Re: Review of "Reading Reflex" (FYI)... (Classical Sources Message Board)

Re: Review of "Reading Reflex" (FYI)...
Author: Denise V.	September 25, 1999 at 03:13:38
in reply to: Review of "Reading Reflex" (FYI)...* posted by KC on September 16, 1999 at 06:12:53*

Hi kc > I have a question in regards to your comparison of PG to CM and RB. What do you have to say about The Writing Road To Reading? I am currently using this method with my older children, to fill in the gaps, and with my first grade son to teach reading. I use the Teaching Reading At Home Manual, which is an aid to teaching the WRTR. From what I could gather, PG sounds very similar to WRTR. I would really love to hear back from you on this. Thanks. Denise V. A Review of the Phono-Graphix Method of Teaching Reading in
> Light of Several Popular Homeschool Philosophies by Karen
> Koehler-Cesa, SLP-PG Trained, homeschool teacher 9/99
>
> Why am I writing this review? I am a Speech-Language Pathologist who has recently been trained in
>
> Phono-Graphix, the method of reading instruction used in
> Geoffrey and Carmen McGuinness’ book,
>
> “Reading Reflex”. I also happen to be a homeschooling teacher of six years, presently teaching my third
> student to read. I was intrigued by all the Internet discussion on “Reading Reflex” (RR) and so I started
> investigating Phono-Graphix (PG). From my initial reading in “Why Our Children Can’t Read” by Diane
>
> McGuinness, I purchased RR, and I proceeded then to take
> Read America’s 5-day seminar in
>
> Phono-Graphix. This seminar trains individuals to either tutor/teach students reading via PG methods
> or equips to train other individuals (classroom teachers, homeschooling teachers) in PG methods. It is
>
> my hope to use my professional training as a
> Speech-Language Pathologist, my PG training and my
> experience as a homeschooling teacher to assist other
> homeschooling parents in utilizing the PG methods in
> reading instruction with their own children.
>
> Two of the questions that I have already been asked the
> most from homeschooling teachers is (1) “If I successfully
> taught my other children to read via a Phonics program, why
> should I now consider RR?”
>
> and (2) “Is this reading program just a remedial program?”. My purpose in this review is to answer these
> questions in light of homeschooling philosophies of education. This review contains my own
> observations that I made of PG as I learned the PG methods. My comments of PG’s successes are
>
> supported by the findings in Read America’s reading clinic
> and the other ten thousand classrooms in five countries now
> using PG methods (Spring 1999).
>
> In order to understand my written explanations, letter
> names will be in quotes, such as “ef” or “see” (“f” or “c”)
> and SOUNDS these letters “make” will be written as /f/ and
> /s/.
>
> History of Phono-Graphix. I will not discuss at length the history of Phono-Graphix; the website for Read
> America has much to say about the scientific research behind the method. Also Diane McGuinness’
> “Why Our Children Can’t Read” is an excellent resource for that information. I will say that PG is
> supported by 25 years of research which have been reported in the “Orton Annals of Dyslexia” (1996).
>
> Numerous field studies have been conducted that evidence
> the efficacy of PG in both initial reading instruction as
> well as in remedial instruction; PG is developmentally
> appropriate for ages 3 through
>
> adult. The research has shown that Whole Language instruction alone provides the poorest reading
>
> scores; a combination of PG and Traditional Phonics shows
> an improvement over Whole Language scores; and using PG
> only shows significantly higher scores than the other two.
>
> Traditional Phonics Compared to PG. So how is PG different from a traditional Phonics program?
>
> Traditional Phonics programs teach via RULES, which only
> work some of the time...often less than 50%
>
> of the time. Consider the standard rule of “when 2 vowels go walking, the first one does the talking”.
>
> This holds up only 40% of the time, failing the reader in
> thousands of common words like “house, steak,
>
> August, bread and eight”.
>
> Not only do rules not work much of the time, instead of
> enhancing reading, rules actually DISTRACT
>
> FROM the reading process. Efforts made to attend to the rules pull the reader’s attention away from the
> actual decoding process! Furthermore, the learning of rules and following them is based on
> “propositional logic” which is not a skill acquired in the child’s development until adolescence. Thus
>
> the enforcing of phonics rules actually impedes learning
> and wastes much valuable time in the early
>
> years of reading instruction. These early years should instead be used to cement decoding skills.
> Traditional Phonics nearly always teaches the alphabet prior to reading. Not only is this skill not
> necessary to learn to read, it too, IMPEDES the skill of decoding. Children bogged down with the letter
> names must constantly then “translate” when they are reading. “Cat” is seen as “see-ae-tee” translated
> “cat” as versus simply /k/a/t/. While it is true that some children can do this translating with relative
> ease, why make them have an unnecessary interim step? And for some children the interim step is a
>
> severe stumbling block to decoding.
