It is amazing how two ‘researched’ reading approaches vary
such with instruction and beliefs. I do not think that the sole approach to
reading is, as the video stated, sounding out words (phonics), particularly the
non-sense words. I can however, see how it is a basic approach to beginning to learn to read. As the video stated,
students must know some type of letter sound recognition, or else ALL
the words they read would not make sense to them. If that were the case, our
ultimate goal of comprehension and understanding is farfetched.
I think that “cracking the code,” ultimately begins with
understanding letter sound recognition. I know I have been reading in Weaver’s
text how reading is simply reading for understanding verses the individual
sounds and letters (and I completely agree); however, I think reading must
begin with the letter-sound recognition in some shape or form. Even though I
think phonics is a precursor to reading, I do not considered it to be the act
of reading. Although I think phonics is the baby step of learning to read, nonsense words are a waste of time. Why not focus
on the letter blends and sounds that students are going to physically see in
text when dealing with real words?
Spend your time wisely and hopefully it will prevent confusing the kids even
more. I could see the students begin to use these made up words in their
writing as well. Nonsense words would potentially do more harm than good,
especially at the age they are being exposed to. All in all, I still am a
strong believer in Weaver’s text. Reading is the process of putting meaning
behind words and “cracking the code”.
No comments:
Post a Comment