Advanced search

Flipping heck. DD book this week is....

(166 Posts)
Shattereddreams Fri 08-Feb-13 18:22:38

Scheme is ORT once a week, the old ones which I thought at 20 years plus was bad enough.....

Today she bought home on the non scheme book day.....

Mr Brown's goat. It was written in 1972. The infamous Roger red hat and Billy blue hat.

It's utter tripe. Repetitive tripe.

Is anyone else subjected to these? Weren't they banned?????

mrz Fri 22-Feb-13 21:11:52

and there's none so blind as those who will not see wink

learnandsay Fri 22-Feb-13 21:14:58

Possibly, but maybe deaf more than a hundred years ago related to people who couldn't hear. These days many terms don't mean much at all.

mrz Fri 22-Feb-13 21:21:42

since we weren't around a hundred years ago in France ...

mrz Fri 22-Feb-13 21:25:35

you still haven't explained the research behind it ?

learnandsay Fri 22-Feb-13 21:28:12

Do you need research to know that deaf people can't hear?

Feenie Fri 22-Feb-13 21:32:44

I learned to read through a combination of "look and say" and phonics - and so did my DCs. Personally I think that is the best way to learn.

How lovely for you - and how lucky you and your dcs are not to be in the 20% ir so who can't learn like that. Still, as long as you think it's best.......

simpson Fri 22-Feb-13 21:37:22

Why can a child not learn through look and say?

<<genuine question>>

Is it because there is only so many words they can learn off by heart?

I have gone out of my way to make sure DD has learnt to read phonetically (she could read at a basic level before she started the nursery attached to the school) because I understand that long term it is better for spellings etc and how to confront a word they don't know (ie sound out) and her school uses JP so i wanted her to have to "relearn" so I get why phonics is great iyswim but not why look and say is bad...

simpson Fri 22-Feb-13 21:38:41

Oops didn't want her to "relearn" blush

learnandsay Fri 22-Feb-13 21:45:30

A lot of children can learn via look and say and a lot of them have. (It also depends on how fanatical and barmy the look & say teachers are.) Things like refusing to teach spelling are just stupid.

But a major downside of L&S is that as words become more complicated and sentences become more complicated and (or) nuanced all kinds of reading aides such as contextual guessing and familiarity go out of the window. So it may not necessarily be a case of a L&S child not being able to read but not being able to read sufficiently well.

To do well via L&S you not only have to read a lot but you have to spell well and pay attention. It's not a method that many can do well at by accident. Some children with extremely good memories can do well without much apparent effort.

cumbrialass Fri 22-Feb-13 21:47:30

I see it as like the quote
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime

Give a child look and say and you teach them a word, teach them phonics and you teach them to read.

Feenie Fri 22-Feb-13 21:56:27

Some children taught by Look and Say can work the code out by themselves, some children can't.

Expecting children to learn by osmosis works for lots - but not for a significant amount. And it's a very alien concept anyway, to let children find out for themselves, instead of explicitly teaching them so that they are equipped to read anything.

simpson Fri 22-Feb-13 22:03:29

Feenie - do you mean the phonetic code?

I was concerned with DD as she went from sounding out every word out pretty much at yellow level to then not sounding out anything and jumping in reading so much (8 levels in 6 months) that she had learnt the words by sight. But it appears not the case ( according to her teacher).

learnandsay Fri 22-Feb-13 22:04:22

From the posts of occasional mums in this forum some children also can't learn via phonics and can only learn via L&S. If we are going to seek a method on account of how a minority reacts then we have to pay attention to every minority and not just the one that supports our favourite method.

bruffin Fri 22-Feb-13 23:54:08

Its a tiny minority that may have problems with phonics, its a significant minority that don't get look and say, then there is the invisible minority whose reading is stunted because their brains have memorized certain words but can't access new words.

mrz Sat 23-Feb-13 07:38:48

Since many "deaf" people can hear I doubt such research exists learnandsay but as you know I was asking about this post of yours

* learnandsay Fri 22-Feb-13 16:02:31*

The look and say method was invented on a whim, following no research whatsoever.

Who said this? It's bollocks. There was a perfectly good reason for inventing it.

mrz Sat 23-Feb-13 07:42:28

I think this quote is interesting

"One study done by Myrtle Sholty, published in the February 1912 issue of the Elementary School Teacher, revealed that the two methods of teaching reading produced two different types of readers: objective and subjective. The alphabetic-phonics method produced fluent, accurate, objective readers while the sight method produced impaired subjective readers who guessed at words, omitted words, inserted words, substituted words, and mutilated words. The sight readers’ lack of phonetic knowledge put them at a distinct disadvantage. They were unable to accurately decode the words since they looked at them as whole configurations, like Chinese characters, with no connections to the sounds of the language."

and here we are a century later seeing exactly the same phenomenon

It's quite sad when you think about it

mynameisnotmichaelcaine Sat 23-Feb-13 08:02:49

I learnt to read with a mixture of Look and Say, phonics, and following a story whilst listening to a competent reader read it (Storyteller anyone)? I think the latter cannot be understated, and yet I only ever did that at home, not at school.

mrz Sat 23-Feb-13 08:08:43

I taught myself to read at a very early age but it doesn't mean that is the best or even a good way for everyone to learn

learnandsay Sat 23-Feb-13 08:51:46

Why are you using a modern definition of the word deaf in relation to an invention that is over two hundred and fifty years old? The relevant definition will be equally as old. And states that deaf is "wanting the sense of hearing" Samuel Johnson.

mrz Sat 23-Feb-13 08:57:06

Why are you assuming that the definition was different?

Johnson's definition is no different to current definitions hmm

mrz Sat 23-Feb-13 08:58:36

Deafness doesn't actually have anything to do with the question ...just a diversionary tactic really

learnandsay Sat 23-Feb-13 09:02:48

All you've done is to shift the argument to what wanting means. In this context it refers to the lack of. If the sense is lacking it is absent. Absent means not present. It does not mean partial. That would be present but weak.

The relevant definition would therefore have been "having a partial sense of hearing." And that is not what Dr Johnson wrote. You can feel free to rewrite his dictionary if you like.

learnandsay Sat 23-Feb-13 09:06:24

No it isn't! Phonics is clearly useless for teaching people who can't hear.

KatieScarlett2833 Sat 23-Feb-13 09:11:08

This is Peter
This is Jane
I like Peter
I like Jane

Except I didn't.
( child of the 70's)

mrz Sat 23-Feb-13 09:12:09

No learnandsay I asked you about your statement
"Who said this? It's bollocks. There was a perfectly good reason for inventing it."

You googled and found Susan's site but that doesn't support your statement

"No it isn't! Phonics is clearly useless for teaching people who can't hear."
So you didn't follow my links to the National Deaf Childrens Society or the Scottish Sensory Centre ?
For what it's worth I'm teaching a deaf child to read using phonics ...Did you know that 1 in 5 children in Foundation Stage and KS1 have a significant hearing loss?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now