>
> Just as learning letter names is an unnecessary and often
> impeding step, so is the learning of “key words”
>
> in early reading training, typical of many Phonics programs. When trying to decode the word “fan”, a
>
> child might be making many valueless steps of “ “ef”--- ok
> that’s “fish”--- um, /f/ sound....oh yeah, /fan/”.
>
> Another unnecessary and very common component of Phonics programs is the use of “word families”.
>
> List after list of like words such as “cat, fat, sat” lists
> and “big, bin, bit” type drills are not advocated by PG
>
> methods. Nowhere in natural context will we find literature that is composed of running lists of
> rhyming or letter-like words! Traditional Phonics programs thrive on this rote drill, which just further
> takes the child away from “real reading”. Rhyming is a skill that can be useful, yes, but not in initial
> reading instruction. When given the lists of like words, a child learns very quickly to attend only to the
> part that is NOT like the rest in order to provide the “right answer”. Thus doing, he abandons decoding
>
> sound-by-sound, from left to right, a skill totally
> necessary for accurate reading and spelling.
>
> Phono-Graphix, on the other hand, teaches reading WITHOUT rules. Instead, reading skill is
> ACQUIRED through natural discovery within the context of real words...right from the start! PG starts
> with what the child already knows....the sounds of his language. For 5 or so years, the child has been
> acquiring and using the 37 or so sounds of English...these he knows. So SOUNDS are the basis for his
>
> learning to read, and he matches these sounds to their
> orthographic representations, rather than the
>
> other way around. He learns the associations of sound-to-symbol through systematic exposure, and in
> thus doing, the child learns to “break the code” of English . Rather than directly being “taught”, he
>
> discovers naturally the specific concepts necessary to
> read:
>
> -that letters are actually “pictures” of sounds (this arbitrary symbol “b” represents the sound /b/);
> -that these pictures of sounds can be either one letter or a combination of letters (such as “b” or “sh” or
>
> “ough”);
>
> -that there is variation of these sound-pictures within the English code (the same sound can be
>
> represented by different sound-pictures, such as /s/ in
> “sit” and “city”);
>
> -and there is overlap of these sound-pictures in the English code (the same sound-picture can represent
> different sounds, i.e. the /g/ in “girl” and “genius”).
> As he makes these discoveries, the child builds strong associations between the sound and its symbol. PG
> instruction insists on a very simple but powerful tool called “mapping”. Mapping is ALWAYS
>
> simultaneously saying the sound along with the orthographic
> representation, whether in reading or
>
> writing. This technique cements all the sound-symbol associations and prevents any adding, deleting or
>
> reversing of sounds, and greatly reduces, if not totally
> eliminating “guessing” as the child reads.
>
> “Phonological processing” (hearing and synthesizing the
> sounds of language) used to be thought of as
>
> one skill, however PG research shows that there are actually three distinct skills involved. These three
>
> skills, of segmenting or isolating each individual sound
> within words, blending isolated sounds back into words, and
> manipulating the sounds in words to create new words are
> skill integrated within all the tasks and activities in PG
> instruction.
>
> How does PG relate to various Homeschool Philosophies of Education? PG methods of reading
> instruction fall in harmony beautifully with Ruth Beechick methods. Charlotte Mason methods and
>
> Classical Methods of instruction will also be discussed
> here in light of PG methods.
>
> Ruth Beechick and PG. If you are familiar with Ruth Beechick’s recommendations of reading instruction
>
> (found in “A Home Start in Reading” by Ruth Beechick) you
> can appreciate that PG takes her solid
>
> methods even to a higher level. With regards to Beechick’s Step 1 “better late than early”, PG can be used
> with beginning readers aged 3-adult. So regardless of when you decide to teach reading, this method of
> instruction will be developmentally appropriate.
>
> PG takes Beechick’s Step 2, teaching a few letter forms and
> their corresponding sounds, to a higher level. Both
> Beechick and PG skip altogether the useless tradition of
> teaching the alphabet prior to learning to
>
> read. However, where Beechick instructs to “teach the letters and their corresponding sounds” which
> yields only 26 sounds, PG teaches the WHOLE code of English, the actual 37 sounds! Therefore, for the
>
> PG reader, there will be NO surprises later in reading when
> the remaining eleven sounds are
>
> encountered.
> Beechick’s Steps 3 and 4 of blending then decoding and PG’s are right on par with one another. There are
> many opportunities in tasks to blend the newly acquired sound-to-symbol relationships. Instead of dull,
> rote drill of learning letters to sounds, Beechick’s activities are all within real words. PG instruction
>
> again just goes a step further in teaching sound-to-letter
> rather than letter-to-sound, so that none of the remaining
> 11 sounds are left out.
