Is this a bad habit?

[JJsMom]

I don't know where I got the idea that this is a bad habit but I can't seem to get past it, so I would like some thoughts. I am thinking about "Teach your Child to Read using Children's Books" but it advocates looking at the pictures and the first letter of the word and having them guess the word in that context. I have been discouraging that. :/ It's not the only strategy in the book, it's only one, but it's bothering me. I also am having a hard time getting over not doing an actual phonics program. :think Give some thoughts, please. You can agree or disagree. :yes

[MarynMunchkins]

Personally, I think that's fine as long as you teach phonics along with it. It seems like a good place to start, and I know for a fact our public schools do it. :)

I wouldn't let that be the only way to learn new words, but it can be a good confidence booster when they're just starting.

[klpmommy]

it's one method & one that works well for some kids. Not all kids need it & even if he needs it now he won't always. it's a good strategy, imo, esp if it is one of many things you try.

[JJsMom]

Personally, I think that's fine as long as you teach phonics along with it. It seems like a good place to start, and I know for a fact our public schools do it. :)

I wouldn't let that be the only way to learn new words, but it can be a good confidence booster when they're just starting.


Well, my ds *can* read but he hates reading in those workbooks. I have been doing phonics with him but he seems to be pulling away from it. I'm trying to figure out a way to add in phonics with it. It suggests going with what your child is weak in, but I wonder if I that will be enough. :shrug3

[klpmommy]

can i ask an honest question? if he can read, why do a ton more phonics? i'd go to the library & get books he enjoys & just read.

[illinoismommy]

I am thinking about "Teach your Child to Read using Children's Books" but it advocates looking at the pictures and the first letter of the word and having them guess the word in that context.


I think some guessing is fine, but that they figure out to do that naturally and don't need to be encouraged to do it. We have Bob Books and David cracks me up because this is kind of how it goes, "Mit and Kit sat on a.... blanket!!" (he reads this much slower) Obviously, he guessed the last word and it was supposed to be mat. :lol I just tell him to sound out that first part and does it sound like blanket? I think guessing is a bad plan, but memorizing what a word looks like, and phonics, are fair game tactics.

[klpmommy]

I am thinking about "Teach your Child to Read using Children's Books" but it advocates looking at the pictures and the first letter of the word and having them guess the word in that context.


I think some guessing is fine, but that they figure out to do that naturally and don't need to be encouraged to do it. We have Bob Books and David cracks me up because this is kind of how it goes, "Mit and Kit sat on a.... blanket!!" (he reads this much slower) Obviously, he guessed the last word and it was supposed to be mat. :lol I just tell him to sound out that first part and does it sound like blanket? I think guessing is a bad plan, but memorizing what a word looks like, and phonics, are fair game tactics.


and that is where you say "You're right, it looks like they are sitting on a blanket, but let's look at the word, does it look like blanket? what sound does it start with? mmmm--- so what could it be?"

it isn't guessing, it is using all available clues to figure it out. guessing would be if the word made no sense at all. "Mit & Kit sat on a marker" (m sound) or "Mit & Kit sat on a frog" (totally random word)

[JJsMom]

can i ask an honest question? if he can read, why do a ton more phonics? i'd go to the library & get books he enjoys & just read.


:idea That's a good question! I guess I feel pressured to keep going with the phonics. He has trouble but he can read. It just feels like there's still so much he needs to learn about reading.
I am thinking just reading would be best for him. I feel really lost in teaching him reading for some reason.

[illinoismommy]

I am thinking about "Teach your Child to Read using Children's Books" but it advocates looking at the pictures and the first letter of the word and having them guess the word in that context.


I think some guessing is fine, but that they figure out to do that naturally and don't need to be encouraged to do it. We have Bob Books and David cracks me up because this is kind of how it goes, "Mit and Kit sat on a.... blanket!!" (he reads this much slower) Obviously, he guessed the last word and it was supposed to be mat. :lol I just tell him to sound out that first part and does it sound like blanket? I think guessing is a bad plan, but memorizing what a word looks like, and phonics, are fair game tactics.


and that is where you say "You're right, it looks like they are sitting on a blanket, but let's look at the word, does it look like blanket? what sound does it start with? mmmm--- so what could it be?"

it isn't guessing, it is using all available clues to figure it out. guessing would be if the word made no sense at all. "Mit & Kit sat on a marker" (m sound) or "Mit & Kit sat on a frog" (totally random word)




Yes. And in case I made it sound like I was on him about the guessing, I'm not. :giggle

I haven't heard about using phonics programs for early readers. I thought you just let them at it and explain exceptions along the way. So I don't plan to use one. Will it be covered naturally?

