 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Cat Anecdotes / February 2008O. T. but cute, I thought
Jake is 5 and learning to read. He points at a picture in a zoo book and says, "Look Mama! It's a frickin' Cat!" Deep breath .. "What did you call it?" "It's a frickin' Cat, Mama! It says so on the picture!" and so it does .. " A f r i c a n Cat " Hooked on phonics!!! Ain't it wonderful? LOL  SignatureAdrian (Owned by Snoopy & Bagheera) Cats leave pawprints on your heart http://community.webshots.com/user/clowderuk > Jake is 5 and learning to read. > He points at a picture in a zoo book and says, "Look [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hooked on phonics!!! Ain't it wonderful? > Jake is 5 and learning to read. > He points at a picture in a zoo book and says, "Look Mama! It's a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hooked on phonics!!! Ain't it wonderful? Back in the past somewhere, there was a TV show called "Kids say the darndest things". I believe Art Linkleiter hosted it. It was funny. I have a few special quotes from when my son was little. He hates me to tell them now. MLB yeah but you could tell US, we wouldn't let the word out! >> Jake is 5 and learning to read. >> He points at a picture in a zoo book and says, "Look Mama! It's a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have a few special quotes from when my son was little. He hates me to > tell them now. MLB > "It's a frickin' Cat, Mama! It says so on the picture!" > and so it does .. " A f r i c a n Cat " > > Hooked on phonics!!! Ain't it wonderful? As an aside to the above story, I've always been a bit puzzled by all the hoopla over "Hooked on Phonics". Sometime around 15 or 20 years ago, I started seeing ads for it on TV, which touted it as this revolutionary new way to teach kids to read. The way it was portrayed in the ads, it looked to me like "Phonics" was just teaching kids the sound of each letter, and then letting them learn to read by sounding out new words. This was something new?? I learned to read in exactly that way in the early 1960s. Was my town way ahead of its time or something? Were they sitting on a well-kept secret that wasn't introduced to the wider public until the 1980s? I can't even imagine any different way to learn how to read. Can anyone shed light on this? Joyce SignatureTo send email to this address, remove the triple-X from my user name. On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:12:08 +0000, bastXXXette wrote: > > "It's a frickin' Cat, Mama! It says so on the picture!" and so it does > > .. " A f r i c a n Cat " [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Joyce I, too, learned to read that way decades before the 60s. The old, old method was "sound it out". MLB > > "It's a frickin' Cat, Mama! It says so on the picture!" > > and so it does .. " A f r i c a n Cat " [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Joyce Phonics was the way reading was taught when I was in school, too (1940s). However, somewhere along the line, someone came up with the "See and Say" system of teaching reading, where children were supposed to recognize the shape of a whole word, rather than sounding it out. That was prevalent for a number of years, but I think phonics is once again the accepted method of teaching reading. However, I can't be completely sure of this, since I haven't had a child in school for decades, and I have no grandchildren. Joy as most of you said, it is the rediscovered way of teaching. I sit and listen to my seven year old granddaughter sound out words like this and have all I can do not to laugh. It is like so many things, old being new again. >> > "It's a frickin' Cat, Mama! It says so on the picture!" >> > and so it does .. " A f r i c a n Cat " [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Joy > Phonics was the way reading was taught when I was in school, too (1940s). > However, somewhere along the line, someone came up with the "See and Say" > system of teaching reading, where children were supposed to recognize the > shape of a whole word, rather than sounding it out. That sounds like a terrible way to teach people to read. With phonics, you have to remember 26 letters, and the limited number of sounds each letter can make, which doesn't come to that many. With the above method, you'd have to memorize thousands of "word shapes". Also, I would think a person would words a lot more easily, since many words have very similar shapes, eg, "almost" and "always" - both start with the same 2 letters and are the same length. There must be a lot of reading mistakes for people who learned to read that way. I wonder when "see and say" (I'm not familiar with that term) began? Joyce SignatureTo send email to this address, remove the triple-X from my user name. it was particular hell for a visually impaired kid, ME, Lee > > Phonics was the way reading was taught when I was in school, too (1940s). > > However, somewhere along the line, someone came up with the "See and Say" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > To send email to this address, remove the triple-X from my user name. >> Phonics was the way reading was taught when I was in school, too (1940s). >> However, somewhere along the line, someone came up with the "See and Say" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > letter can make, which doesn't come to that many. With the above method, > you'd have to memorize thousands of "word shapes". It was probably based on the observation that good readers *do* memorize thousands of word shapes. Presumably somebody thought that since that's where people end up with their reading skills, that must be a good place to start. Humph. > Also, I would think a person would [confuse] words a lot more easily, > since many words have very similar shapes, eg, "almost" and "always" The descender on the y and the wiggle at the end make a difference. Last year I heard a talk by a woman who grew up with English as her first spoken language but Farsi as her first written one (she was the child of a British diplomatic family in Iran), and ended up as an expert on Islamic calligraphy. She said that dyslexia was unknown among kids who grew up reading Arabic-family scripts - the shapes of the words are much more individual than they are in English. So for that kind of script, look-say might be a winner. I learnt phonics-style in England in the 1950s and have hardly made a spelling mistake since I was 10. I'm sure look-say is appropriate in English for people with some kinds of cognitive disability, but they must be a very small minority. ==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ==== Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557 CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts >> With the above method, >> you'd have to memorize thousands of "word shapes". > It was probably based on the observation that good readers *do* memorize > thousands of word shapes. Presumably somebody thought that since that's > where people end up with their reading skills, that must be a good place > to start. Humph. I guess since schools have pretty much gone back to phonics, we can assume that the look-and-say method was less successful. >> Also, I would think a person would [confuse] words a lot more easily, >> since many words have very similar shapes, eg, "almost" and "always" > The descender on the y and the wiggle at the end make a difference. Good point. That wasn't the best example - I would also distinguish them because "always" ends in an "s", and "s" is a special letter in English. It might not have a special role in that word, but I would still be aware of it. (And good catch on my having left out "confuse" in my comments... I had it at first, but changed a few things and somehow that got lost.) > Last year I heard a talk by a woman who grew up with English as her > first spoken language but Farsi as her first written one (she was the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the words are much more individual than they are in English. So for > that kind of script, look-say might be a winner. Interesting. You would think that a neurological disorder wouldn't be different according to one's alphabet, but maybe this shows that dyslexia is only a disability when words have a very uniform appearance. I wonder if anyone has even tried to use the "look-and-say" method in a Spanish-speaking country? The spelling rules of that language are so simple and (almost completely) unambiguous that I can't see why anything other than phonics would even be considered. Joyce SignatureTo send email to this address, remove the triple-X from my user name. > I wonder if anyone has even tried to use the "look-and-say" method in > a Spanish-speaking country? The spelling rules of that language are so > simple and (almost completely) unambiguous that I can't see why anything > other than phonics would even be considered. Finnish is like Spanish in that its spelling is very simple and phonetic. I don't know how they teach Finnish children to read these days, but when I was a kid my Finnish-speaking friends learned reading by breaking up the words into syllables, which is also very simple in Finnish (if I have to cut off an English word, I usually have to look in a dictionary to see where you can cut it off!). Cat is kissa in Finnish, and when learning to read the word, they would go K-I-S, KIS, S-A, SA, KISSA. With a longer text, this could sound pretty funny (at least to me, but I guess I was easily entertained at that age). SignatureMarina, Miranda and Caliban. In loving memory of Frank and Nikki. >>> Phonics was the way reading was taught when I was in school, too >>> (1940s). [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > in English for people with some kinds of cognitive disability, but > they must be a very small minority. I was already reading well by the time I started school, so I'd guess that look-say would describe how I learned to read. My family always read to me. After a while I would know the books and read back to them, and finally I was reading new things as well. I'm guessing that is pretty much how most people end up reading. Phonics seems awfully unwieldy for reading at any sort of advanced level. That said, I can't spell worth a darn and I cannot proof read very well either. I see the point of starting all kids out on phonics and letting them advance from there. If only because it is so hard to go back to phonics for the kids that really do need it. (Do kids ever have to memorize anything in school anymore?) Jo > >>> Phonics was the way reading was taught when I was in school, too > >>> (1940s). [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Taggin in. I was able to read before I entered school. My mom was tired of listening to me talk so she taught me to read. Writing was a problem as I am dyslexic and kept trying to write from right to left. Used to make the old man furious. The teacher thought it was a hoot. She corrected me and the rest, as they say, is history. My first grade teacher, Mrs Pittwood, used a combination of sight and say, and phonics. We learned the easy words (you know, Dick, Jane, Sally, Spot, Puff, and, the, to, so, forth) by sight, the hard ones were taught by phonics. My problem was that the hard ones were easy for me and I ended up wearing water from the water fountain a few times as a result. The foreign language teachers I've worked for do use sight and say in their class rooms. They usually have a verb declination chart at the front of the room so that they can teach the verbs by just changing the verb in the center pockets. Rather practical in my opinion. I feel sorry for those who've had to learn English/American as a second language as the language has so many rules and exceptions for them that it is hard for those raised with it to get the language right. Pam S, trying to get into alt.humor.usenet >>>>> Phonics was the way reading was taught when I was in school, too >>>>> (1940s). [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > I was able to read before I entered school. I learned to read (Swedish) at age 4 (we start school at age 7 in Finland). I still remember that wonderful feeling, when everything just clicked and I understood how those letters combined into words. I also remember the first book I read all by myself. It was about an eskimo who sailed away on a piece of ice and ended up in Africa. I > feel sorry for those who've had to learn English/American as a second > language as the language has so many rules and exceptions for them > that it is hard for those raised with it to get the language right. Someone very wise has said that English grammar is about 20% rules and 80% exceptions to the rule. ;) SignatureMarina, Miranda and Caliban. In loving memory of Frank and Nikki. > I was able to read before I entered school. Me too I simply cannot remember not being able to read- my dad told me the first word I read was "Chocolate" and the only explnation he could come up with was at the time there was a big TV advertising campaign for Cadbury;s not and since in those days TV ad's were not at all cryptic at the end, there was a picture of some chocolate, the word was said and spelt on the screen. A few days later I recognised the word in a newspaper My parents apparently decided they had a child genius on their hands! Well my dad did (my mother never thought I'd amount to anything even at that age) and he set himself to teach me all sorts of things as I was about 2 at the time, I have only vague memories but I do remember that having missed out on a formal education (due the minor inconvieniece of WW2) he was a big fan of various "home education" books that were in vogue at the time and he had the "Odhams complete home educator" about 10 book on all sorts of subjects. I can distinctly remember reading the following sentence "The katydid is the most voracious insect in North America" and understanding that this meant a bug had the biggest apetite in all of a place called North America through I didn't know where it was I was a riot on my frist day at school I made the big mistake of when the teacher said "Can anyone read?" putting my hand up and then finishing all the "Janet and John" books before lunchtime My appreciation of formal education did not get off to a good start and later led to be breaking all my mum's mugs which I thought was a bit unfair as she threw them at me and I just hid under the table,,,,, Lesley Slave of the Fabulous Furballs > I learnt phonics-style in England in the 1950s and have hardly made > a spelling mistake since I was 10. I'm sure look-say is appropriate > in English for people with some kinds of cognitive disability, but > they must be a very small minority. Infants learn to speak much more quickly if adults speak to them in real words and sentences, rather than using "baby-talk". Nevertheless, they must still go through the "da-da, goo-goo" phase of learning to enunciate syllables, before they can cope with complete sentences themselves. I think the same principle must hold true with reading - in learning to read by phonics, you are simultaneously learning to visually recognize the words, but that doesn't make "sounding them out" unimportant. > in learning to read by phonics, you are simultaneously learning > to visually recognize the words, but that doesn't make > "sounding them out" unimportant. Also, the ability to sound out words is a powerful tool for a child. It means they can read on their own, because they have the knowledge of how letters are supposed to sound. Of course in English, this can be a big challenge. I remember once in first or second grade, seeing the word "heat" written on the blackboard, and trying to figure out what the word was. I had no idea what "hee-at" meant. :) I'm still glad I had that skill, though, because there are certainly many words that are spelled the way they sound. Eventually, all readers *do* go on to learn the shapes of words, once they've been reading for a while. You don't spend the rest of your life sounding out the letters of every word you read. Even so, that skill comes in handy occasionally, when I encounter a word I've never seen before, especially if it's a long one, such as a chemical or medical term, etc. Joyce SignatureTo send email to this address, remove the triple-X from my user name. > > Phonics was the way reading was taught when I was in school, too (1940s). > > However, somewhere along the line, someone came up with the "See and Say" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and are the same length. There must be a lot of reading mistakes for > people who learned to read that way. Agreed! (Why do you think a fair proportion of Americans who learned to read with that method do NOT read very well?) :-) > I wonder when "see and say" (I'm not familiar with that term) began? > > Joyce this is what I was thinking of, Lee > > > "It's a frickin' Cat, Mama! It says so on the picture!" > > > and so it does .. " A f r i c a n Cat " [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Joy > > "It's a frickin' Cat, Mama! It says so on the picture!" > > and so it does .. " A f r i c a n Cat " [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > This was something new?? I learned to read in exactly that way in > the early 1960s. And I in the mid 1930's!!!!! (The difference is, we were also taught spelling.) ;-) > > > "It's a frickin' Cat, Mama! It says so on the picture!" > > > and so it does .. " A f r i c a n Cat " [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > This was something new?? I learned to read in exactly that way in > > the early 1960s. > And I in the mid 1930's!!!!! (The difference is, we were > also taught spelling.) ;-) Well, so was I... Joyce SignatureTo send email to this address, remove the triple-X from my user name. > > bastXXXette@sonic.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Well, so was I... I'm sure you were! (I was referring to the "Hooked on Phonics" generation, and the amusing annecdote that started this thread.) > Joyce the other way to learn to read is where you learn the word by associating it with a picture, can't remember what its called, Lee > > "It's a frickin' Cat, Mama! It says so on the picture!" > > and so it does .. " A f r i c a n Cat " [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -- > To send email to this address, remove the triple-X from my user name. Think that was the see and say round of learning. > the other way to learn to read is where you learn the word by associating > it [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> -- >> To send email to this address, remove the triple-X from my user name. > Jake is 5 and learning to read. > He points at a picture in a zoo book and says, "Look [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hooked on phonics!!! Ain't it wonderful? There goes my keyboard! Andy I thought I told her about BW, guess I forgot, Lee > > Jake is 5 and learning to read. > > He points at a picture in a zoo book and says, "Look [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Andy > Jake is 5 and learning to read. > He points at a picture in a zoo book and says, "Look [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hooked on phonics!!! Ain't it wonderful? LOL! Lesley Slave of the Fabulous Furballs > Jake is 5 and learning to read. > He points at a picture in a zoo book and says, "Look [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hooked on phonics!!! Ain't it wonderful? Thanks for the laugh! Best wishes, Polonca and Soncek |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.