>
> Both PG and Ruth Beechick teach “rules” only when
> absolutely necessary, as in the special ending
>
> situations of /sh/ at the ends of the words “motion, gracious and passion”. Again, PG takes this a step
>
> further and doesn’t even use the word “rule” but rather
> “tendency” since it is rare that any “rule” in English
> orthographics is hard and fast.
>
> PG breaks away from Beechick in that it DEMANDS “mapping”,
> the simultaneous production of the
>
> sound along with the symbol...whether in reading or writing. Consider learning various individuals’
> names. The more you say that individual’s name along with seeing that individual, stronger
> associations are made, and memory is cemented. Similarly, the constant association of the sound with
>
> it’s “picture” solidifies memory of such...greatly reducing
> and even eliminating common problems in reading such as
> reversals.
>
> PG and Beechick both advocate getting into real reading as soon as possible. Again, PG takes this one step
>
> further and provides methods of reinforcing learning while
> approaching new and unknown words in real reading
> situations; “word analyses” take place right in the midst
> of context...thus stronger learning and retention than is
> gained in isolated practice.
>
> Charlotte Mason and PG. Charlotte Mason methods of reading instruction and PG methods are nearly
> diametrically opposed. Charlotte Mason (CM) relies on whole-word or sight method of instruction.
>
> Studies on Whole-Language methodology, which stresses
> whole-word recognition, reports a 42%
>
> illiteracy rate, according to the Report Card on the Nation and States, 1993.
>
> CM stresses starting off with the alphabet, which we have
> discussed already has no value in learning to
>
> read words....names of letters have very little in common with the sounds those letters represent.
> Consider the confusion of “see” for the letter “c”; it starts with an /s/ sound. “Double-yue” for “w” has
>
> NOTHING in common with the /w/ sound; and likewise the
> letter name “wie” supports nothing for
>
> remembering to make a /y/ sound when approaching the “y” in reading. Alphabet learning and the use
>
> of letter names only adds to the memory burden of children
> learning to read, and deters them from successful decoding.
>
> CM argues that learning to read “came by nature, like the
> art of running” (p. 200 of “Home Education”) yet merely
> looking at the number of illiterate adults in the U.S., all
> or most of whom can tell you the alphabet back and forth,
> will attest to how untrue this statement really is.
>
> Also opposed to PG methods are the instruction of practice in “word families” in CM methods. As
>
> mentioned earlier, the use of “cat, fat, sat” lists and
> “rate, date, late” type drills are not advocated by PG
>
> methods. Again, nowhere in natural context will we find literature that is composed only of running
>
> lists of rhyming words.
>
> CM instructs that “reading is not spelling nor is it necessary to spell in order to read well” (p. 203). PG
>
> disagrees considerably with this type of statement, and PG
> methods teach reading (decoding) and spelling
>
> hand in hand, since they “mirror” one another. PG instruction therefore yields high spelling
>
> achievement compared to Traditional Phonics and sight word
> methods of reading instruction.
>
> CM proposes that there are no “right and necessary steps”
> to reading instruction (p. 215); that “sound and letters
> are so loosely wedded in English” that it would be an
> unfruitful and unfair task to the child to
>
> teach reading in this way. PG on the other hand provides a VERY systematic way in which the child
> himself discovers the indeed finite system of our code, based on the sound-to-symbol association. CM
>
> proposed sight words...and advocates that the child can
> quickly build up a sight word vocabulary of 1,000
>
> words. While this is true, our memory capacity tops at just about 2,000. If you have a method teaching
> sight word only, you limit the student to a 2,000 word vocabulary at best. By methods of decoding, there
>
> is NO limit in the number of words able to be read, because
> only 137 “things” are having to be
>
> remembered; the 137 (or so) different symbols to represent the 37 sounds of English.
>
> What I find truly amazing, however, is that even though the
> actual specifics of methodology of PG and
>
> CM are so opposed, the goal is the same! Both strive to introduce children to good literature, have them
> develop a love and joy in reading, and get into real books as soon as possible. Charlotte Mason herself is
>
> well-known for her distaste in “twaddle”, and by leaving
> out all the unnecessary components to reading instruction
> that serve only to impede the decoding (such as
> alphabet/letter naming, key words, rules, word families),
> PG has done just that!...eliminated the “twaddle”!
>
> Classical Methodology and PG. PG methods are not necessarily “Classical” in and of themselves, yet the
>
> results of good decoding skills and strong reading skills
> certainly support the goals of Classical Education: mastery
> of the English language, familiarity with Classical
> Literature and Foreign Language (usually specifically Greek
> and Latin) learning.
