents and teach the adult student according to the objectives of that particular student. It's odd that something that this needs to emphasized for 200 pages, but I guess this is part of the strange world of volunteer work where folks sign up so that they themselves feel "special" rather than paying attention to what this other adult says they want to do.
For example, one of the tutors insisted that "bad grammar shouldn't be reinforced" and that these adults needed to have their grammar corrected. The trainer kept telling her that the students (not children but 30 and 40 year old adults) signed up to learn how to read the booklet from the DMV, not to learn to speak differently. That wasn't good enough for the tutor.
Other tutors asked questions about how to get social services for students than about teaching reading. The trainer kept reminding everyone that unless someone specifically asks for help, not to go there. Some people seemed uncomfortable with the idea that they were mere teachers of reading to an adult who doesn't care about being a life-long learner but just wants to fill out mundane reports on his job. I think some of the volunteers were anticipating a role more like world savior.
I think that phonics instruction makes the most sense, but I have a question for the phonics gurus here. Do you believe there are people who just can't learn to read via phonics? Specifically, people who, while having an intellectual knowledge of sound-letter correspondences, just cannot "hear" it, and find it impossible to identify unknown words by sounding them out, no matter how much proper phonics instruction? I know this is a contentious topic, and many phonics advocates are adamant that phonics is best for all, but I ask because my mom is believes she is one of them.
My mom learned to read via the look-say method (or whatever non-phonics method was in vogue in 1959-60), and she is convinced that if she had been taught via phonics, she would be illiterate. She says that she cannot tell what a word should sound like just from seeing it in print. She knows the pronounciation rules, but just can't translate print into speech without already knowing what it should sound like. For example, a few years ago she mentioned that she had finally made the connection between "awed" in print and in speech. Prior to that she thought the printed word was pronounced "a-wed" and never really knew what it meant.
Mom is very intelligent, reads a lot, and has a fantastic memory for words and their spellings. She believes this inability of hers is inborn, and, rather than helping, phonics would have failed to teach her to read at all. I also have a very difficult time pronouncing words I've never heard before (I put the stress wrong, give it too many syllables, and sometimes get the vowel wrong - short vs. long), but I've had some success with German names once my dh gave me some explicit rules for the vowels. As a result, I've wondered if proper phonics instruction might have helped her more than she thinks. Or maybe she is right, and phonics would have failed with her. Thoughts?
An example of what I mean by knowing the pronounciation rules, but being unable to translate print into speech is the ability to utilize the phonetic pronounciation in dictionaries. I can, with more concentration than I feel it ought to take, sound out an unfamiliar word through that. My mom, on the other hand, can't. She can look at the phonetic representation, know which sound each symbol stands for, and yet cannot put it together to pronounce the word. She doesn't believe phonics instruction can overcome that inability. I'm wondering what the experienced phonics types think and if they concur.
forty-two,
The inability to segment sounds is called an auditory processing disorder and can be remediated by a professional speech language pathologist. It even gets its own ICD-9 code (but hey, what doesn't these days?)
I know of at least one book which teaches remedial phonics called "Reading Reflex." It has some activities which address the ability to blend, but this book is aimed at older children, not adults, however if the problem is a very mild one these activities might do the trick. There is also some excellent software with a corny name called "Earobics" which is for adults with this problem (designed by speech lang pathologists) This software does not rely on the student even being able to read, the skill in question is not something that has to do with print or phonics per se.
Most phonics programs that I have seen do not address segmenting skills. While I don't think that it's the role of every teacher to remediate such problems, they probably should recognize learning disabilities when they come across them and refer the child to a specialist that CAN remediate.
Myrtle,
Thanks for the information! I've been reading up on auditory processing disorders and it's quite interesting. I can see both my mom and myself in some of the descriptions; I'll have to investigate further.
I have no idea what to think about forty-two's question, but it's something I've wondered about myself.
I read a fascinating email (I'm going to get it posted at some point) saying that Maria Montessori claimed kids learned to read if you taught them letter printing to fluency -- that is, they had to be very good at letter printing.
Zeffiro (Guinevere Eden's husband) told me there's a visual component to reading -- which you can see on the chart the TIMES just published.
I wouldn't be surprised to find there's a subpopulation who have to learn visually.
The Edmark reading program, which is used for autistic kids and, I assume, for kids with severe auditory processing problems, is comletely visual, I think.
It's a systematic program for teaching reading visually - and it's not whole language.
The premise of the program is that learning to read visually isn't optimal; it's a special ed program.
Andrew has learned all of his reading from Edmark.
Forty-two (not related to Seven of Nine, are you?), for what it's worth, I used a an old cassette recorder to help some people who seemed to suffer from what you describe.
When the reader hits a word they have some difficulty sounding out and difficulty understanding, they hit "rewind" and listen to themselves pronouncing the word. That worked every time. After some number of repititions of the pronounce-rewind-listen cycle word recognition came more quickly. Before long just stopping to hit "rewind" seemed to be enough to kick off word recognition.
It seemed that the effort required to sound-out the word, especially when the skill of decoding was relatively new, got in the way of understanding the word. It was as if decoding were burdensome enough to leave too little attention to understand the word.
When they heard the word on playback there wasn't any effort diverted to decoding and understanding was normal, as if they were listening to someone else pronounce the word.
It sounds like 42 and her mother have trouble with "phonemic awareness," the ability to hear and distinguish the sounds of their language. Phonemic awareness is what allows someone to break up the word 'cat' into the three sounds /c/, /a/ and /t/. There is a lot of evidence that dyslexia is precisely that problem-- the inability to distinguish certain language sounds. In dyslexia, this deficit is organic; the brain hardware isn't making all the distinctions it should.
A symptom of lack of phonemic awareness is difficulty in rhyming. My dyslexic son, for example, would think that 'cat' and 'rap' rhymed, because he couldn't hear the difference.
Someone who lacks phonemic awareness will have trouble with phonics, since it's hard to assign letters to sounds if one can't distinguish the sounds in the first place.
So a good phonics program will start with phonemic awareness. Most students will already have phonemic awareness, but the ones who do not will have to be explicitly taught.
-- Cardinal Fang
Edmark makes a wonderful part of a whole language program [note sarcasm].
(still chuckling over the Attic Greek bit.)
I realize I'm about as far as you can get from a reading expert, but it seems to me that most people (at least those with "phonemic awareness") learn best with phonics.
(What reading "instruction" I had to have - mainly help with "hard" words - was done as phonics: "Sound it out," I remember my first-grade teacher saying).
Why not just use what seems to work with the majority, maybe giving extra help/sending to different classes those who cannot learn phonetically? Why all this triumphalism about whole language and claims that phonics don't work? They sure SEEM to work, at least in the kids I've observed...
Post a Comment