Just curious about your responses to the above poll! Please bear in mind that this concerns teaching phonics to babies, so, of course, it’s possible that you’d take the attitude that it’s OK or recommended for older kids, but not for babies.
Hi DadDude/Larry,
This has always been a topic of great interest to me. Anticipating the poll results,
I voted for phonics/whole words because that’s what I am doing. Don’t you think the results would be a little biased in view that most of the forumers would be Brillkids users?
Jessica
I don’t think there is an option for what I did and will do with my second child - I taught whole words as babies along with the letter sounds but blending only got taught after age 2 - I suppose that means I was teaching some phonics to my baby but I consider phonics the way to decipher words and just teaching letter sounds is not all there is to it.
@Jessica, I guess you’re right, the results probably are biased. We’d get different results if there were more “pure” Doman parents, for example.
@Tanikit, I guess that means you’re closest to the second option.
Wow, 100% in the second option so far!
Hi Larry,
count me in for option 2 too… all though I do more whole words with my LO’s. Phonics only in the form of songs…
Curious… is there a reason why you wouldn’t want to expose babies to phonics? I’ve not heard the reasons except that Doman thinks it is unnecessary although he never said “don’t do it”.
@ShenLi: sure. I thought Doman was explicitly opposed, but I could be wrong. But people outside the baby reading fold would find the idea of introducing phonics early on even more ridiculous than simply teaching babies to memorize words. This is because children are not supposed to be able to have the conceptual facility (brain science is sometimes invoked) to learn abstract rules of the sort one learns in phonics study.
I voted option 2.
I’m teaching my 19 month old with both phonics and whole words. She started reading CVC words first!! (at 18 months), and whole words 2nd. I started showing her a letter sound book earliest, daily, from 6-7 months (I’m hazy on the actual start time). I didn’t start whole words until 11 months, and she didn’t catch on until 19 months.
So, I definitely think it’s possible to teach a baby phonics.
Though, sometimes when my daughter is presented with a word she will only say all the sounds, when, say, it’s a word she’s only learned by sight (say, “play”, for instance: sometimes she says “play” and sometimes /p/ /l/ /a/ /y/). It can sometimes be confusing to use both, but I would do it again (albeit, maybe earlier) if I had another.
Its the idea that babies “memorize” words that has me puzzled with the whole word approach and the arguments against it. I do not believe babies are just memorising a words shape - it is more complex than that just as teaching a baby what a cow is is far more complex than we give it credit. Why is it that a baby can distinguish a cat from a dog without anyone teaching them anything - just introducing them to dogs and cats and naming them - they are pretty similar and yet a baby who has been shown both will know when shown a different one (different colour, size, breed etc) what it is. That means that they are able to see more than we give them credit for and when looking at words we must believe that they take in more than just its shape and not only that but if you show them the same shape in a different size, colour etc they also know it is the same word - why?
So if this is the case and it is clear we do not know how babies brains work (or adults totally for that matter) then why shouldn’t a baby be able to learn phonics. Doman himself said that every single person he met who had taught their toddler to read had succeeded no matter what method was used and surely in this were people who had also taught with phonics (though I think the whole word approach was big in schools at the time he did his studies which may bias it) It is possible that the reason babies appear to be slow at learning phonics is that we have not yet found the correct way to teach it and also because babies learn so fast and phonics automatically slows down the process of learning to read whole words by creating smaller chunks to read than just words (now you must look at each letter) - its a bit like trying to teach a baby what a square is by drawing horizontal lines and then later vertical ones and then putting them together to make a square - I think that would slow down their understanding.
Nonetheless I do still believe that some phonics is necessary and perhaps more for some children and less for others. I believe also that using a variety of methods to teach anything is usually more helpful than one rigid approach.
This part makes me laugh about teaching little ones phonics, it’s so true. People don’t think twice about saying “This is a cow. The cow says Moooo.” (while holding up a toy cow)
But not, “This is an A.The A says aaa.” (while holding up an oversize foam letter or bold font flashcard). What on earth is the difference?
ETA: And yes, I am aware that knowing letter sounds is only the first step of learning phonics, but mine have gone on to learn blends, digraphs, silent e, etc. I was just making a point. 