>
> In Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Roman education, children
> first learned their relative alphabets,
>
> nonsense words, one syllable words and then higher vocabulary words (except in the case of Hebrew,
> which has no vowels, so the Hebrew child went straight from the alphabet to vocabulary). In the case of
>
> Greek, there is a far better one-to-one correspondence
> between sound-symbol, unlike English which has evolved from
> many language backgrounds and is less pure in the
> sound-symbol relationship.
>
> It makes sense, then, that the specific “problems” of
> English need to be met in a specific way unique to
>
> English, and thus specific methodology for Greek, Roman and Hebrew are not as applicable here. Most of
>
> the Classical models of today seem to adhere to Traditional
> Phonics programs, which we have discussed
>
> in light of PG methods previously.
>
> However, like Classical Methodology, PG methods take
> advantage of the strong ability of the Grammar Stage child
> in his memory ability, and creates strong associations
> between the 37 sounds of English and
>
> their 137 (or so) orthographic representations (letters). The strong influence “mapping” has on the
>
> child’s associations cannot be stressed enough, and mapping
> is unique to PG methods.
>
> Furthermore, PG methods of reading/decoding and
> writing/encoding can be applied to subjects other
>
> than to just “reading”! All reading and writing can be supported with PG methods, as well as can be
> vocabulary learning and all spelling practice. Even Foreign Language study can be approached, after the
> phonological structure of English is solid in the child, via PG methods! This means, no matter which
>
> particular publisher’s program homeschoolers happen to be
> using, once the instructor and student are familiar with
> the concepts and skills of PG methods, these same skills
> can be applied in handwriting practice, vocabulary,
> spelling and Foreign Language instruction as well.
>
> Back to the Original Two Questions. So how then do I answer these two common questions posed by
>
> homeschooling teachers?
>
> (1) “If I successfully taught my other children to read via
> a Phonics program, why should I now consider RR?”
>
> As a homeschooling mother of (currently) four children, I
> too have “successfully” used a Traditional
>
> Phonics approach with the first two of my children. However, now as I approach teaching reading to my
> third child, I see that there is a scientifically proven “better way”. I can avoid wasting time with
> unnecessary information and get right into the natural context of reading! I can also avoid potential
> future problems with this child’s reading and potentially boost spelling skills. I like very much that I can
>
> teach skills in the context of reading instruction that can
> also be used while teaching handwriting,
>
> spelling, vocabulary, and Foreign Language. It is for these reasons that I am opting to broaden my own
>
> view of reading instruction and in light of the new
> information given me, utilize these “new” techniques of PG
> with all my children; those who have already learned to
> read as well as those who will
>
> be learning to read. Other homeschooling teachers may feel like I do.
>
> (2) “Is this reading program just a remedial program?”
>
> No. My initial thought was that Phono-Graphix would be useful only for remediating reading problems,
> since most of the people I encountered were using it as such. I didn’t think that it held much importance
> for my own personal use because my own children “were reading well”. However, after learning more
>
> about the components of this method...the concepts and
> skills it provides...I want THOSE tools included in the
> reading instruction for my students; for those already
> reading as well as for who still need to learn to read.
>
> For Further Information. Carmen and Geoffrey McGuinness are
> the authors of "Reading Reflex"; a text which takes parents
> step-by-step through the principles of PG so they can
> instruct their readers via PG
>
> methods. Geoffrey McGuinness' mother, Diane McGuinness, is the author of "Why Our Children Can't
>
> Read") which explains much of the theory and history behind
> PG.
>
> Reading Reflex Websites: Read America's website (author's
> of RR; can ask specific questions on how to use the
> program): http://www.readamerica.net/index.html The message
> board for Read America:
> http://www.readamerica.net/wwwboard/wwwboard.html Reading
> and Math website (can also ask specific questions on how to
> use RR):
> http://www.vegsource.com/wwwboard/reading/wwwboard.html
>
> This is directly from the Read America Website: Read
> America operates training institutes in Orlando, Florida,
> London England and Langhorne, Pennsylvania. We provide
> training in our Phono-Graphix. Following the five-day
> Phono-Graphix course you will become certified as a
> Phono-Graphix teacher. Certification includes a one-year
> membership with our professional organization. Membership
> entitles you to registry with our international referral
> service, subscription to our professional newsletter, and
> access to our telephone and e-mail support system.
>
> * In the UK (ONLY) we also offer a one-day internship
> course. Following completion of the one-day course, a
> six-month period of using Phono-Graphix, and a passing mark
> on our exam, interns will be eligible for certification.
> Internship courses are offered at schools only, and require
> a minimum enrollment of 10. If your school would like to
> book a one-day internship course please contact Geoffrey
> McGuinness at 001 352 735 9292 or via e-mail at
> RAchat@aol.com.
>
> Read America has licensed trainers in most states and many other English-speaking
> countries. For information about training events offered in your area call 800-732-3868 in
> the US and 352-735-9292 outside of the US. All sanctioned training leads to certification.

