http://www.psmag.com/education/infant-intelligentsia-46349/
On balance, a good article–we couldn’t expect a lot better.
It was a good read. Thanks.
Karma to you. I shared it on facebook. Even negative attention brings the idea that babies can read at all, and that’s such a good thing. It’s what got me started! This article was fairly balanced.
This article and other discussions have me thinking…
There is always a heated debate it seems on whether phonics is better than sight words (or whole language approach). Many agree on this forum that both are great tools for learning to read, but that got me to thinking about learning to read in other languages.
In our house, we focus on Spanish and Chinese as our secondary languages. I was wondering how does the Spanish speaking world approach learning to read in Spanish? Chinese must indeed be sight words as there is nothing to sound out as they use characters but I am not sure about Spanish. Is there a phonetic decoding approach used in the Spanish language? How common is it? Is it a preferred method?
What other languages use have formal phonics system for teaching literacy? Does the lack of a formal phonics reading system for other languages disprove the importance of formal phonetic lessons? Is phonemic awareness naturally obtained in other languages through sight word reading? Since many languages have written language based on a phonetics system, does the fact that other languages obtain phonemic awareness naturally dismiss the need for formal phonetic lessons or does it merely emphasize the need for formal phonetic lessons for other languages to improve literacy across the global?
Are cultures with languages that do not use a phonetic system but use pictures instead limited? Do they place a large burden on their society by not having a phonetic system? Or is the human mind so incredibly plastic that it doesn’t seem to matter if characters are used verses a phonetic system? And if there is no burden than is formal teaching of a phonetic system necessary?
I am hoping that my questions make sense and that they are not taken offensively. I am just trying to wrap my mind around it all. I am merely pondering, and thought to throw my questions out there to provoke discussion to see if I could glean anything important from any insights provided. My largest problem seems to be that I do not speak or read in more than one language so my understanding is very limited in my eyes. This forum is full of such wonderful people across the globe that I hope to glean from you all what I can. Thanks.
I don’t know details, but I have read from several sources that more phonetic languages are routinely taught through phonics, of course. German, Russian…I’d assume this is true of Spanish, but I’m sure some Spanish native speaker here can confirm.
English is mostly phonetic…
Spanish phonological system is totally different from English phonological system. In Spanish we have 29 letters, taking into account the letters: ch, ll y ñ. Each letter has an only sound, generally. There are some exceptions.
I am going to copy something that can help you, I hope.
Spanish orthography reflects rather well the phonetic features of the language.
Vowels (Vocales)
Spanish has 5 vowels: A, E, I, O and U: • A is similar to English a in car, but two times shorter;
• E is similar to English e in pet, but is more open;
• I is pronounced similar to English i in fit;
• O is similar to English aw in law, but two times shorter;
• U is similar to English u in put.
All Spanish vowels are open and they vary only slightly in stressed and unstressed positions, opened and closed syllables, cf.: (…)
It is a fact that Spanish speakers have a lot of problems when pronouncing the English language. For example, in Sp there are only five vowels with their five sounds. Nothing to do with the English language, where you can find that those five vowels correspond with 12 different sounds. I have to help my little baby with phonology. I am going to use LR, of course but I consider that more resources will help me in this aspect. I have already bought a book in amazon. According customers´ reviews is good. Fun with Phonics, Letters and Sounds (about 6 pounds), There some interesting resources as well. http://www.amazon.com/Jolly-Phonics-Workbook-Sue-Lloyd/dp/1870946510/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1347344952&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=jolly+phonics+workbook (Jolly phonics)
I hope it helps.
Nuria - but do Spanish students learn to read using phonics or a whole word method?
Where my husband is from they learn to read Spanish with phonics. According to MIL it goes something like this:
First they learn the letter m + vowels
Then the word “mama”
then the words “mi mama”
then the sentence “mi mama me ama.”
In Spainish, reading is learnt taking into account that there are a number of consonants and their combination with vowels. 29 consonants 5 vowel. It is not so complex.
I had a book similar to this one (Palau)
http://www.paraprin.com/cartilla-palu-para-aprender-a-leer.html. The method is called "photosyllabic method. If you look in images of palau you can find the front page. First, you learn the five vowels and their five sounds. After that, you learn letter m with a : ma, letter m with e me, letter m with i mi and so on. Later mama, later in the last page of the letter m, you found the sentence : Mi mamá me ama, mi mamá me mima. Yo amo a mi mamá. Then with the letter p. P with e pe… More consonants more combinations to make new words, sentences and little text. At the end of the book all the letters form a whole text.
Have a look to the source and I hope it helps.
DadDude, re: spanish - phonics is taught, and as nuria mentioned, it’s easier because the letters’ sounds don’t really change from word to word as they do in english. the accents also carry a simple structure, and if they change, an accent mark is added to guide the exception.
i find the sight vs phonics debate interesting/funny now because i was once, for many years, quite opposed to sight words and believed that phonics was the best and only way. i just saw it failing too many kids and thought it a sham. this all changed with my kids, though. my experience with them and with other early learners helped me realize that sight words failed our students most when it was introduced too late and too infrequently, as most of the children i encountered with major reading gaps were being exposed to reading via sight words in public school when they were already 5, 6, and sometimes 7 years old! also, it was through my experiences since having my kids that i realized ‘gasp’ phonics isn’t reading either! and for so many years i swore that it was!! turns out, according to me, that phonics was just a tool to decode many words, but as my own memory of learning to read proved, in english phonics can only get you so far, since SO many words do NOT follow the ‘rules’. instead, our brains automatically adapt and recognize the word by sight. AND once a word is learned, at least for me and those i’ve asked, phonics isn’t used to read anymore (unless a new word needs decoding). words already learned are stored in the memory banks and recognized on sight. this is why you can still have a word partially covered and recognize it, no different than a picture of an elephant, even if you cover part of it up - i love the brain. 
re: the article - thanks for sharing and i agree, it was a good read.
queriquita, the way I see it, the word “reading” has two senses: decoding (i.e., being able to say out loud the words that appear on the page) and making sense of the text. It is absolutely true that neither memorizing words by rote nor decoding them through phonics will, all by itself, enable the child to make sense of the text. So, sure, you’re right–merely being able to sound out words phonetically isn’t reading in both senses unless the child also grasps meaning. Certainly there are some phonics learners who, in the beginning stages, are taxing their faculties just to be able to decode. Getting meaning from the text they’ve decoded requires extra attention and energy they just don’t have yet. In fact, this is exactly where E., who is now 2, is now. He can actually decode the first five readers on Starfall. But I am very skeptical that he is understanding what the sentences mean, so I also repeat the whole sentence to him in an ordinary tone, and point at pictures and explain. It’s what I understand teachers call “scaffolding.” Of course, all of this can be said of whole language learning. Some learners who have not yet managed to figure out the phonetic patterns, and who are simply trying to recall what each whole word means, might be using all their mental energy just to do that recall task–and then they just can’t put it together and understand the sentences they’ve read.
I don’t know, I think the whole language vs. phonics war, as a policy dispute, is alive and well, and still very relevant, I’m afraid. There is just one main area of dispute when it comes to policy, I think: should we or shouldn’t we teach a complete program of systematic, synthetic phonics–not half-measured, not “balanced literacy,” not other euphemisms to mislead parents into thinking their children really are learning phonics–to all children in school? Notice, this doesn’t speak to other, related issues of whether all children, period, should be taught phonics, whether children who seem to have figured out the phonics rules by themselves should be taken through a phonics program, etc. I’m not sure about those questions. The question I am sure about is the big one: as a matter of policy, as long as we’re talking about a standard approach to teaching children to read (not that I think standardization is a good thing–but most school systems sure do!), a program is simply incomplete and potentially harmful to children (i.e., it can actually induce dyslexia) if it lacks phonics.
Depending on how large a set of “sight words” we’re talking about, I think teaching a few sight words is OK and even necessary. After they can confidently read individual words phonetically, I think it’s a good thing for children to be able to start reading very simple sentences. I did this with H. and have started doing it with E., on Starfall and Literactive too. In those early readers there are lots of words that are not CVC words or are unphonetic, words like “a,” “the,” “in,” “does,” “was,” etc. I agree, and I think most phonics advocates would as well, that some such list of words is fine to have children memorize either in context (as I’ve done with both H. and E.) or with flashcards (which we never bothered doing, because it’s so easy to pick up the words through copious repetition in reading).
You say, “once a word is learned, at least for me and those i’ve asked, phonics isn’t used to read anymore,” and I guess that’s true as far as it goes, but I don’t think this is the full story. Sure, you don’t use phonics to sound out every word. But does that mean that you don’t use phonics at all? That doesn’t follow. There was at least one study that showed that proficient readers do still pay attention to the internal structure (spelling) of words. Someone trained in phonics sees the spelling (and easily sees misspellings. This is why phonics-trained readers make better spellers and are generally more proficient with the language. I was the best speller in the 7th grade, probably because my Mom gave me a phonics workbook to go through when I was five, and it was 1973, at a time when many classrooms (like the ones I was in) used a whole language or “mixed” method and did not really teach phonics. Similarly, H., when he was 3 and 4, was constantly correcting me when I misread anything–I distinctly remember that he would even correct me if I said “toward” when “towards” was written. He also always noted British spellings. He was also a really excellent speller right out of the gate.
The word psychologists use is “automaticity.” Experienced readers–like anyone who has learned a skill very well–can read with “automaticity.” You can drive with automaticity, without paying attention to what your hands and feet are doing. You just think, “Slow down and take a right at the light.” We don’t pay attention to the details of our cognitive tasks like reading; we go straight from the squiggles on the page to the meaning, without noticing anything that’s going on in between. But the fact that we don’t notice these automatized processes no more means that there’s nothing “phonetically complex” going on. You might just as well conclude that our obliviousness to our hearts beating and lungs breathing means that no complex cardiac and respiratory stuff is going on. Anyway, the whole language advocates look at the mature, automatized process of reading and conclude–ridiculously–that children should be directly trained to read by modeling the adult reading process. It’s not unlike teaching someone to drive by telling a rank beginner to get on the highway and not think about what they’re doing. Dyslexia is the name of the accident that happens when we teach some of our children this way. There are very, very few dyslexic children who have been taught phonics properly. Remedial reading programs are typically very phonics-heavy; basically, you’re sending them to the driver’s training they were denied when they were told to get on the highway without learning the elements first.
And don’t forget–we’ve heard from quite a few parents here on BrillKids.com, who have said, “I’ve been using whole language methods with my child since he was a little baby, and at age 2-3 he forgets lots of words and still can’t really read.” Yes, there have also been the ones whose children started figuring out the phonics code at 18 months and were reading Dickens at age 2. But who can predict? If you want to be on the safe side, you’ll teach your kids phonics. FWIW, E. is following in his big brother H.'s footsteps. His reading path has been remarkably similar to his big brother’s–well, he might be a little father ahead than H. was, but that’s probably because I started him on Reading Bear and YBCR and LR much earlier than H. Still, the patterns are all the same and we’re having lots of deja vu moments.
BTW I am not the sort of phonics zealot who insists on NO sight words, who removes books from their children while they’re learning to read because they might be tempted to sight read, etc. My guess is that learning to read by sight isn’t going to harm children as long as, soon enough, they are also taught a systematic program of phonics. I also fully admit that some children are able to figure out the code. But on the other hand I deny the frequent assertion that children who learn to read using whole language read faster and with better comprehension. H. reads very fast and with really excellent comprehension, and his training was very phonics-heavy. But what sticks in my mind is that he almost never sounded out words. Instead, at first, I sounded out the words for him, and he put them together. Later, he was sounding out words in his own head and then just coming out with the words. I’m doing the same thing with E. and so far having similar results. For example, he hasn’t learned the pluralizing “s” yet (that’s Reading Bear #10–we’re not that far yet), so in the Starfall “Gus the Duck” story, he reads “runs” like “run-sss,” “gets” like “get-sss,” and in “The Big Hit” he read “give” as “giv-eee,” which are all very reasonable guesses if you haven’t been taught the pluralizing “s” or silent “e.”