| Follow Ups | Post Followup | Classical Sources Message Board |
| Review of "Reading Reflex" (FYI)... | |
|---|---|
| Author: KC | September 16, 1999 at 06:12:53 |
|
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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Post Followup | ||
| Served by ruboard 1.2.1; Copyright © 1998 by Andrew Maltsev. | ||