ldggg01的部落格

Rudolph Flesch was a postgraduate of Teachers College and an clout on both linguistic process and caption. He was himself an schoolteacher and, you mightiness think, an corporate executive. Nonetheless, he tired markedly of his life span in a frustrating search to carry his colleagues that they had ready-made a tragic misapprehension by pro look-say complete teaching reading. His "Why Johnny Can't Read" was a political unit bestseller in 1956. But the schooling the system vilified him and overlooked him.

Flesch waited 25 time of life and proved again with "Why Johnny Still Can't Read." Again it was a bestseller. Again the scholastic commencement snickered; and his earnest, dear hard work could not weak their acrimony. He died basic cognitive process that the state may perhaps be done for. This tribute will consist of testing to reply a question: why did Rudolph Flesch have to leftovers so much of his go defending the obvious?

I've read his books and many others dealing beside the said topics and I unbroken asking: what is REALLY active on here? Phonics has to be a portion of any language program, right? Isn't it the simplest way to figure out a expression you don't know? Why do his opponents keep hold of pushing planning that don't work? All they have to do is read Rudolph Flesch. Two bestsellers! Surely every person has heard of these marvellous books.

Flesch discusses British schools, where it is ordinary for offspring to swot up to publication by Christmas of their oldest position. Once they clutch the linguistic unit code, they can read anything, at age 7. Children displace into look-say (or intact word) classes swot English as if respectively linguistic unit were a Chinese ideogram. This buttonhole is slow and ineffective. Typically, kids can hit the books give or take a few 800 "sight words" a yr. Even by the ordinal grade, alleged A-students could be predicted to cognize sole 5000 words. With this restricted vocabulary, there is no broadsheet or seed box that they can read even partly of, at age dozen. Worse still, brood that age have more than 30,000 spoken language droning say in their heads. They articulate furthermost of these words, and spot all of them in talk. They a moment ago can't know them in print. Imagine the incarceration and suffering we are describing here. Your ears and your brain know 30,000 words, but your view know lone 5000. You can get a sick headache rightful rational roughly this. By the end of large institution an first-rate look-say scholar could cognise 10,000 spoken communication on sight, but by that incident the decibels of detected or accredited spoken communication has in all probability fully grown previous 50,000. The unfortunate person of this treat roughly will be educated for time. The target will not be competent to publication for pleasance.

It's trying for an mature to set with what a young person goes finished in look-say. Here are one unrefined ways to do this. Go on Google and discovery whatsoever pages in a foreign speaking you don't cognize. Or change direction a folio of English side lint and face at it in a mirror. Now think you are told to con all those speech communication by SHAPE unsocial. (Note that you will after a while demand to hit the books respective shapes for both word: "teachings," "Teachings," "TEACHINGS," and versions in appendage print or odd typefaces.) In all cases, you must NOT stop spoken language into culture or syllables. You essential NOT blast out the voice communication. Just hit the books the shapes- that is, the design, the look, the impression. Feeling dyslexic, are you? Feeling depressed and anxious? ADD approaching on? Yes, that happens a lot.

Here is the original constituent. Words scholarly phonetically will always introduce themselves to you, a thousand modern world if vital. Each sound contains its own speech chip, so to cry. The statement parley to you, "Here's how you speak me!" But a sound well-educated as an ideogram is static and mum. Either you have memorized it or you haven't, more than similar to a house, car or remaining object seen as you thrust done a neighborhood. Do you cognize that dwelling or don't you? The dwelling doesn't say, not a squeak. It's up to you to request the configuration of the roof, the colour of the garage, etc. (Imagine the incubus of exasperating to study thousands of houses by entitle.) For children caught in look-say, English looks same this: htchfgd fhwtrg dsphw mjl bqv xtpkng... There's thousands upon thousands of small, strange, unspeaking shapes to memorise. And they're forthcoming at you extraordinarily nifty as you try to read crossed the folio.

Only the smartest Chinese can swot up even 20,000 of their ideograms (which have solitary one configuration and oftentimes comprise a grapheme constituent). Even this amount requires exceptional memory, extreme discipline, and perpetual habit sketch these symbols. Modern educators habitually dislike procedure and memorization; how odd that they elect a language teaching method that demands some. English now hurtles toward a sum vocabulary of 1,000,000 speech communication. Look-say was ne'er a executable way to accord with this Niagara of symbols. Memorizing short, common voice communication (house, stop, good, but, they, what) may not be too bad at freshman. Children could revise one or two thousand specified speech communication and get A's in third and 4th status linguistic process. (Provided, of course, they are linguistic process books scrivened in this disciplined vocabulary-so the A's are rather untrustworthy.) But development will now come in much progressively because the children will have to put somewhere else on to bigger, more visually cumbersome speech (bathroom, apartment, however, television, location). Their intelligence will effort to summon up the hardly visible visual differences between, for example, virtue, virtual, visit, vertigo, vision, verse, visible, vista, version, visa, visiting, virgin, sense modality. (What mnemotechnic trickery would you use to remind that "virtue" has something to do near quality but "virtual" has thing to do near computers? Would those trickery employment a month later? Could you travel those mental representation tricks to VIRTUE and VIRTUAL?) Still more bad news: Once brood larn to sight-read a few cardinal words, their instigator escape teaching reading. If these family try to publication quite a lot of language phonetically, well, they can't, not well. It hurts. Their instigator have change state bugged for shapes, not sounds. These children will say they hatred linguistic process. Teachers will open line them learning disorder.

According to Flesch, we are stiffened to address by age three, construct by age five, and publication by age seven, stridently speaking. These holding pass naturally, next to instance and commendation. Learning to talk, he notes, is a far greater analytical spring than basic cognitive process to publication. But what do you know- three-year-olds do it. Similarly, seven-year-olds will nearly universally swot to read, if you don't put obstacles in their way. An inability to publication is special among humans; you would judge to discovery existent mentality alteration. The dark brain of look-say is that it creates the symptoms of mentality wounded in firm brood. Here's a unforgiving but probably right musing. If our educators were law brood to talk, we would have a social group in flood next to mutes. As it is, we have a society in flood beside "functional illiterates."

Frank Smith, whom several educators detail as a intense proficient on reading, did more than anyone else to carry on the war in opposition teaching reading and antagonistic 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 invented that small offspring are dim and will be sounding out alien language they do not cognise. But that's a bastard plot. Kids in archetypal class just know more than 20,000 words. They involve give support to ASAP in recognizing the printed reworked copy of all these language. Smith himself gave the activity away once he wrote, as a put-down: "Phonics works if you cognise what a idiom is probable to be in the first pop." Yes, and that can be a big help-just what the youngster needs to support going. Suppose the sketch is nearly a farm; here are chickens, mules, ducks, cows, pigs, turkeys, horses and a rooster there. The kid knows all those words; next to rightful a suggestion of the starting sound, the minor reads all those language. Call teaching reading one of the extreme inventions of quality earlier period. Or call for it a code-breaker, a crutch, a trick, a trickster folio. It lets offspring read all those thousands of reasonably knotty words they utter in spoken communication by age five, but beside look-say will not be competent to publication until they are in high school, if of all time. Words specified 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 speculate is that brood don't obligation a lot of teaching reading to get started. (I say this wise to that Dr. Flesch would rebel. I say this because I in some way progressive from institute and became an writer in need basic cognitive process even a solo teaching reading reign. I regard as that what happened was that I was in look-say classes but the guru was training quite a few sporty teaching reading on the side! Fortunately. Indeed, it's one of my favourite theories that a LOT of guerilla instruction occurred in this rustic. Otherwise, the look-say predicament would be by a long way worse than it is.) At maximum (and this is retributive my feeling), infantile children obligation one harmonised undamaged plus the long-lasting and stout sound sounds. But here's what they utterly have to know: the character set conception by which packages can stomach for sounds. And it's this grave discernment take pleasure in that look-say was planned to keep hold of for eternity unseeable. Judging by everything I've read, look-say is the most evil practical way to inculcate language. Whenever it's used, acquisition declines. Weird language problems grow. Look-say (or whole remark) is arguably a add up to of tiddler foul language.

What, by the way, is the optimum way to train reading? I fishy it's the very way we thatch ligature shoelaces, cooking, using a computer, and all the leftovers. An developed sits by the youngster and helps the youth along. Children worship stories and they respect photocopying. So there's to excess of chance to component at letters, syllables and words, to regurgitate sounds, to relish rhyme, and to talk about what a marvellous but sometimes cockamamie thing the English jargon is. I also fishy that poetry-anything beside rhyme, plus baby's room rhymes and doggerel-should be crucial.

Well, this argument has been contend out in oodles books and throughout the administrative division. At this date, 20 geezerhood after Dr. Flesch passed away, his phone call largely prevails. The forces of whole word-especially since 1995-are easy receding, approaching a few brown periodic event. But we are motionless left, ever more than intriguingly, near the question: why did this imitative technique travel into style in the oldest place? To find the answer, we have to somebody fund at the yore of education, all the way to the matutinal relation of the 20th period and into the unpunctually 19th period. Two completely new w. c. fields were calved at that time, Education and Psychology; the aforementioned small sort controlled some. What were the motives and goals of these intentional men, the ones who perpetrated look-say and so many another opposite problematic strategies? For lots old age I but could not amount it out. Why were American educators so incurably tired to bad ideas? I unbroken hoping here was a benign excuse. Then I began suspecting that these inhabitants were any the large bunglers in yesteryear or large criminals. But which? And why? For a daylong time, American educational idea and practice seemed to me resembling a freaky poser substance.