Follow Ups

Re: Review of "Reading Reflex" (FYI)... KC 05:30:10 9/29/1999 (0)

Post Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
> Hi kc > I have a question in regards to your comparison of PG to CM and RB. What do you have to say about The Writing Road To Reading? I am currently using this method with my older children, to fill in the gaps, and with my first grade son to teach reading. I use the Teaching Reading At Home Manual, which is an aid to teaching the WRTR. From what I could gather, PG sounds very similar to WRTR. I would really love to hear back from you on this. Thanks. Denise V. A Review of the Phono-Graphix Method of Teaching Reading in > > Light of Several Popular Homeschool Philosophies by Karen > > Koehler-Cesa, SLP-PG Trained, homeschool teacher 9/99 > > > > Why am I writing this review? I am a Speech-Language Pathologist who has recently been trained in > > > > Phono-Graphix, the method of reading instruction used in > > Geoffrey and Carmen McGuinness’ book, > > > > “Reading Reflex”. I also happen to be a homeschooling teacher of six years, presently teaching my third > > student to read. I was intrigued by all the Internet discussion on “Reading Reflex” (RR) and so I started > > investigating Phono-Graphix (PG). From my initial reading in “Why Our Children Can’t Read” by Diane > > > > McGuinness, I purchased RR, and I proceeded then to take > > Read America’s 5-day seminar in > > > > Phono-Graphix. This seminar trains individuals to either tutor/teach students reading via PG methods > > or equips to train other individuals (classroom teachers, homeschooling teachers) in PG methods. It is > > > > my hope to use my professional training as a > > Speech-Language Pathologist, my PG training and my > > experience as a homeschooling teacher to assist other > > homeschooling parents in utilizing the PG methods in > > reading instruction with their own children. > > > > Two of the questions that I have already been asked the > > most from homeschooling teachers is (1) “If I successfully > > taught my other children to read via a Phonics program, why > > should I now consider RR?” > > > > and (2) “Is this reading program just a remedial program?”. My purpose in this review is to answer these > > questions in light of homeschooling philosophies of education. This review contains my own > > observations that I made of PG as I learned the PG methods. My comments of PG’s successes are > > > > supported by the findings in Read America’s reading clinic > > and the other ten thousand classrooms in five countries now > > using PG methods (Spring 1999). > > > > In order to understand my written explanations, letter > > names will be in quotes, such as “ef” or “see” (“f” or “c”) > > and SOUNDS these letters “make” will be written as /f/ and > > /s/. > > > > History of Phono-Graphix. I will not discuss at length the history of Phono-Graphix; the website for Read > > America has much to say about the scientific research behind the method. Also Diane McGuinness’ > > “Why Our Children Can’t Read” is an excellent resource for that information. I will say that PG is > > supported by 25 years of research which have been reported in the “Orton Annals of Dyslexia” (1996). > > > > Numerous field studies have been conducted that evidence > > the efficacy of PG in both initial reading instruction as > > well as in remedial instruction; PG is developmentally > > appropriate for ages 3 through > > > > adult. The research has shown that Whole Language instruction alone provides the poorest reading > > > > scores; a combination of PG and Traditional Phonics shows > > an improvement over Whole Language scores; and using PG > > only shows significantly higher scores than the other two. > > > > Traditional Phonics Compared to PG. So how is PG different from a traditional Phonics program? > > > > Traditional Phonics programs teach via RULES, which only > > work some of the time...often less than 50% > > > > of the time. Consider the standard rule of “when 2 vowels go walking, the first one does the talking”. > > > > This holds up only 40% of the time, failing the reader in > > thousands of common words like “house, steak, > > > > August, bread and eight”. > > > > Not only do rules not work much of the time, instead of > > enhancing reading, rules actually DISTRACT > > > > FROM the reading process. Efforts made to attend to the rules pull the reader’s attention away from the > > actual decoding process! Furthermore, the learning of rules and following them is based on > > “propositional logic” which is not a skill acquired in the child’s development until adolescence. Thus > > > > the enforcing of phonics rules actually impedes learning > > and wastes much valuable time in the early > > > > years of reading instruction. These early years should instead be used to cement decoding skills. > > Traditional Phonics nearly always teaches the alphabet prior to reading. Not only is this skill not > > necessary to learn to read, it too, IMPEDES the skill of decoding. Children bogged down with the letter > > names must constantly then “translate” when they are reading. “Cat” is seen as “see-ae-tee” translated > > “cat” as versus simply /k/a/t/. While it is true that some children can do this translating with relative > > ease, why make them have an unnecessary interim step? And for some children the interim step is a > > > > severe stumbling block to decoding. > > > > Just as learning letter names is an unnecessary and often > > impeding step, so is the learning of “key words” > > > > in early reading training, typical of many Phonics programs. When trying to decode the word “fan”, a > > > > child might be making many valueless steps of “ “ef”--- ok > > that’s “fish”--- um, /f/ sound....oh yeah, /fan/”. > > > > Another unnecessary and very common component of Phonics programs is the use of “word families”. > > > > List after list of like words such as “cat, fat, sat” lists > > and “big, bin, bit” type drills are not advocated by PG > > > > methods. Nowhere in natural context will we find literature that is composed of running lists of > > rhyming or letter-like words! Traditional Phonics programs thrive on this rote drill, which just further > > takes the child away from “real reading”. Rhyming is a skill that can be useful, yes, but not in initial > > reading instruction. When given the lists of like words, a child learns very quickly to attend only to the > > part that is NOT like the rest in order to provide the “right answer”. Thus doing, he abandons decoding > > > > sound-by-sound, from left to right, a skill totally > > necessary for accurate reading and spelling. > > > > Phono-Graphix, on the other hand, teaches reading WITHOUT rules. Instead, reading skill is > > ACQUIRED through natural discovery within the context of real words...right from the start! PG starts > > with what the child already knows....the sounds of his language. For 5 or so years, the child has been > > acquiring and using the 37 or so sounds of English...these he knows. So SOUNDS are the basis for his > > > > learning to read, and he matches these sounds to their > > orthographic representations, rather than the > > > > other way around. He learns the associations of sound-to-symbol through systematic exposure, and in > > thus doing, the child learns to “break the code” of English . Rather than directly being “taught”, he > > > > discovers naturally the specific concepts necessary to > > read: > > > > -that letters are actually “pictures” of sounds (this arbitrary symbol “b” represents the sound /b/); > > -that these pictures of sounds can be either one letter or a combination of letters (such as “b” or “sh” or > > > > “ough”); > > > > -that there is variation of these sound-pictures within the English code (the same sound can be > > > > represented by different sound-pictures, such as /s/ in > > “sit” and “city”); > > > > -and there is overlap of these sound-pictures in the English code (the same sound-picture can represent > > different sounds, i.e. the /g/ in “girl” and “genius”). > > As he makes these discoveries, the child builds strong associations between the sound and its symbol. PG > > instruction insists on a very simple but powerful tool called “mapping”. Mapping is ALWAYS > > > > simultaneously saying the sound along with the orthographic > > representation, whether in reading or > > > > writing. This technique cements all the sound-symbol associations and prevents any adding, deleting or > > > > reversing of sounds, and greatly reduces, if not totally > > eliminating “guessing” as the child reads. > > > > “Phonological processing” (hearing and synthesizing the > > sounds of language) used to be thought of as > > > > one skill, however PG research shows that there are actually three distinct skills involved. These three > > > > skills, of segmenting or isolating each individual sound > > within words, blending isolated sounds back into words, and > > manipulating the sounds in words to create new words are > > skill integrated within all the tasks and activities in PG > > instruction. > > > > How does PG relate to various Homeschool Philosophies of Education? PG methods of reading > > instruction fall in harmony beautifully with Ruth Beechick methods. Charlotte Mason methods and > > > > Classical Methods of instruction will also be discussed > > here in light of PG methods. > > > > Ruth Beechick and PG. If you are familiar with Ruth Beechick’s recommendations of reading instruction > > > > (found in “A Home Start in Reading” by Ruth Beechick) you > > can appreciate that PG takes her solid > > > > methods even to a higher level. With regards to Beechick’s Step 1 “better late than early”, PG can be used > > with beginning readers aged 3-adult. So regardless of when you decide to teach reading, this method of > > instruction will be developmentally appropriate. > > > > PG takes Beechick’s Step 2, teaching a few letter forms and > > their corresponding sounds, to a higher level. Both > > Beechick and PG skip altogether the useless tradition of > > teaching the alphabet prior to learning to > > > > read. However, where Beechick instructs to “teach the letters and their corresponding sounds” which > > yields only 26 sounds, PG teaches the WHOLE code of English, the actual 37 sounds! Therefore, for the > > > > PG reader, there will be NO surprises later in reading when > > the remaining eleven sounds are > > > > encountered. > > Beechick’s Steps 3 and 4 of blending then decoding and PG’s are right on par with one another. There are > > many opportunities in tasks to blend the newly acquired sound-to-symbol relationships. Instead of dull, > > rote drill of learning letters to sounds, Beechick’s activities are all within real words. PG instruction > > > > again just goes a step further in teaching sound-to-letter > > rather than letter-to-sound, so that none of the remaining > > 11 sounds are left out. > > > > Both PG and Ruth Beechick teach “rules” only when > > absolutely necessary, as in the special ending > > > > situations of /sh/ at the ends of the words “motion, gracious and passion”. Again, PG takes this a step > > > > further and doesn’t even use the word “rule” but rather > > “tendency” since it is rare that any “rule” in English > > orthographics is hard and fast. > > > > PG breaks away from Beechick in that