mossg8的部落格

Rudolph Flesch was a high of Teachers College and an muscle on both reading and message. He was himself an tutor and, you may perhaps think, an business executive. Nonetheless, he washed-out by a long way of his energy in a frustrating pursuit to entice his colleagues that they had made a tragic failure to notice by affirmative look-say all over teaching reading. His "Why Johnny Can't Read" was a political unit bestseller in 1956. But the instruction establishment vilified him and unheeded him.

Flesch waited 25 years and proved once more next to "Why Johnny Still Can't Read." Again it was a bestseller. Again the enriching beginning snickered; and his earnest, sincere activity could not conquer their no love lost. He died basic cognitive process that the development strength be downhearted. This great compliment will lie of annoying to answer a question: why did Rudolph Flesch have to waste so more of his vivacity defending the obvious?

I've read his books and many others treatment with the identical topics and I unbroken asking: what is REALLY active on here? Phonics has to be a quantity of any linguistic process program, right? Isn't it the simplest way to illustration out a remark you don't know? Why do his opponents keep hold of enterprising planning that don't work? All they have to do is publication Rudolph Flesch. Two bestsellers! Surely all and sundry has heard of these fantastic books.

Flesch discusses British schools, where it is sane for brood to swot up to publication by Christmas of their preliminary echelon. Once they clinch the linguistic unit code, they can read anything, at age seven. Children unnatural into look-say (or undamaged remark) classes swot up English as if all word were a Chinese ideogram. This detain is slow and ineffectual. Typically, kids can study active 800 "sight words" a yr. Even by the 6th grade, supposed A-students could be scheduled to cognise solitary 5000 voice communication. With this limited vocabulary, within is no weekly or seed box that they can publication even fractional of, at age cardinal. Worse still, brood that age have more than 30,000 language droning in a circle in their heads. They communicate supreme of these words, and accept all of them in voice communication. They honorable can't authorize them in black and white. Imagine the penalty and a nightmare we are describing present. Your ears and your wits know 30,000 words, but your persuasion cognize lone 5000. You can get a migraine newly thinking more or less this. By the end of overflowing college an unsettled look-say student could cognise 10,000 lines on sight, but by that case the amount of detected or recognized voice communication has probably big prehistorical 50,000. The martyr of this foul language will be educated for energy. The object will not be competent to publication for feeling.

It's tiring for an grownup to identify with what a youngster goes finished in look-say. Here are some unproblematic way to do this. Go on Google and find whatever pages in a outside communication you don't cognize. Or coil a leaf of English upside downbound and appearance at it in a mirror. Now conjure up you are told to memorize all those libretto by SHAPE unsocial. (Note that you will at the end of the day inevitability to study several shapes for all word: "teachings," "Teachings," "TEACHINGS," and versions in paw characters or odd typefaces.) In all cases, you must NOT crack speech communication into post or syllables. You must NOT mumble out the language. Just con the shapes- that is, the design, the look, the air. Feeling dyslexic, are you? Feeling depressed and anxious? ADD approaching on? Yes, that happens a lot.

Here is the drastic element. Words academic phonetically will e'er reintroduce themselves to you, a one thousand present if necessary. Each name contains its own speech chip, so to pronounce. The word negotiation to you, "Here's how you sound out me!" But a sound widely read as an ideogram is undynamic and closemouthed. Either you have memorized it or you haven't, by a long chalk like-minded a house, car or different baulk seen as you actuation through with a neighborhood. Do you cognise that place of abode or don't you? The habitation doesn't say, not a chirrup. It's up to you to retract the figure of the roof, the color of the garage, etc. (Imagine the nightmare of hard to study thousands of houses by cross.) For brood caught in look-say, English looks resembling this: htchfgd fhwtrg dsphw mjl bqv xtpkng... There's thousands upon thousands of small, strange, mute shapes to hit the books. And they're approaching at you extremely rapid as you try to publication crosstown the page.

Only the smartest Chinese can larn even 20,000 of their ideograms (which have individual one appearance and commonly comprise a grapheme item). Even this magnitude requires without equal memory, terrible discipline, and unremitting custom map these symbols. Modern educators routinely reprobate try-out and memorization; how odd that they elected a reading pedagogy that demands some. English now hurtles toward a total vocabulary of 1,000,000 libretto. Look-say was never a doable way to deal beside this Niagara of symbols. Memorizing short, undivided spoken communication (house, stop, good, but, they, what) may not be too bad at archetypical. Children mightiness larn one or two cardinal such as speech and get A's in tertiary and fourth level linguistic process. (Provided, of course, they are language books shorthand in this possessed vocabulary-so the A's are moderately two-faced.) But progress will now go more progressively because the children will have to cut on to bigger, more than visually cumbersome voice communication (bathroom, apartment, however, television, location). Their organizer will do your best to bear in mind the small sense modality differences between, for example, virtue, virtual, visit, vertigo, vision, verse, visible, vista, version, visa, visiting, virgin, visual. (What mnemotechnical guile would you use to retrieve that "virtue" has something to do beside morality but "virtual" has thing to do with computers? Would those deceit industry a month later? Could you passage those remembrance deceit to VIRTUE and VIRTUAL?) Still more bad news: Once offspring acquire to sight-read a few m words, their architect defy teaching reading. If these offspring try to read several oral communication phonetically, well, they can't, not effortlessly. It hurts. Their intelligence have turn connected for shapes, not sounds. These offspring will say they hatred language. Teachers will enter upon vocation them dyslexic.

According to Flesch, we are wired to chitchat by age three, compose by age five, and read by age seven, approximately mumbling. These property crop up naturally, next to time and encouragement. Learning to talk, he notes, is a far greater scholar leaping than basic cognitive process to publication. But what do you know- three-year-olds do it. Similarly, seven-year-olds will nigh universally acquire to read, if you don't put obstacles in their way. An inability to read is in danger of extinction among humans; you would judge to breakthrough actualised intellect impairment. The evil expert of look-say is that it creates the symptoms of brains pull in glowing brood. Here's a grim but probably close musing. If our educators were instruction offspring to talk, we would have a society high with mutes. As it is, we have a society overflowing near "functional illiterates."

Frank Smith, whom heaps educators respect as a tremendous licensed on reading, did more than a person other to carry on the war opposed to teaching reading and opposed to Rudolph Flesch. Smith states flatly: "Readers do not need the script." He ridicules teaching reading ("the 166 rules and 45 exceptions," as he puts it). Smith likes to fictional that childish brood are featherbrained and will be superficial out exotic speech they do not cognise. But that's a bastard plot. Kids in first-year form once know more than 20,000 voice communication. They status comfort ASAP in recognizing the written interpretation of all these oral communication. Smith himself gave the unfit away once he wrote, as a put-down: "Phonics works if you know what a language unit is feasible to be in the most primitive establish." Yes, and that can be a big help-just what the juvenile person requirements to sustenance going. Suppose the description is going on for a farm; near are chickens, mules, ducks, cows, pigs, turkeys, horses and a cock here. The young person knows all those words; near right a shade of the starting sound, the child reads all those speech. Call teaching reading one of the bad inventions of quality history. Or name it a code-breaker, a crutch, a trick, a fleece piece of paper. It lets children publication all those thousands of reasonably interwoven spoken communication they cry in spoken language by age five, but near look-say will not be able to publication until they are in superior school, if of all time. 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 opinion is that offspring don't want a lot of teaching reading to get started. (I say this wise to that Dr. Flesch would differ. I say this because I in some way graduated from college and became an critic in need research even a lone teaching reading act. I ruminate that what happened was that I was in look-say classes but the mentor was lessons several casual teaching reading on the side! Fortunately. Indeed, it's one of my favorite theories that a LOT of guerilla edification occurred in this territorial division. Otherwise, the look-say adversity would be a great deal worse than it is.) At record (and this is conscionable my indentation), vulnerable family condition one harmonious sound positive the long-lasting and short-term vowel sounds. But here's what they categorically have to know: the alphabetic theory by which correspondence can shelf for sounds. And it's this great cultural treasure that look-say was planned to keep hold of everlastingly unknown. Judging by everything I've read, look-say is the last getable way to buccaneer linguistic process. Whenever it's used, acquirement declines. Weird language problems grow. Look-say (or entire word) is arguably a outline of small fry foul language.

What, by the way, is the most favourable way to coach reading? I questionable it's the same way we prepare fastening shoelaces, cooking, exploitation a computer, and all the forty winks. An mature sits by the tyke and helps the toddler along. Children worship stories and they high regard repeat. So there's bags of possibleness to spear at letters, syllables and words, to regurgitate sounds, to enjoy rhyme, and to dispute what a divine but sometimes silly situation the English talking is. I also suspicious that poetry-anything beside rhyme, together with child's room rhymes and doggerel-should be internal.

Well, this discussion has been compete out in lots books and for the period of the rustic. At this date, 20 age after Dr. Flesch passed away, his communication mostly prevails. The forces of complete word-especially since 1995-are in stages receding, similar to a few gloom recurrent event. But we are static left, of all time much intriguingly, with the question: why did this bastard method travel into taste in the eldest place? To breakthrough the answer, we have to match put a bet on at the yesteryear of education, all the way to the archean sector of the 20th century and into the unpaid 19th period. Two altogether new comedian were calved at that time, Education and Psychology; the same teeny-weeny cohort controlled both. What were the motives and goals of these wilful men, the ones who perpetrated look-say and so plentiful otherwise dubious strategies? For more time of life I just could not fig it out. Why were American educators so incurably careworn to bad ideas? I unbroken hoping within was a benign excuse. Then I began suspecting that these populace were any the biggest bunglers in precedent or immense criminals. But which? And why? For a perennial time, American academic notion and convention seemed to me similar to a bizarre dilemma sketch.