Homeschool World Forums     Home     Mall     Catalog     Articles     Contests     Events     Groups     Forum     Contact  
Homeschool World Forum Forum Index Homeschool World Forum
Read thousands of forum posts on topics such as homeschool law, getting started, curriculum, special needs, homeschool vs public school, and much, much more!
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Doman for early reading?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Homeschool World Forum Forum Index -> Preschool and Readiness
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Lily
User


Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 427

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bright_tomato
User


Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 15
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lily
User


Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 427

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bright_tomato wrote:
Quote:
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.

Quote:
Quote:
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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bright_tomato
User


Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 15
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 "ф" 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 ъ, ь) and then they broke down words into syllables - "бу-тер-брод" - each bit is a syllable, not a phonem. the method was called "учится читать по слогам". Now, if you are talking about RASL then the process might be entirely different. As Theodore rightly mentioned before, knowing how to speak the language before learning how to read it is different to learning the 2 together. Russian kids obviously know how to speak before they start reading so prefixes, suffixes and cognates are not an issue for them. but even if they were, usually prefixes, suffixes, stems, etc. are also syllables, not phonems, in Russian.

I was initially talking about transcription and in the process of learning English (for Russian speakers) that means writing out english words in a set of special characters, phonetically, and then trying to learn them that way. so you have to learn the special transcription alphabet first (see link for the characters) and then try and sound out each english word phonetically. Very similar in principal to learning to read with phonics.

Transliteration is useful when there is no Russian keyboard available, I use it all the time to write e-mails in Russian to my friends if I am at work Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lily
User


Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 427

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bright_tomato
User


Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 15
Location: Sydney, Australia

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
seekingmyLord
User


Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 231
Location: Standing in the radiance of His glory.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
llamatron
User


Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tanikit
User


Joined: 26 Oct 2011
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tashathomson
User


Joined: 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 23
Location: La Quinta, California

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2012 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Homeschool World Forum Forum Index -> Preschool and Readiness All times are GMT - 6 Hours (CST)
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Homeschool World Terms of Use  •  Privacy Policy  •  Copyright ©1993-Now Home Life, Inc.