Hmmm… The premise that children cannot learn abstract rules is almost as ridiculous as the one about children under 5 not being ready to learn how to read.
As far as I remember reading of Doman, he just said children inferred the rules of phonics when they learned through the whole word method so teaching phonics wasn’t necessary. I have never heard him say otherwise but I have never read all his books so I could have missed it.
Hi Larry,
I have used every approach available to teach my son to read. 
I started with whole words, then Little Reader, and found your technics on childandme.
I started introducing phonics to my son when he was around 18 months old. He remembered all letter sounds when he was 21 months old, read his first “sight word” a month before he turned 2.
He is 2 years and 9 months now and we are doing Flesch phonic exercise. He can blend letter sounds, and sometimes surprised me by reading words he’ve never seen before. He’s doing pretty well and will read the whole books if I nudge him a bit… lol
Elle
Elle, thanks so much for the report. I always love to hear when those Fleschcards worked as well for others as they worked for us.
Latest from baby E: http://larrysanger.org/2011/09/i-gih-dah-bah/
I am still thinking about how to answer to the poll…
I have taught 4 children to read by age three. I know not babies anymore. I did want to note that all children were introduced to phonic sounds from infancy. Before they were even mobile I was teaching these children that A says “ah” and B say “buh” alongside cow says “moo” and car says “bruuum”
Two of the boys could point to and name all their letter sounds by the time they were 18months. I can’t remember when the other 2 children became proficient. Blending letters was the very hard part and it took another 2 years for the kids to get that. And then once they did they were reading well.
For my son I have taken an entirely different approach. My son is almost 21months and has a speech delay. He can only say Bah, Gah, Dah and very recently Mmmm and Ye. He can sign at least 20 words. Until my son is capable of making more sounds I didn’t want to strap him down with phonics. Instead I am using a whole words approach to increase his vocabulary. When I introduce a new sign to my son I also introduce it in written form. And because he is learning to “say” the word with a single whole sign it seems intuitive that I teach him a single whole word in written form.
Once my son is more verbal I will then introduce phonics more.
@Korrale4kq, maybe you need to take the same approach with your fourth that you took with your first three? I’d encourage you to consider doing an experiment, using a phonics program like Reading Bear (you can start using it at http://watchknowreader.busedge.com ) now, because my experience with H. was that he immediately started speaking more articulately when I started using my phonics flashcards with him. At age two he was still using very hard-to-understand baby talk, but by age three he was speaking unusually clearly for his age–many people remarked on this. I also deeply suspect that my strong emphasis on phonics, and generally taking apart and explaining language explicitly, with baby E. explains why he’s already speaking in full sentences (see my blog post http://larrysanger.org/2011/09/i-gih-dah-bah/ on this). Of course, I could be wrong, but I have a theory. Yes, a theory! So you should believe me! Well, maybe not, but anyway, my completely amateur theory is that a large part of the challenge that babies have in learning to speak clearly is actually hearing the individual sounds that make up the words, and then seeing your lips and teeth move and trying to imitate that. I’m sure this sounds ridiculously left-brained, but I strongly suspect that’s how babies learn. I guess I think this because I’ve been watching my own baby try to learn to speak lately, and this seems to be what he’s doing. (My experience with H. was similar.) If I am right, then saying words very clearly and slowly, sounding out words and then saying them together, and letting your child see your mouth move as you say the sounds–all that should help. I’ve even gone through some alphabet books with him, saying to him what sound a certain letter makes, and he has made the sound back. He was clearly making an effort to repeat the sound. Maybe he’s an unusual kid but I suspect that the explicit attention to the sounds that make up words has had the tendency to “demystify” language for him.
In other words, phonics wouldn’t “strap him down,” it would liberate him by allowing him to understand better the parts of the words he hears every day.
Larry,
Your theory has some merit at enhancing the articulation of the speech of a ‘normal’ developing child.
I used phonics with 2 of the children I taught to read that have verbal apraxia. The phonics did nothing to help their speech. They are 5 and can read well, which is great. But because of their apraxia their speech can only be understood about 25% of the time. Reading is essential in life, but speech is arguably more important. They are able to break down individual sounds with a lot of work. But they are unable to put together a complete spoken word. Cat for example is said as “da”. But they can read d-a-t when broken down. Within their minds they read it and decode it as c-a-t. But verbally they say d-a-t. It is kind of confusing to explain.
My son goes to a speech language pathologist weekly and also attends a speech class. Thus far we know he has an oro motor issue, and though it is too early to diagnose the SLP thinks he might have apraxia also. Among other things…my son just doesn’t talk. He didn’t practice sounds as baby, he didn’t coo and giggle much at all,no babbling, no jargon. And trust me I tried. My son says 2 words…Bye Bye and dada, and he says those words with perfect articulation. So…somewhere there is has the ability to say words…he just won’t.
My sons SLP is working with his speech with a whole language approach. She wants him to work on saying whole words… CAT, BALL, DOG, MILK etc rather than c, b, d, m. He also signs whole words. So that is why I am currently doing a whole word approach. Yes I want him to read and I am trying to teach him…but reading is 2nd to his speech. And I am using written words to reinforce spoken words.
I am sure that these things are subject to change as we go along. I am really anticipating using reading bear and more phonics in the near future though. Just not at this stage yet.
Well, I wouldn’t pretend to contradict a professional on such matters. My cousin, who is a SLP, wouldn’t let me live that down.
I do think that this SLPs whole word speech approach is a little odd. But my son is also younger than the other children that I went to an SLP with…so…we will just see where it goes. Apparently at my sons age it is more about all play and no drills. Also there is more of an emphasis on signs, and communicating in general. I do think that within a year there were me more sounds being drilled. That is when the phonics will compliment speech therapy
I did whole word ( YBCR & PP) with my son because I wasn’t aware of other methods. When my daughter was around one I heard that schools usually teach phonics, but I still hadn’t heard of any established methods for teaching babies phonics so, along with whole words, I showed my daughter phonics songs on YouTube. This happened to work for her and she readily picked up phonics. So based on my extremely limited experience, I can’t help but recommend phonics songs (some like Silent E can be very helpful). Though honestly, I don’t know if phonics songs would have made a huge difference for my son or a significant percentage of other very young children. Phonics songs may work well for children who are not interested in other phonics methods, such as flash or sounding out, e.g., c-a-t.
I probably would have tried other methods sooner if I’d known about them sooner. I think sounding out words may produce readers that are more careful and accurate? My impression, which may be incorrect, is that when children sound out words, c-a-t, they are somehow more conscious or actually thinking about what the word says. Left brained? I’ve seen videos of kids doing this and having a great time, so I’m not saying it isn’t fun, but that it can look like they are making a conscious effort. When very young children learn sight words I don’t get the impression that they are, in general, consciously trying to memorize the words, so there doesn’t seem to be much conscious effort or work in the process. Likewise, if very young children can pick up phonics without the slowly sounded out phase it can appear to involve less conscious effort. Though again, perhaps at the expense of accuracy.
I like that Reading Bear supports a variety of methods, such as sounding out slowly, quickly, flash, sentences etc. Since most people in the poll favor using phonics and whole word, I wonder what other people would think about Reading Bear having a specific Sight Word/Whole Word setting? This could be done by using some of the existing word files but just regrouping them so they aren’t in the same word families etc. I think (based on my limited experience) that for very young children learning whole words it is best to show groups of words that look substantially different from each other. For example, instead of showing cat, mat, sat together, show words like giraffe and hippopotamus and include words like body parts or words that commonly go with baby signs for little ones not talking yet. Just a thought ….that may have to be another “post-launch†feature.
Heidi, I’ve actually thought of this. In fact, it’s sort of part of the long-term plan. The idea is that different clusters (or parts of clusters) can be stitched together & reused in different presentations. You’re right that this will require new programming. I’m not so interested in making a whole-word tool, however, as I am doing something like my old powerpoint presentations.
If you don’t want to show your kids the words sounded out using Reading Bear, you don’t have to. There are a couple different settings that let you skip out the sounded-out bits. But I get the point about the benefits of grouping words according to meaning rather than phonetics.