O. T. but cute, I thought

wrote:
I wonder if anyone has even tried to use the "look-and-say" method in
a Spanish-speaking country? The spelling rules of that language are so
simple and (almost completely) unambiguous that I can't see why anything
other than phonics would even be considered.

Finnish is like Spanish in that its spelling is very simple and
phonetic. I don't know how they teach Finnish children to read these
days, but when I was a kid my Finnish-speaking friends learned reading
by breaking up the words into syllables, which is also very simple in
Finnish (if I have to cut off an English word, I usually have to look in
a dictionary to see where you can cut it off!). Cat is kissa in Finnish,
and when learning to read the word, they would go K-I-S, KIS, S-A, SA,
KISSA. With a longer text, this could sound pretty funny (at least to
me, but I guess I was easily entertained at that age).

--
Marina, Miranda and Caliban. In loving memory of Frank and Nikki.

On Feb 4, 8:27*pm, "jofirey" wrote:
"Jack Campin - bogus address" wrote in ...





Phonics was the way reading was taught when I was in school, too
(1940s).
However, somewhere along the line, someone came up with the "See and
Say"
system of teaching reading, where children were supposed to recognize
the
shape of a whole word, rather than sounding it out.
That sounds like a terrible way to teach people to read. With phonics,
you have to remember 26 letters, and the limited number of sounds each
letter can make, which doesn't come to that many. With the above method,
you'd have to memorize thousands of "word shapes".

It was probably based on the observation that good readers *do* memorize
thousands of word shapes. *Presumably somebody thought that since that's
where people end up with their reading skills, that must be a good place
to start. *Humph.

Also, I would think a person would [confuse] words a lot more easily,
since many words have very similar shapes, eg, "almost" and "always"

The descender on the y and the wiggle at the end make a difference.

Last year I heard a talk by a woman who grew up with English as her
first spoken language but Farsi as her first written one (she was the
child of a British diplomatic family in Iran), and ended up as an
expert on Islamic calligraphy. *She said that dyslexia was unknown
among kids who grew up reading Arabic-family scripts - the shapes of
the words are much more individual than they are in English. *So for
that kind of script, look-say might be a winner.

I learnt phonics-style in England in the 1950s and have hardly made
a spelling mistake since I was 10. *I'm sure look-say is appropriate
in English for people with some kinds of cognitive disability, but
they must be a very small minority.

I was already reading well by the time I started school, so I'd guess that
look-say would describe how I learned to read. *My family always read to me.
After a while I would know the books and read back to them, and finally I
was reading new things as well. *I'm guessing that is pretty much how most
people end up reading. *Phonics seems awfully unwieldy for reading at any
sort of advanced level.

That said, I can't spell worth a darn and I cannot proof read very well
either. *I see the point of starting all kids out on phonics and letting
them advance from there. *If only because it is so hard to go back to
phonics for the kids that really do need it.

(Do kids ever have to memorize anything in school anymore?)

Jo- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Taggin in.

I was able to read before I entered school. My mom was tired of
listening to me talk so she taught me to read. Writing was a problem
as I am dyslexic and kept trying to write from right to left. Used to
make the old man furious. The teacher thought it was a hoot. She
corrected me and the rest, as they say, is history.

My first grade teacher, Mrs Pittwood, used a combination of sight and
say, and phonics. We learned the easy words (you know, Dick, Jane,
Sally, Spot, Puff, and, the, to, so, forth) by sight, the hard ones
were taught by phonics. My problem was that the hard ones were easy
for me and I ended up wearing water from the water fountain a few
times as a result.

The foreign language teachers I've worked for do use sight and say in
their class rooms. They usually have a verb declination chart at the
front of the room so that they can teach the verbs by just changing
the verb in the center pockets. Rather practical in my opinion. I
feel sorry for those who've had to learn English/American as a second
language as the language has so many rules and exceptions for them
that it is hard for those raised with it to get the language right.

Pam S, trying to get into alt.humor.usenet

On Feb 4, 5:58*am, "Granby" wrote:
* Jake is 5 and learning to read.
* He points at a picture in a zoo book and says, "Look
* Mama! It's a frickin' Cat!"
* Deep breath .. "What did you call it?"

* "It's a frickin' Cat, Mama! It says so on the picture!"
* and so it *does .. " A *f r i c a n *Cat "

* Hooked *on phonics!!! * Ain't it wonderful?

LOL!


Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

tanadashoes wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:27 pm, "jofirey" wrote:
"Jack Campin - bogus address" wrote in ...





Phonics was the way reading was taught when I was in school, too
(1940s).
However, somewhere along the line, someone came up with the "See and
Say"
system of teaching reading, where children were supposed to recognize
the
shape of a whole word, rather than sounding it out.
That sounds like a terrible way to teach people to read. With phonics,
you have to remember 26 letters, and the limited number of sounds each
letter can make, which doesn't come to that many. With the above method,
you'd have to memorize thousands of "word shapes".
It was probably based on the observation that good readers *do* memorize
thousands of word shapes. Presumably somebody thought that since that's
where people end up with their reading skills, that must be a good place
to start. Humph.
Also, I would think a person would [confuse] words a lot more easily,
since many words have very similar shapes, eg, "almost" and "always"
The descender on the y and the wiggle at the end make a difference.
Last year I heard a talk by a woman who grew up with English as her
first spoken language but Farsi as her first written one (she was the
child of a British diplomatic family in Iran), and ended up as an
expert on Islamic calligraphy. She said that dyslexia was unknown
among kids who grew up reading Arabic-family scripts - the shapes of
the words are much more individual than they are in English. So for
that kind of script, look-say might be a winner.
I learnt phonics-style in England in the 1950s and have hardly made
a spelling mistake since I was 10. I'm sure look-say is appropriate
in English for people with some kinds of cognitive disability, but
they must be a very small minority.
I was already reading well by the time I started school, so I'd guess that
look-say would describe how I learned to read. My family always read to me.
After a while I would know the books and read back to them, and finally I
was reading new things as well. I'm guessing that is pretty much how most
people end up reading. Phonics seems awfully unwieldy for reading at any
sort of advanced level.

That said, I can't spell worth a darn and I cannot proof read very well
either. I see the point of starting all kids out on phonics and letting
them advance from there. If only because it is so hard to go back to
phonics for the kids that really do need it.

(Do kids ever have to memorize anything in school anymore?)

Jo- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Taggin in.

I was able to read before I entered school.

I learned to read (Swedish) at age 4 (we start school at age 7 in
Finland). I still remember that wonderful feeling, when everything just
clicked and I understood how those letters combined into words. I also
remember the first book I read all by myself. It was about an eskimo who
sailed away on a piece of ice and ended up in Africa.

I
feel sorry for those who've had to learn English/American as a second
language as the language has so many rules and exceptions for them
that it is hard for those raised with it to get the language right.

Someone very wise has said that English grammar is about 20% rules and
80% exceptions to the rule.

--
Marina, Miranda and Caliban. In loving memory of Frank and Nikki.

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

in learning to read by phonics, you are simultaneously learning
to visually recognize the words, but that doesn't make
"sounding them out" unimportant.

Also, the ability to sound out words is a powerful tool for a child.
It means they can read on their own, because they have the knowledge
of how letters are supposed to sound.

Of course in English, this can be a big challenge. I remember once
in first or second grade, seeing the word "heat" written on the
blackboard, and trying to figure out what the word was. I had no
idea what "hee-at" meant.

I'm still glad I had that skill, though, because there are certainly
many words that are spelled the way they sound.

Eventually, all readers *do* go on to learn the shapes of words,
once they've been reading for a while. You don't spend the rest of
your life sounding out the letters of every word you read. Even so,
that skill comes in handy occasionally, when I encounter a word I've
never seen before, especially if it's a long one, such as a chemical
or medical term, etc.

Joyce

--
To send email to this address, remove the triple-X from my user name.

Granby wrote:

Jake is 5 and learning to read.
He points at a picture in a zoo book and says, "Look
Mama! It's a frickin' Cat!"
Deep breath .. "What did you call it?"

"It's a frickin' Cat, Mama! It says so on the picture!"
and so it does .. " A f r i c a n Cat "

Hooked on phonics!!! Ain't it wonderful?


Thanks for the laugh!
Best wishes,
Polonca and Soncek