It occurred to me this morning that “phonics” isn’t spelled the way it sounds. How funny. lol
I think fonix would be more appropriate. 
Haven’t seen the “Hookt on foniks wurkt fur me!” t-shirts? They were very popular here for a while in the late 90s.
lol
pls try ‘lets talk with puppy dog’.
lol
Er, not to burst anybody’s bubble or anything, but I just had to point out that “phonics” is a perfectly phonetic word. It follows rules introduced fairly early on in any systematic phonics sequence. “Ph” is the most advanced combo but it’s easy to learn, the “o” and “i” are short vowel sounds (introduced first), and the “n,” “c,” and “s” are all used in the first-introduced way (you introduce hard “c” and soft “c” only later). So this one actually follows some fairly low-level phonics rules. If you find it somehow ironic that the rules it follows are not as easy as the rules that let you sound out “hat,” that is probably because you don’t actually know much about phonics. BTW my little boy could have sounded out this word, based on the phonics training I gave him, when he was 30 months old.
I have this to add on the phonics topic (and I realize that I am echoing Glenn Doman, but it makes sense to me):
When children first learn spoken language, i.e., sounds that represent concepts, they are not taught the alphabet or spelling. They are immersed in a sea of words. Yes, we adults tend to speak more slowly and clearly to them. But the point is that they pick it up from the context. Why should it be that when they learn written language (i.e., characters that represent concepts) we want to break it into little bits that we as adults never use when reading?
Yes, phonemes are useful for sounding out words one has never seen. I grant that. But I don’t think that a necessary step in early reading instruction is to first learn phonics.
I wrote about this topic on the Readeez blog, if you’re interested:
http://readeez.squarespace.com/home/2009/11/29/the-magic-of-syllablesync.html
lol
Your right, phonics isn’t a necessary step in early reading instruction but it’s extremely helpful, if not necessary soon after when bigger words come into play and mom and dad aren’t always there to help. Why stress so much about how your child learns to read, phonics or site words, when in just a couple of years of reading they are going to have most words memorized anyway from seeing them so much, just like we all do. This idea that a child who learns to read from just phonics or a combination of phonics and site is somehow disadvantaged because they have to sound every word out instead of just recognizing it by site is absurd. Once a child starts to learn to read they love knowing how to decode words through phonics rules. Phonics is necessary and it’s fun.
I have concerns about teaching phonics to babies. My concern is that many parents will not possess sufficient explicit knowledge of the relationship between English speech sounds and letters in words. Consequently, parents might not provide the most appropriate instruction in phonics and instead, give their babies misinformation.
Letter sounds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0zhBoWhcFE
English does not have a 1-1 relationship between the sounds and their representation by letters. There are too many rules with too many exceptions, especially for vowels. Even if a rule applies to a given word, it’s not always possible to know which rule applies unless you know the word.
I was able to teach my children to read without phonics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d_K4Lhk6w4
We don’t teach babies rules for putting together sounds to make words, so it seems likely that we don’t need to teach rules for sounding out words. My experience supports the GD claim that babies will unconsciously intuit the common patterns provided sufficient sight words are introduced and adequate repeated exposure is provided.
Context plus initial consonants and common letter clusters will usually be enough for a baby to read a new word provided it is in their listening vocabulary. Sight words provided my babies with all the phonic knowledge they needed.
Chris.
I didn’t mean to sound like I prefer phonics to site learning. I don’t. I think it’s best to learn by site first. But whether phonics comes naturally to a child or whether it’s taught, it still comes because it is a necessary tool that one naturally uses. I guess I’m finding the war between phonics and site silly because all children eventually have most words memorized by a very early age and all children also use phonics. That’s where I am now anyway.
The phonics-whole world “wars” play out a little differently when we’re talking about very early learners. Since tiny children are so intuitive (“right brained”), it is not surprising that they should be able to pick up phonetic rules–except, of course, when they don’t. I’ve read many stories and complaints online of mommies who have been trying to teach their babies and toddlers to read, with only the slightest success. I would recommend that they try presenting words in a phonetic order, as I have with my “Fleschcards” (http://www.mediafire.com/fleschcards).
I also detect a subtle fallacy on the side of the whole word learners. The fallacy goes like this: my child was able to learn to read without any significant exposure to phonics; therefore, phonics is a waste of time. This is a fallacy because (as I think it’s not too controversial to suggest) arranging the words to learn in phonetic groupings makes it easier for children to learn the phonetic rules. So, yes, your child might be able to learn to read without being exposed to phonics, but your child would be at an advantage to get practice with phonics. That’s my claim.
As to Chris1’s concerns, that worry is taken care of if you follow a program that has been designed by a competent phonics instructor. I think the first video you have below isn’t very good–I’d skip it. Anyway, all readers have to learn to read words like “sieve” and “though,” and following a systematic program of phonics all the way through is the best way to ensure that children aren’t confused about what these words are.
"English does not have a 1-1 relationship between the sounds and their representation by letters. There are too many rules with too many exceptions, especially for vowels.†Too many rules for what? Surely not too many for little children to learn. Have you ever tried to teach them? I have, to a 2-year-old. It was not really a problem at all. It may look like a lot to you, but it is not a lot to the little learners whose minds are, famously, like sponges…
As far as I can tell Synthetic phonics starts with the individual phonemes, teaching the learner the sounds in a language (43 in English) and then begins to present the different letter patterns that can represent those 43 sounds. There are around 190 phoneme grapheme relationships in English with most phonemes having more than one possible grapheme. This contrasts with Analytical Phonics which works with groups of words with similar letter patterns and sounds (eg cat, fat, pat…).
I accept that you can teach a baby to read with Synthetic phonics but doubt that it is the best approach. It appears to be a technical approach and teachers would usually receive several days of instruction to teach synthetic phonics well. Teaching abstractions to very young babies is probably not as interesting to your baby as teaching words combined with images.
As stated previously, I was able to teach my three children to read prior to introducing any phonics. Once my son could read I encouraged him to become familiar with the internal structure of each word. We used to find words within words and spell words with letter building blocks. Within a day or two I was able to teach the letter sounds and names. I always used the letter names to spell words-working on groups of words with similar letter patterns and sounds. My son has never experienced any difficulty with spelling-he always refused to practice his school spelling lists, insisting that he already knew how to spell the words. He was assessed at around 7 and had a spelling age of around 14 years.
I didn’t provide any analytical tuition with my older daughters who consequently both experienced difficulties with spelling despite being fluent readers. If you decide to teach letter sounds it is important to spend some time practicing the correct pronunciation.
If I had taught phonics alongside showing sight cards I would probably have been convinced that phonics played an important part in the progress made. I agree that showing word groups might speed up the process but would only introduce similar words after 150, or so, sight words had been introduced based on the babies’ world.
Chris.
“It appears to be a technical approach…” This may be where we disagree. I don’t think phonics is any more of a “technical” approach than the whole word approach is. It all depends on the method of phonics used, of which there are many. Unless I’m much mistaken, the main way that my method of teaching my son to read differed from the Doman method is that I arranged the words I taught to him in phonetic groupings. I call that teaching phonics, but it isn’t at all technical. It just makes it easier for the kid to infer the rule.
Another difference is that I began teaching my little boy to read when he was about 22 months old. Therefore a much larger vocabulary set was open to him than for babies starting to read at age 6 months, or something. I agree with you that it’s best to teach children only words that they have the conceptual capacity to understand.
Yes, there is the really in-depth approach I have mentioned before that I dislike, called THRASS, where the kids have to remember what is a digraph, a monograph, quadgraph, and learn what is a grapheme and a phoneme. If I had been forced to learn this I doubt I’d have ever wanted to learn to read, because it is boring!!
DadDude,
I agree that your approach is no more technical than the whole word approach recommended by GD. I had incorrectly assumed from your earlier posts that you were advocating Synthetic Phonics. Presenting whole words in groups to teach patterns in sounds (phonics) and spelling (orthographic) is not Synthetic Phonics. Your approach is closer to Whole Word Phonics also known as Analytical Phonics which is less technical.
This has been an interesting discussion and as far as I can tell we basically agree. K
Happy New Year.
Chris.