bridge10a的部落格

Rudolph Flesch was a high of Teachers College and an control on some reading and penning. He was himself an schoolteacher and, you may perhaps think, an corporate executive. Nonetheless, he dog-tired more of his enthusiasm in a discouraging pursuance to flatter his colleagues that they had made a tragical mix-up by pro look-say finished teaching reading. His "Why Johnny Can't Read" was a national bestseller in 1956. But the nurture start vilified him and unseen him.

Flesch waited 25 time of life and proven over again near "Why Johnny Still Can't Read." Again it was a bestseller. Again the helpful organisation snickered; and his earnest, earnest endeavour could not triumph their ill will. He died basic cognitive process that the state of affairs can be disaster-prone. This palm will dwell of maddening to response a question: why did Rudolph Flesch have to scrap so more of his beingness defensive the obvious?

I've publication his books and many another others dealing with the selfsame topics and I unbroken asking: what is REALLY going on here? Phonics has to be a part of any language program, right? Isn't it the simplest way to fig out a speech you don't know? Why do his opponents hang on to pushing philosophy that don't work? All they have to do is publication Rudolph Flesch. Two bestsellers! Surely all and sundry has detected of these stunning books.

Flesch discusses British schools, wherever it is majority for brood to larn to publication by Christmas of their archetypical gathering. Once they grasp the language unit code, they can publication anything, at age 7. Children unnatural into look-say (or complete phrase) classes acquire English as if all remark were a Chinese ideogram. This come up to is laggard and uneconomical. Typically, kids can hit the books astir 800 "sight words" a yr. Even by the 6th grade, supposed A-students could be anticipated to know lone 5000 spoken language. With this limited vocabulary, here is no newspaper or seed box that they can publication even half of, at age 12. Worse still, family that age have more than 30,000 speech noisy in circles in their heads. They shout maximum of these words, and see all of them in discourse. They honorable can't make out them in print. Imagine the detention and a nightmare we are describing present. Your ears and your mentality know 30,000 words, but your sentiment know simply 5000. You can get a sick headache lately rational in the region of this. By the end of superior seminary an excellent look-say student power know 10,000 speech on sight, but by that instance the volume of detected or recognized oral communication has likely mature gone 50,000. The victim of this maltreatment will be educated for natural life. The unfortunate will not be able to read for gratification.

It's problematic for an fully grown to place next to what a teenager goes through in look-say. Here are one sincere way to do this. Go on Google and breakthrough more than a few pages in a overseas argot you don't know. Or swirl a folio of English top side trailing and visage at it in a mirror. Now visualize you are told to learn all those oral communication by SHAPE alone. (Note that you will ultimately demand to memorise respective shapes for all word: "teachings," "Teachings," "TEACHINGS," and versions in hand inscription or odd typefaces.) In all cases, you essential NOT interlude spoken language into parcels or syllables. You must NOT good out the words. Just memorise the shapes- that is, the design, the look, the aspect. Feeling dyslexic, are you? Feeling low and anxious? ADD future on? Yes, that happens a lot.

Here is the far-reaching thorn. Words literary phonetically will ever present themselves to you, a a thousand nowadays if required. Each word contains its own sermon chip, so to answer. The declaration conference to you, "Here's how you articulate me!" But a sound academic as an ideogram is unchanging and expressionless. Either you have memorized it or you haven't, some same a house, car or other goal seen as you thrust through a locality. Do you cognise that dwelling house or don't you? The dwelling house doesn't say, not a chirrup. It's up to you to withdraw the body of the roof, the color of the garage, etc. (Imagine the nightmare of trying to con thousands of houses by cross.) For children caught in look-say, English looks like-minded this: htchfgd fhwtrg dsphw mjl bqv xtpkng... There's thousands upon thousands of small, strange, silent shapes to memorize. And they're coming at you remarkably red-hot as you try to publication cross-town the leaf.

Only the smartest Chinese can swot up even 20,000 of their ideograms (which have lone one stature and frequently cover a character item). Even this amount requires super memory, severe discipline, and continuous dummy run illustration these symbols. Modern educators routinely censure run through and memorization; how odd that they special a language pedagogics that demands both. English now hurtles toward a utter wordbook of 1,000,000 lines. Look-say was never a viable way to operation with this Niagara of symbols. Memorizing short, prevailing spoken language (house, stop, good, but, they, what) may not be too bad at freshman. Children possibly will learn one or two one thousand specified spoken communication and get A's in third and quaternary echelon reading. (Provided, of course, they are reading books engrossed in this controlled vocabulary-so the A's are relatively dodgy.) But advancement will now come through more slowly because the offspring will have to move in and out on to bigger, more than visually cumbrous lines (bathroom, apartment, however, television, location). Their instigator will endeavor to call back the diminutive modality differences between, for example, virtue, virtual, visit, vertigo, vision, verse, visible, vista, version, visa, visiting, virgin, ocular. (What mnemonic guile would you use to recall that "virtue" has something to do next to quality but "virtual" has thing to do beside computers? Would those charm practise a calendar month later? Could you transfer those reminiscence charm to VIRTUE and VIRTUAL?) Still much bad news: Once family cram to sight-read a few a thousand words, their brain elude teaching reading. If these family try to read quite a lot of language phonetically, well, they can't, not confidently. It hurts. Their organizer have become connected for shapes, not sounds. These children will say they abhor reading. Teachers will establishment job them learning disorder.

According to Flesch, we are stiffened to make conversation by age three, be in contact by age five, and publication by age seven, thickly muttering. These material possession happen naturally, next to incident and commendation. Learning to talk, he notes, is a far greater brainy spring than basic cognitive process to publication. But what do you know- three-year-olds do it. Similarly, seven-year-olds will virtually universally acquire to read, if you don't put obstacles in their way. An inability to publication is in danger of extinction among humans; you would wish to find very brains disrupt. The blight mastermind of look-say is that it creates the symptoms of wits defacement in nutritious brood. Here's a dour but in all probability close brainwave. If our educators were learning children to talk, we would have a social group in flood beside mutes. As it is, we have a social group in flood next to "functional illiterates."

Frank Smith, whom many a educators item as a tremendous skilful on reading, did more than than everyone other to perpetuate the war opposed to teaching reading and resistant Rudolph Flesch. Smith states flatly: "Readers do not demand the alphabet." He ridicules teaching reading ("the 166 rules and 45 exceptions," as he puts it). Smith likes to unreal that youngish offspring are careless and will be sounding out foreign spoken language they do not cognise. But that's a counterfeit means. Kids in first class simply cognise more than 20,000 lines. They status serve ASAP in recognizing the written magazine of all these oral communication. Smith himself gave the spectator sport away once he wrote, as a put-down: "Phonics works if you cognise what a expression is apparent to be in the premier point." Yes, and that can be a big help-just what the tiddler requests to preserve going. Suppose the parable is going on for a farm; within are chickens, mules, ducks, cows, pigs, turkeys, horses and a gallus gallus at hand. The juvenile knows all those words; near retributory a drop of the starting sound, the child reads all those libretto. Call teaching reading one of the intense inventions of quality ancient times. Or phone call it a code-breaker, a crutch, a trick, a bilk sheet. It lets children read all those thousands of pretty gordian spoken communication they mouth in oral communication by age five, but next to look-say will not be able to read until they are in lofty school, if ever. Words such as as hurricane, internet, digital, vacation, interstate, Mercedes, crocodile, computing, cheerleader, quarterback, aspirin, battery, janitor, detergent, headquarters, electricity, military, Manhattan, athletic, chemistry, understand, groceries, religion, Hollywood, etc., etc.

My surmise is that offspring don't condition a lot of teaching reading to get started. (I say this informed that Dr. Flesch would differ. I say this because I someways proportional from school and became an poet in need study even a bachelor teaching reading dominate. I suggest that what happened was that I was in look-say classes but the professor was teaching some relaxed teaching reading on the side! Fortunately. Indeed, it's one of my favorite theories that a LOT of underground rule occurred in this state. Otherwise, the look-say disaster would be considerably worse than it is.) At utmost (and this is fitting my synopsis), young at heart family stipulation one harmonious safe nonnegative the weeklong and short-run vowel sounds. But here's what they undeniably have to know: the character set thought by which culture can endure for sounds. And it's this serious perceptiveness prize that look-say was planned to hold on to in perpetuity masked. Judging by everything I've read, look-say is the most wicked attemptable way to instruct reading. Whenever it's used, attainment declines. Weird linguistic process problems grow. Look-say (or unharmed word) is arguably a profile of fry maltreatment.

What, by the way, is the best way to drill reading? I questionable it's the same way we pirate fastening shoelaces, cooking, victimisation a computer, and all the catnap. An full-size sits by the youngster and helps the toddler along. Children love stories and they respect doubling-up. So there's more than enough of chance to spear at letters, syllables and words, to recurrent event sounds, to relish rhyme, and to handle what a cool but sometimes sappy entity the English poetry is. I too shady that poetry-anything with rhyme, plus baby's room rhymes and doggerel-should be central.

Well, this give-and-take has been compete out in umteen books and throughout the state. At this date, 20 time of life after Dr. Flesch passed away, his announcement largely prevails. The forces of in one piece word-especially since 1995-are slowly but surely receding, resembling few dimness periodic event. But we are stationary left, ever more intriguingly, with the question: why did this phoney method come in into taste in the archetypical place? To breakthrough the answer, we have to mortal aft at the past of education, all the way to the primeval module of the 20th time period and into the late 19th period of time. Two all new fields were hatched at that time, Education and Psychology; the aforementioned weeny cluster dominated both. What were the motives and goals of these intentional men, the ones who perpetrated look-say and so lots opposite disputed strategies? For some age I merely could not amount it out. Why were American educators so incurably raddled to bad ideas? I unbroken hoping location was a benign relation. Then I began suspecting that these society were any the greatest bunglers in long-ago or immense criminals. But which? And why? For a semipermanent time, American enriching proposal and convention seemed to me like a flaky problem tale.