[klpmommy]

:nak2 i'll come back later w/ 2 hands. i used to teach elem & reading was a huge focus. but you can take anything i say w/ a grain of salt b/c P&E aren't reading yet :blush

[teamommy]

I don't know where I got the idea that this is a bad habit but I can't seem to get past it, so I would like some thoughts. I am thinking about "Teach your Child to Read using Children's Books" but it advocates looking at the pictures and the first letter of the word and having them guess the word in that context. I have been discouraging that. :/ It's not the only strategy in the book, it's only one, but it's bothering me. I also am having a hard time getting over not doing an actual phonics program. :think Give some thoughts, please. You can agree or disagree. :yes


My gut feeling is that it's a bad habit. I discourage guessing. Why not just teach them to sound out the words?

Now, guessing based on the phonics you know, once you have been taught all the sounds, seems different to me. For example, reading the word "bread" as braid or breed, or getting mixed up whether a vowel is long or short. But just looking at the first letter and the picture and making something up -- nope, I am discouraging that. After all, there is only a short time where the picture will be there to help you. Then you really need to be able to read the word, either based on phonograms, or chunks of words i.e. word families. I know there might be adults who "guess" what words are in their reading, but I don't think that is fluent reading, and I don't want that to happen to my kids.

I have known of two children, personally, among my acquaintances that were taught whole word methods in school and seemed to be fine until about third grade, then had trouble and had to be remediated with phonics at home. I know that won't happen to every kid or even to most, but it's concerning to me.

[illinoismommy]

:nak2 i'll come back later w/ 2 hands. i used to teach elem & reading was a huge focus.


:poke

[klpmommy]

My gut feeling is that it's a bad habit. I discourage guessing. Why not just teach them to sound out the words?

Now, guessing based on the phonics you know, once you have been taught all the sounds, seems different to me. For example, reading the word "bread" as braid or breed, or getting mixed up whether a vowel is long or short. But just looking at the first letter and the picture and making something up -- nope, I am discouraging that. After all, there is only a short time where the picture will be there to help you. Then you really need to be able to read the word, either based on phonograms, or chunks of words i.e. word families. I know there might be adults who "guess" what words are in their reading, but I don't think that is fluent reading, and I don't want that to happen to my kids.

I have known of two children, personally, among my acquaintances that were taught whole word methods in school and seemed to be fine until about third grade, then had trouble and had to be remediated with phonics at home. I know that won't happen to every kid or even to most, but it's concerning to me.


why not teach everyone to just sound out words? b/c not everyone's brain works that way. ;) I am a whole word reader. My phonics stink. I also was reading at college level in K, graduated with honors from high school & magna cum laude from college. All without knowing phonics. I learned phonics when I was teaching. And I still stink at them. ;) I have the *basics* down, I had that when I was a kid, too.

I guess some of it is a difference in definition of "guessing". I consider fluent reading in the comprehension of it, not the exact words so much. :shrug So if the story is "I am hungry. I would like bread." and my child read "I am hungry. I would like breed." and it didn't occur to them that what they read made zero sense, that is a problem. But if they read "I am hungry. I would like blueberries." (based on the first sound) it at least makes sense. You eat blueberries. :shrug

I don't think that children should be taught only phonics or only whole words. :shrug They *need* both. They work together. I have known too many kids who were taught phonics only who could read every word on the page, but had not a clue about *what* they just read. I tutored one boy in second grade who had been taught phonics only at his school & he had the worst comprehension of any child I have ever known, and that was after teaching for 9 years in the PS system. he was so busy trying to remember rules & long/short vowels, etc, that he had no fluency & no comprehension. Most of the whole word readers I know, as adults b/c I don't think I ever had a student that was whole words only, are good readers, fast readers, but miss out on some subtilities. (I had no clue in high school that the word prejudice was prejudice. I knew what prejudice was, but I read it as "pre-juiced". Had complete understanding of the context of the meaning, but thought they were two separate words.

bbl, my sil just called.

[DoulaClara]

I think there are a lot of schools of thoughts on this. I've been on both sides of the coin. The first emphasized semantic cues, the second was phonics-based.

The first: I occasionally stepped in to teach reading to first-graders in the mornings before teaching PM kindergarten with the ANNA program in IL, and that program was very much a timed, Guided Reading thing- Monday was a picture walk, schematic discussion; Tuesday was a read-through; Wed was a re-read with emphasis on fluency, Thurs was a journal entry, and Friday was a running record. There were three teachers in the room at a time, and the students were leveled. To be very honest, what I noticed about this approach was a certain level of "bolting," like with plants. Some students would take off like a rocket, and leap through reading levels, and suddenly, come screeching to a halt- they would slam into a wall at a certain point, when sentences turned into paragraphs, and reading by using contextual cues was much more difficult. That was where these students ended up stagnating and being pulled, pushed, and prodded verrry slowly through reading levels the rest of the year. And then, some students just did seem to click, and it worked.

When I noticed this with the first graders, I slammed on the brakes with the Guided-Reading-esque stuff I was doing with them, and started working on lots of phonics, while my TA did pull-out Guided Reading with them. The end of the year looked pretty good for many of my students, but still, I did have some that just were NOT there.

The year I taught at the "cult," I did a straight phonics program. By the end of the year, 5 of my 6 students were reading books phonetically, with two reading with fairly impressive fluency.

Now, take this with this sort of background knowledge- my students in IL were largely from English as Second Language families, and teaching 6 students as opposed to 26 made my results at the cult exaggeratedly high, I think. However, this did start my brain thinking about the approach I will take to HSing, and that's resulted in us heading in the Classical Approach (Well-Trained Mind, Climbing Parnassus sort of thing). I really want to look into Spell to Read and Write, as I've heard so many good things about it! I believe that if you still really wanted to head in the phonics direction, you could look into that book and see what you think- it might give you a different perspective on how you want to go! And it wouldn't stop you from doing other context-based work with your son.

:think Boys learn reading generally at a different pace, and with different approaches based on their age, I think, because of all of the gross-motor development happening at this time. Ultimately, you know your son the best! There is no "one size" approach to literacy, and exploring your options and trying things out won't hurt him at all.

[DoulaClara]

I don't think that children should be taught only phonics or only whole words. :shrug They *need* both. They work together.


:yes If you think about how one would naturally understand something that was communicated (written word, or spoken), you have to have an understanding of the context, and also fully hear (or read) the sounds involved. As a good rule of thumb, an "All or Nothing" approach to any subject when teaching (home, private, or public school) is historically a very bad idea!

[illinoismommy]

the approach I will take to HSing, and that's resulted in us heading in the Classical Approach (Well-Trained Mind, Climbing Parnassus sort of thing).

From what I have read that means phonics based, right?

I think its phonics + memorizing whole words too. David basically only knows phonics right now and I've tried to encourage him to go ahead and remember what certain words look like so he won't have to sound them out-- like 'and' and 'the' ... you see them all the time.

[Rabbit]

It is a -very- important comprehension skill. Eventually, as an adult, he'll use that same skill for words that are multi-syllable and fit no phonics rules at all, words even from languages that he doesn't speak, and yet still figure out what the meaning is in the context he's found it. Yes, it looks clumsy and wrong, reading blanket for something so simple as mat, but it's a sign of higher level comprehension.

Just as you can't use a hammer for every single carpentry job, you can't use phonics for every single word and circumstance. He needs a full toolbox, and "guessing" from context is a critically important tool. One that some children do need to be taught to do. It doesn't always comes naturally and quickly.

[DoulaClara]

the approach I will take to HSing, and that's resulted in us heading in the Classical Approach (Well-Trained Mind, Climbing Parnassus sort of thing).

From what I have read that means phonics based, right?

I think its phonics + memorizing whole words too. David basically only knows phonics right now and I've tried to encourage him to go ahead and remember what certain words look like so he won't have to sound them out-- like 'and' and 'the' ... you see them all the time.


It's a little bit of both- phonics for words that follow the "rules" (for example, want her to be able to sound out "dog," rather than memorizing its shape) and memorizing high-frequency words that are unusual (like "of," for example). The method does incorporate a lot of free-reading and read-alouds, which I think naturally veer toward contextual reading cues being used. When we read to Gianna now, she may not fully understand what a pelican is, but if we read the word "pelican" and she sees a picture that looks like a bird to her, she will eventually internalize that a "pelican" is a bird that looks like the one in the picture. Eventually, this translates to this same skill being used in reading. If she's reading, and comes across a word that she doesn't know, she should be able to try many methods to figure it out- including contextual (or graphic) cues! Does that make sense? It heavily leans towards phonics, but doesn't discount the necessity of multiple approaches as helpers.

[klpmommy]

It is a -very- important comprehension skill. Eventually, as an adult, he'll use that same skill for words that are multi-syllable and fit no phonics rules at all, words even from languages that he doesn't speak, and yet still figure out what the meaning is in the context he's found it. Yes, it looks clumsy and wrong, reading blanket for something so simple as mat, but it's a sign of higher level comprehension.

Just as you can't use a hammer for every single carpentry job, you can't use phonics for every single word and circumstance. He needs a full toolbox, and "guessing" from context is a critically important tool. One that some children do need to be taught to do. It doesn't always comes naturally and quickly.


how come you can say what I wanted to say so much better than I did? :scratch I can't even blame pp brain b/c you have preggo brain.

so, back to one handed, but rabbit said what i wanted to, just much clearer & consise than my verbosity. :)

[Rabbit]

how come you can say what I wanted to say so much better than I did? :scratch I can't even blame pp brain b/c you have preggo brain.

so, back to one handed, but rabbit said what i wanted to, just much clearer & consise than my verbosity. :)


:giggle

[Heather Micaela]

I didn't read all this, but I wanted to offer the perspective of an adult "learning to read".

I am learning Hebrew which uses an entirely different alphabet and drops vowels once you know how to read (except in songs and poetry). I know most of the letters and their sound, but found context is a big part of reading. It takes a long time to put words together letter by letter. It is shorter to see a word begins with "sh" and get from context it is "Shalom". As I read along with my teacher I do see the other letters as well, but that first letter cue goes a long way.

I used to push phonics over "whole language" But now I see you need both

ETA - yes I have memorized "sight words" as well yod-yod would be pronounced Y-Y. But I know when I read it, it is "Adonai" in most cases (Becuase of not wanting to write out YHWH) So I sight read that word by memory.

[Mama Calidad]

It is a -very- important comprehension skill. Eventually, as an adult, he'll use that same skill for words that are multi-syllable and fit no phonics rules at all, words even from languages that he doesn't speak, and yet still figure out what the meaning is in the context he's found it. Yes, it looks clumsy and wrong, reading blanket for something so simple as mat, but it's a sign of higher level comprehension.

Just as you can't use a hammer for every single carpentry job, you can't use phonics for every single word and circumstance. He needs a full toolbox, and "guessing" from context is a critically important tool. One that some children do need to be taught to do. It doesn't always comes naturally and quickly.


You've said something to this effect before and it really helped me. :heart Neither of my two "readers" need any encouragement to use the pictures to help them along ;) so I don't actively encourage it. I don't inwardly think "cheater-cheater pumpkin eater" when I catch them at it now, either. :O :giggle

[teamommy]

why not teach everyone to just sound out words? b/c not everyone's brain works that way. ;) I am a whole word reader. My phonics stink. I also was reading at college level in K, graduated with honors from high school & magna cum laude from college. All without knowing phonics. I learned phonics when I was teaching. And I still stink at them. ;) I have the *basics* down, I had that when I was a kid, too.

That's interesting. I never learned phonics until a couple of years ago, either. I was a self-taught reader, but I think I figured out phonics without being able to tell you what the rules are. So if I saw a word I didn't know that ended with "dge", for example, I'd pronounce it with a "j" sound, but I wouldn't have really known why.

I guess some of it is a difference in definition of "guessing". I consider fluent reading in the comprehension of it, not the exact words so much. :shrug So if the story is "I am hungry. I would like bread." and my child read "I am hungry. I would like breed." and it didn't occur to them that what they read made zero sense, that is a problem. But if they read "I am hungry. I would like blueberries." (based on the first sound) it at least makes sense. You eat blueberries. :shrug

Well, right. I wouldn't think it was fine if my child didn't catch the error. But how much easier for him to go back and say, okay, it must be one of those other sounds ea makes; oh yeah, bread! Starting with blueberries, you still only have the first letter and there are lots of foods that begin with b

I don't think that children should be taught only phonics or only whole words. :shrug They *need* both. They work together. I have known too many kids who were taught phonics only who could read every word on the page, but had not a clue about *what* they just read. I tutored one boy in second grade who had been taught phonics only at his school & he had the worst comprehension of any child I have ever known, and that was after teaching for 9 years in the PS system. he was so busy trying to remember rules & long/short vowels, etc, that he had no fluency & no comprehension. Most of the whole word readers I know, as adults b/c I don't think I ever had a student that was whole words only, are good readers, fast readers, but miss out on some subtilities. (I had no clue in high school that the word prejudice was prejudice. I knew what prejudice was, but I read it as "pre-juiced". Had complete understanding of the context of the meaning, but thought they were two separate words.

[color=blue] :giggle Even as an adult I have heard words aloud for the first time that I have been mispronouncing in my head for years! It can happen even if you know phonics, maybe instead of pre-juiced my phonics-taught child would say something like pre-joo-dice with a long i. My DH and I do this to each other all the time. One of us will say a word and the other kinda scratches his head and we run to the dictionary to settle the argument. Sometimes we are both right. :)

What ended up helpng your student, if you don't mind my asking?

[color]

[musiclady]

My 5 yo learnt to read just by looking at the words. She isn't homeschooled, but she wanted to learn so we taught her. The thing that really gets her reading is reading material she wants to read. She doesn't like the boring readers that most people start with, she likes something with a real story line to it. Now she is reading at a 3rd grade level, and now when she gets stuck on a word, we use phonics to work the word out. Don't know if that'll help, I hope it gives you some ideas.

[klpmommy]

What ended up helpng your student, if you don't mind my asking?

I wouldn't let him use any phonics except first letter. I made him look at the pictures before he read a single word of the story & tell me what he thought was going to happen on each page so that he had the ideas in his brain before he looked at a word. I made him skip words that he struggled with & we would come back & just go with what made sense whether or not it fit the first letter. Basically, I taught him every "bad habit" out there b/c he needed to get the idea that words have meaning. I was only able to work with him for a few months before dh was transferred to another state, but I was seeing the beginnings of progress with my student. He just had so much *unlearning* to do before he could learn how to read. I wish I could have worked with him longer.

I guess some of it is a difference in definition of "guessing". I consider fluent reading in the comprehension of it, not the exact words so much. So if the story is "I am hungry. I would like bread." and my child read "I am hungry. I would like breed." and it didn't occur to them that what they read made zero sense, that is a problem. But if they read "I am hungry. I would like blueberries." (based on the first sound) it at least makes sense. You eat blueberries.

Well, right. I wouldn't think it was fine if my child didn't catch the error. But how much easier for him to go back and say, okay, it must be one of those other sounds ea makes; oh yeah, bread! Starting with blueberries, you still only have the first letter and there are lots of foods that begin with b

Sometimes it is okay to accept the wrong word, other times it needs to be corrected. :shrug It depends on what the purpose in reading is. If it is instructional, yes, go back & work on it "blueberries makes sense b/c it starts with b & you eat it, but let's look at the word.....". but if the reading is recreational, I would totally ignore the mistake *unless* it effected comprehension of the meaning of the story. If it effects the meaning of the story most likely something in a future paragraph/sentence/page will make the reader think "something doesn't make sense" and he will go back to figure it out.

"The boy was hungry. He went to the cabinet and pulled out bread and peanut butter. He poured a glass of milk and then ate his sandwich."

A student who reads that for comprehension and misreads "bread" for "blueberries" will get to "sandwich" and most likely think "sandwich? huh?" and go back to reread & realize his own mistake b/c it makes no sense. Now, someone who read phonics very well may do the same, but also might have gotten bogged down on the word "bread" and then by the time they figured it out have lost the meaning of the story. I know for me, non phonics that I am ;) , the first "ea" word I thought of was "ear" and the r-controlled vowel changes that particular sound. And what about "when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking" so shouldn't the "ea" sound be a long e? So reading it "breed" is phonetically correct. Don't you *love* the English language? :lol

Anyway, I don't want to argue with phonics vs whole word. I believe *whole heartedly* that both are necessary to teach reading & that some kids will respond much better to one than the other. ;) To me, once the basics are learned & a child is reading, there is no need to continue to push the phonics. :shrug I think that both phonics & whole word "advocates" can push their *thing* too much & forget the main reason we read- for comprehension. So long as we focus on the meaning, I don't think the method is the most important thing.

[teamommy]

Klpmommy,

Thank you for typing all of that out! :) I don't want to argue either. I am interested in the topic but I don't know everything and do not have the experience to argue with a school teacher, anyway. ;)

I think I understand better what you mean when you say both whole language and phonics are necessary. And by you typing all of that out, I understand better what you mean by whole language teaching. I guess that, not being a teacher, I think of my students here at home, and can't imagine needing to "teach" comprehension specifically. Living in a home full of books and being read to for hundreds or thousands of hours before learning to read, a typical home schooled child is going to have a head start on the concept that words have meaning and stand for a specific idea. Besides which, that child may also have a wide vocabulary on which to draw so that when he is ready to learn to decode, he will have the words to draw on when he is trying to figure one out in his reading. :think Maybe in that case I *am* using whole language instruction, but it is more implicit. Whereas the phonics is definitely more explicit.

I think about this a lot, too, because my church has a reading tutor program in the public schools, and as soon as the baby is a little older, I want to get involved in that. This has been a helpful discussion for me. :yes

[klpmommy]

:hug

the problem comes that sometimes hearing stories & reading stories become different skills so a child can comprehend anything read to him, but when it comes time for reading it is a totally different skill. But, yes, I do think that reading to a child a lot helps with comprehension & vocabulary. But it doesn't "guarantee" successful reading b/c they are different skills. :) But I do think that we *naturally* teach our kids with both phonics & whole language. Just programs can get in the way with an overemphasis on one or the other. ;)

And, Krissy, have we rabbit trailed your thread enough? I'm so sorry. :hug

[JJsMom]

:yes :yes :yes This has helped so much! Wow, this has been a great discussion! Keep it coming! I was very uncomfortable with the thought in the beginning. I remember my nephew would always guess at words and not really try to read it. But after reading this, I realize that my ds is getting caught up on sounding out words so much that he is losing meaning. I also think that him being able to "guess" at some words (using the pics or the beginning sounds) will help give him the confidence that he needs to want to read. I can totally see how it could hinder some kids but the more I think about it, the more I see that it will only do good for my ds. I keep thinking that I don't know how my ds learns but this has given me confidence that I do. :) I am going to start next week, so poke me and I'll let you know how it's going.
But keep this going because it's great. :heart

[illinoismommy]

Hmm okay so the question for me returns to, do I *need* a phonics program? Can you learn naturally without one, or will we struggle more without something guiding?

[DoulaClara]

I say "yes," to needing a phonics program, others might say, "no;" but I guess it really boils down to what you want to do. Sing, Spell, Read and Write has a nice early phonics program (and then I dislike everything after the CV sound blend lesson). Spell to Read and Write might be good after that, though. All I know about other materials that approach from a whole word perspective is that Scholastic, IIRC, has a lot of good Guided Reading style materials, and they start at a level that consists of a page with, "I see a bird." (or whatever) and a picture of a bird, and the next page is "I see a tree..." and so forth. They go up from there. There are probably a lot better programs, but none that my district could afford. ;)

[klpmommy]

Hmm okay so the question for me returns to, do I *need* a phonics program? Can you learn naturally without one, or will we struggle more without something guiding?


it depends on your kids. :shrug My dad taught me how to read when I was 3 y/o. He barely graduated high school, had no official program, he just read with me & I picked it up. I think some basic phonics are good, however, at least to get through the basic sounds of each letter. But you can do that w/o a program if you want. We have done some basic phonics b/c my kids weren't picking it up the way I learned. And now it is starting to "click" with both of them. But once they "click" to reading I won't do any more official/formal phonics.

[illinoismommy]

Okay well it is really clicking over here right now... don't know if we will hit the wall at some point, but he's doing well :heart