it DEMANDS “mapping”, > > the simultaneous production of the > > > > sound along with the symbol...whether in reading or writing. Consider learning various individuals’ > > names. The more you say that individual’s name along with seeing that individual, stronger > > associations are made, and memory is cemented. Similarly, the constant association of the sound with > > > > it’s “picture” solidifies memory of such...greatly reducing > > and even eliminating common problems in reading such as > > reversals. > > > > PG and Beechick both advocate getting into real reading as soon as possible. Again, PG takes this one step > > > > further and provides methods of reinforcing learning while > > approaching new and unknown words in real reading > > situations; “word analyses” take place right in the midst > > of context...thus stronger learning and retention than is > > gained in isolated practice. > > > > Charlotte Mason and PG. Charlotte Mason methods of reading instruction and PG methods are nearly > > diametrically opposed. Charlotte Mason (CM) relies on whole-word or sight method of instruction. > > > > Studies on Whole-Language methodology, which stresses > > whole-word recognition, reports a 42% > > > > illiteracy rate, according to the Report Card on the Nation and States, 1993. > > > > CM stresses starting off with the alphabet, which we have > > discussed already has no value in learning to > > > > read words....names of letters have very little in common with the sounds those letters represent. > > Consider the confusion of “see” for the letter “c”; it starts with an /s/ sound. “Double-yue” for “w” has > > > > NOTHING in common with the /w/ sound; and likewise the > > letter name “wie” supports nothing for > > > > remembering to make a /y/ sound when approaching the “y” in reading. Alphabet learning and the use > > > > of letter names only adds to the memory burden of children > > learning to read, and deters them from successful decoding. > > > > CM argues that learning to read “came by nature, like the > > art of running” (p. 200 of “Home Education”) yet merely > > looking at the number of illiterate adults in the U.S., all > > or most of whom can tell you the alphabet back and forth, > > will attest to how untrue this statement really is. > > > > Also opposed to PG methods are the instruction of practice in “word families” in CM methods. As > > > > mentioned earlier, the use of “cat, fat, sat” lists and > > “rate, date, late” type drills are not advocated by PG > > > > methods. Again, nowhere in natural context will we find literature that is composed only of running > > > > lists of rhyming words. > > > > CM instructs that “reading is not spelling nor is it necessary to spell in order to read well” (p. 203). PG > > > > disagrees considerably with this type of statement, and PG > > methods teach reading (decoding) and spelling > > > > hand in hand, since they “mirror” one another. PG instruction therefore yields high spelling > > > > achievement compared to Traditional Phonics and sight word > > methods of reading instruction. > > > > CM proposes that there are no “right and necessary steps” > > to reading instruction (p. 215); that “sound and letters > > are so loosely wedded in English” that it would be an > > unfruitful and unfair task to the child to > > > > teach reading in this way. PG on the other hand provides a VERY systematic way in which the child > > himself discovers the indeed finite system of our code, based on the sound-to-symbol association. CM > > > > proposed sight words...and advocates that the child can > > quickly build up a sight word vocabulary of 1,000 > > > > words. While this is true, our memory capacity tops at just about 2,000. If you have a method teaching > > sight word only, you limit the student to a 2,000 word vocabulary at best. By methods of decoding, there > > > > is NO limit in the number of words able to be read, because > > only 137 “things” are having to be > > > > remembered; the 137 (or so) different symbols to represent the 37 sounds of English. > > > > What I find truly amazing, however, is that even though the > > actual specifics of methodology of PG and > > > > CM are so opposed, the goal is the same! Both strive to introduce children to good literature, have them > > develop a love and joy in reading, and get into real books as soon as possible. Charlotte Mason herself is > > > > well-known for her distaste in “twaddle”, and by leaving > > out all the unnecessary components to reading instruction > > that serve only to impede the decoding (such as > > alphabet/letter naming, key words, rules, word families), > > PG has done just that!...eliminated the “twaddle”! > > > > Classical Methodology and PG. PG methods are not necessarily “Classical” in and of themselves, yet the > > > > results of good decoding skills and strong reading skills > > certainly support the goals of Classical Education: mastery > > of the English language, familiarity with Classical > > Literature and Foreign Language (usually specifically Greek > > and Latin) learning. > > > > In Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Roman education, children > > first learned their relative alphabets, > > > > nonsense words, one syllable words and then higher vocabulary words (except in the case of Hebrew, > > which has no vowels, so the Hebrew child went straight from the alphabet to vocabulary). In the case of > > > > Greek, there is a far better one-to-one correspondence > > between sound-symbol, unlike English which has evolved from > > many language backgrounds and is less pure in the > > sound-symbol relationship. > > > > It makes sense, then, that the specific “problems” of > > English need to be met in a specific way unique to > > > > English, and thus specific methodology for Greek, Roman and Hebrew are not as applicable here. Most of > > > > the Classical models of today seem to adhere to Traditional > > Phonics programs, which we have discussed > > > > in light of PG methods previously. > > > > However, like Classical Methodology, PG methods take > > advantage of the strong ability of the Grammar Stage child > > in his memory ability, and creates strong associations > > between the 37 sounds of English and > > > > their 137 (or so) orthographic representations (letters). The strong influence “mapping” has on the > > > > child’s associations cannot be stressed enough, and mapping > > is unique to PG methods. > > > > Furthermore, PG methods of reading/decoding and > > writing/encoding can be applied to subjects other > > > > than to just “reading”! All reading and writing can be supported with PG methods, as well as can be > > vocabulary learning and all spelling practice. Even Foreign Language study can be approached, after the > > phonological structure of English is solid in the child, via PG methods! This means, no matter which > > > > particular publisher’s program homeschoolers happen to be > > using, once the instructor and student are familiar with > > the concepts and skills of PG methods, these same skills > > can be applied in handwriting practice, vocabulary, > > spelling and Foreign Language instruction as well. > > > > Back to the Original Two Questions. So how then do I answer these two common questions posed by > > > > homeschooling teachers? > > > > (1) “If I successfully taught my other children to read via > > a Phonics program, why should I now consider RR?” > > > > As a homeschooling mother of (currently) four children, I > > too have “successfully” used a Traditional > > > > Phonics approach with the first two of my children. However, now as I approach teaching reading to my > > third child, I see that there is a scientifically proven “better way”. I can avoid wasting time with > > unnecessary information and get right into the natural context of reading! I can also avoid potential > > future problems with this child’s reading and potentially boost spelling skills. I like very much that I can > > > > teach skills in the context of reading instruction that can > > also be used while teaching handwriting, > > > > spelling, vocabulary, and Foreign Language. It is for these reasons that I am opting to broaden my own > > > > view of reading instruction and in light of the new > > information given me, utilize these “new” techniques of PG > > with all my children; those who have already learned to > > read as well as those who will > > > > be learning to read. Other homeschooling teachers may feel like I do. > > > > (2) “Is this reading program just a remedial program?” > > > > No. My initial thought was that Phono-Graphix would be useful only for remediating reading problems, > > since most of the people I encountered were using it as such. I didn’t think that it held much importance > > for my own personal use because my own children “were reading well”. However, after learning more > > > > about the components of this method...the concepts and > > skills it provides...I want THOSE tools included in the > > reading instruction for my students; for those already > > reading as well as for who still need to learn to read. > > > > For Further Information. Carmen and Geoffrey McGuinness are > > the authors of "Reading Reflex"; a text which takes parents > > step-by-step through the principles of PG so they can > > instruct their readers via PG > > > > methods. Geoffrey McGuinness' mother, Diane McGuinness, is the author of "Why Our Children Can't > > > > Read") which explains much of the theory and history behind > > PG. > > > > Reading Reflex Websites: Read America's website (author's > > of RR; can ask specific questions on how to use the > > program): http://www.readamerica.net/index.html The message > > board for Read America: > > http://www.readamerica.net/wwwboard/wwwboard.html Reading > > and Math website (can also ask specific questions on how to > > use RR): > > http://www.vegsource.com/wwwboard/reading/wwwboard.html > > > > This is directly from the Read America Website: Read > > America operates training institutes in Orlando, Florida, > > London England and Langhorne, Pennsylvania. We provide > > training in our Phono-Graphix. Following the five-day > > Phono-Graphix course you will become certified as a > > Phono-Graphix teacher. Certification includes a one-year > > membership with our professional organization. Membership > > entitles you to registry with our international referral > > service, subscription to our professional newsletter, and > > access to our telephone and e-mail support system. > > > > * In the UK (ONLY) we also offer a one-day internship > > course. Following completion of the one-day course, a > > six-month period of using Phono-Graphix, and a passing mark > > on our exam, interns will be eligible for certification. > > Internship courses are offered at schools only, and require > > a minimum enrollment of 10. If your school would like to > > book a one-day internship course please contact Geoffrey > > McGuinness at 001 352 735 9292 or via e-mail at > > RAchat@aol.com. > > > > Read America has licensed trainers in most states and many other English-speaking > > countries. For information about training events offered in your area call 800-732-3868 in > > the US and 352-735-9292 outside of the US. All sanctioned training leads to certification.
Optional link URL:
Link title:
Optional image URL: