Doman for early reading?

Preschool readiness skills (birth to age 5) and the common developmental concerns of young children.

Moderators: Theodore, elliemaejune

Lily
User
Posts: 427
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:51 am

Postby Lily » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:27 pm

bright_tomato wrote:Russian was traditionally learned through breaking words down into syllables, there is no phonetic method.


Hmm.. Well, our native Russian teachers (all 6 of them) taught us to read with phonics. It's a strongly phonetic language, much more so than English.
I'm sure they used the methods to teach us that worked the best in such a limited amount of time. (and I agree, transliteration is a suck of efforts. But it should not be confused with phonics)

Sight reading in English has been proven time and time again to fail our children. Unless they know how a word is constructed, it cages their abilities and has been associated with creating learning problems like dyslexia (why should it matter which way the letter is facing if the word shape is the same?) and comprehension issues.
If you can get ahold of the book Why Johnny Can't Read, it's an excellent piece on why the look-say method failed many schoolchildren, and how we are still struggling to return to phonics based instruction without it being considered remedial. It was also written in the early 60s, I believe, when look-say or sight reading was at it's height.
"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."
- M. Montessori
Proud non-member of the HSLDA

bright_tomato
User
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:47 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby bright_tomato » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:48 pm

It's a strongly phonetic language, much more so than English.
Absolutely, which means that, unlike in English, most Russian words are pronounced the way they are written, hence, there is no need for a phonetic method of teaching how to read. The old traditional method of learning to read Russian was to break down words into syllables, not phonems. As I have mentioned before, most teachers are now progressively moving away from this method in Russia, based on the overwhelming evidence that it is not beneficial for the overall brain development.
If you can read Russian, read this lady, she is an expert on the subject
http://alicepush.narod.ru/businessglob.html

transliteration is a suck of efforts. But it should not be confused with phonics
- It is extremely similar, the principle behind it is exactly the same. But transcription, not transliteration. again, here is a link to a definition if you read russian
http://www.study.ru/online/tests/transcription.html

Were you able to speak English before you learned to read it?
- No, I learned both simultaneously.

As for the arguments for or against sight reading, I think I might leave it at that. I am aware of how strongly the homeschooling communities feel about it and I think it is pointless to recite evidence for or against the argument, it has been done before. The only thing I will add is that each mother should be able to asses her own child and know exactly what works or doesn't work for that child individually.

Lily
User
Posts: 427
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:51 am

Postby Lily » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:01 pm

bright_tomato wrote:
It's a strongly phonetic language, much more so than English.
Absolutely, which means that, unlike in English, most Russian words are pronounced the way they are written, hence, there is no need for a phonetic method of teaching how to read. The old traditional method of learning to read Russian was to break down words into syllables, not phonems. As I have mentioned before, most teachers are now progressively moving away from this method in Russia, based on the overwhelming evidence that it is not beneficial for the overall brain development.
If you can read Russian, read this lady, she is an expert on the subject
http://alicepush.narod.ru/businessglob.html

That is interesting, because our school still uses the phonetic breakdown to teach, not sight reading. It's much more beneficial that way - especially when getting into the many prefixes and cognates in the language.

transliteration is a suck of efforts. But it should not be confused with phonics
- It is extremely similar, the principle behind it is exactly the same. But transcription, not transliteration. again, here is a link to a definition if you read russian
http://www.study.ru/online/tests/transcription.html

Hmm, I think we are describing two different things. For us, transcription is writing exactly what we hear. Transliteration is writing the foreign language in native tongue or vice versa. Extremely confusing on the eyes and not worth the effort if it isn't needed. I prefer to not twist languages that way.
"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

- M. Montessori

Proud non-member of the HSLDA

bright_tomato
User
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:47 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby bright_tomato » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:38 pm

Hi Lily,

I am sorry to have to ask a direct question but I think it will be easier for me to understand the gist of our discussion if I know whether or not you are Russian. Or are you talking about learning Russian as a second language? I am a little confused on that point. If you are, in fact, talking about learning Russian as a second language, can you possibly provide an example of breaking down a Russian word phonetically? What I mean by saying that there is no benefit in breaking down a russian word into phonems is that most letters (consonants) convert directly into their corresponding sounds and there is no new sounds formed when combinations of consonants are presented in a word. E.g. "Ch" in Russian would not be read as "ч" but as "кх", "ph" would never read as "Ñ„" but as "пх". Hence, Russian children, when they were taught how to read at school (or at home in my case) learned the alphabet first, then they learned what sound each letter made (one sound per letter, so 30 sounds, excluding ÑŠ, ÑŒ) and then they broke down words into syllables - "бу-тер-брод" - each bit is a syllable, not a phonem. the method was called "учитÑ

Lily
User
Posts: 427
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:51 am

Postby Lily » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:26 am

I can read Russian well enough to read the links you posted. But this, what was described and what you are describing, this is not similar at all to phonics. Well, it is, in a bass-ackwards more difficult roundabout way. I really wish your experience hadn't included this but just going from one to the other with no "bridge language" (and it's still a form of transliteration. I learned 3 over the course of my career). I believe it would have made it much easier on you if they had skipped this and would have shaped your opinion differently about phonics.
"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

- M. Montessori

Proud non-member of the HSLDA

bright_tomato
User
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:47 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby bright_tomato » Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:23 pm

I believe it would have made it much easier on you if they had skipped this


Funny you say that because if you think about it carefully and understand the method of transcription it is exactly the same as phonics in principle.
The characters that represent phonems in the transcription alphabet serve only to make the russian speaker understand sounds he/she never encountered before, e.g. "th", distinguish between long and short vowel sounds, etc.
otherwise the method is identical.

just to repeat, I am not against phonics. I am for using what works best and, if necessary, combining different methods. I don't see a reason in declaring either of the methods as the ultimate evil.

User avatar
seekingmyLord
User
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:44 am
Location: Standing in the radiance of His glory.

Postby seekingmyLord » Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:25 am

I am just going to step in here and say that parts to whole learning in general is the better way to go with any child. I was in school at a time when sight reading was the "in" thing and I thank the Lord my school was behind the times, because I have seen the results in adults who were taught by this method. I even have this really great story about the inability and hopelessness a mother, a highly paid professional, who had been taught sight reading, being unable to help her son with his homework and his challenges with learning to read.

Nearly every child learns some sight reading naturally, but if one relies heavily on this method, when the child is challenged with a new word, he simply cannot decode that word on his own. He must rely on someone else providing the pronunciation for him and that works with young children because they are constantly asking and being told what this and that word is. However, it does not work well later on in the adult world.

As to signs, it is rather more likely that the sight reader would associate the sign itself with the word. I have seen many people who readily identify the golden arches of a McDonald's restaurant and yet cannot read the word "McDonald" in a book. At the same time, my daughter at 4yo was sounding out and decoding words on signs without needing to ask and memorize.

Stepping out now...

llamatron
User
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:14 pm

Postby llamatron » Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:04 pm

Yes, I learned to read this way initially. However, the doman method does not rely completely on sight-reading and letters and phonics should also be introduced--preferably as soon as you think the child is ready. I can't even remember learning to read because I learned so quickly. I am doing the math method with my 10 month old and it seems to be going well. Just like in the reading method, I'll eventually introduce numerals and functions.

I was taught phonetics very young and I can't even remember how to do it any longer. I had to read Doman's book to learn how to teach something I'd already been taught!

Reading, writing, comprehension and spelling have been soo easy for me all my life. Some people are just inclined to be this way, but I feel it was the way my mother taught me to read that had a larger part to do with it.

Have you ever not been able to remember how to spell a word no matter how many times you ask someone to spell it for you? All I have to do is write it down and I've got it--usually for the rest of my life! I'm very visual and so this program was great. It taught me how to use my natural photographic memory to store the English language in my brain.

On that note, it may not work so well for other children.... I guess you'll have to go with your gut instinct.
Victoria

Tanikit
User
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:56 am

Postby Tanikit » Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:21 am

I have used some of Doman's methods with my now 4 year old. However I also taught her the letter sounds at a very young age (she was 18 months) and started blending with her at 2.5 years old. She has a vast sight word vocabulary but can also sound out words and read them. I am now busy doing some slightly more advanced phonics with her to make sure that she can work out all words she encounters.

Most adults read almost everything by sight - only new words will be sounded out, but they have had a lot of practice to do this. I do believe that both methods need to be used. I also believe that if you are teaching reading a very young child (less than 2 years old) that you HAVE to use sight words as blending seems to come after this and the whole word is the first unit that a child will understand (c-a-t means nothing, but cat they can understand)

Doman believes that if babies are taught enough sight words very young they will automatically know phonics rules (just as children learn grammar rules without anyone teaching them just by hearing the spoken word) I have not found this to be true for most children and babies however which is why I believe in a balanced approach using both methods.

Tashathomson
User
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:44 pm
Location: La Quinta, California
Contact:

Postby Tashathomson » Thu May 03, 2012 6:43 am

The book is only a guideline for teaching your baby. There are a lot of testimonials, videos, personal achievements and frustrations discussed here. Many people believes this concept of teaching really small babies is revolutionary while some are revolting. My son started pointing at the right words words at 10- 11 months.

Harret56
User
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:44 am

Postby Harret56 » Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:55 am

Hi everyone, I know it's an old thread, but...I agree with bright_tomato that sight reading is very beneficial for kids to lear. Me and my friends were able to teach our kids that way. My son could read by 3 and their daughter - at 4. Would love to hear an update from bright_tomato on how his kid is doing!


Return to “Preschool and Readiness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest