Reading in the 1930's or 1940's

[yvette37]

Hello,

Does anybody know how they used to teach reading in the 1930's or 1940's? or earlier for that matter. What did they use instead of the 'Synthetized Phonics'? I am quite curious about this.

Thank you

Yvette

Oh thanks claig, I had a couple of books in ITA growing up and always wanted to read more about it.

Some of the comments are from people who think they were harmed by ITA and can't spell now because of it, but others adapted and are OK now.

Here is another interesting link on it, with links to other articles such as Benjamin Franklin's own invented phonetic alphabet.

www.omniglot.com/writing/ita.htm

I was at secondary school with children who were taught ITA, they were all put in remedial classes.

I think there is a danger, at a young age, in learning word pattern spellimgs that are incorrect and not being able to forget them and learn correct patterns later on. I think there could be a similar problem with what is called "inventive spelling"

'Those who favor inventive spelling tend to believe in constructivism, a theoretical perspective on learning (an epistemology) grounded in postmodernism and holism. Constructivists believe that knowledge is created by individuals in a social context. Because knowledge is cultural, there are no right answers. In terms of inventive spelling, constructivists are likely to believe that the child is inventing spellings in accord with his or her understanding of language and print. These spellings are neither right nor wrong; they reflect the child's development as a speller.'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_spelling

It's those progressive constructivist whole word people again. I definitely disagree with them on inventive spelling. I prefer traditional spelling.

I was taught ITA at school - it didn't doo mee eny harrm.

Seriously, I have an honours degree in eng lit from an ancient, so I am of the opinion bright children will do OK and less academic will struggle however you teach them.

Learning to read has very little to do with intelligence.

What makes you think that, Bruffin?

Because a it is not unusual for very intelligent children to struggle with learning to read.

Obviously, some do. But are they not the exception?

In that case it probably depends on how they're being taught. If they're intelligent then the chances are that if it's explained to them in a manner that they can understand then they can follow it. That rules out inflexible approaches of any kind be they look and say or phonics. Because if the child can not learn from one method then the teacher will have to use another. But to me it boils down to parents. I think that as long as the parents are on top of their child's reading then it doesn't much matter what the teacher does. I believe parents are responsible for teaching their children to read just as they are responsible for clothing them and feeding them.

learnandsay- DH's mum was a very involved parent -it still took him until the age of 10 to learn to read- he is a professional engineer

I was an involved parent and DS didn't click until he was 7 - now his teachers talk about him going to Oxbridge. My DD absorbed reading and could read words like architecture within the first term of starting school.

No, Cecily, and I find the argument that less academic children struggle with reading very offensive.

Around 20% fail when taught using mixed methods - yes, learn and say, mixed methods being 'flexible' approach. They are not the 'thickies'.

Also, dyslexic children struggle at first and many are extremely intelligent.

I am of the opinion bright children will do OK and less academic will struggle however you teach them.

Not true and offensive to many.

That should have read learnandsay, to whom I addressed part of my post.

Feenie, I hope you didn't think I was saying that, or even implying it. I was really just wondering if there was a correlation between ease of learning to read and general intelligence. Of the 20% who fail when taught using mixed methods, are these a totally random cross section of children, or do they share some characteristics?

I'm very offended by the notion that bright children learn to read easily.

How many of the 20% who struggle have dyslexia is impossible to know, because there is no standard definition of dyslexia. And even if there was the vast majority of those kids would not be tested for it.

However you need a very low IQ to be unable to learn to read. I'm sure I read that some people with an IQ of 70 can read.

All sorts of children fail to read using mixed methods - a few of those 20% due to very specific reasons, but most because mixed methods thoroughly confuses them. And there's no way of knowing which children will fall into the 20% until it's too late.

Some of the brightest children/adults are dyslexic and struggled to learn to read. I don't think there is any direct correlation.

We don't know how many people are unable to learn how to read all we know is that they haven't learned to yet. There are many people who can't drive a car, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't if they'd been taught to. Presumably the way that people who can't read have been taught, in the cases where they've been taught at all, didn't give them the knowledge that they need to read. There has been discussion on the news about employers giving basic literacy and numeracy classes. Presumably some people are willing to spend good money because they believe that late learners can still be taught. It seems reasonable to me. I'd imagine that a fair proportion of illiterate and innumerate people have personal circumstances to blame for many of their inabilities and not simply their IQ.

LearnAndSay - unless someone has a very low IQ the reason they can't read is never due to IQ.

What was the reason your sister never learnt?

Teaching decoding and blending is possible with most children, whatever their 'IQ'. It is, after all, a conditioned response, see the symbols, say the sounds.

Whether or not they can extract meaning from the words they have decoded and blended depends very much on their vocabulary and knowledge. Give me a physics research study to read and I would be totally lost. Give a computer manual to a child who has never seen or used a computer and they would be lost.

Intelligence (if we are talking about IQ) is in many ways an artificial construct. It depends a lot on knowledge. Children who don't/can't read have a route to knowledge completely closed to them. Who knows what they could achieve if they could access this knowledge. I had one pupil a few years ago who said 'Reading makes you cleverer'. I think she was right.

Reading also extends vocabulary knowledge in a way that no other media does. Without a good vocabulary it is difficult to even think; you need words to think with.

It just occurred to me, how do deaf children learn to read? What method do they use?

I don't know, Indigo. When we as a family discovered that she couldn't read I was away at college so I wasn't involved in the family/literacy evaluations. Not long afterwards she was diagnosed as a schizophrenic. But I'd place an outside bet that the two things weren't related. My money would be on my parents weird blend of home schooling, odd philosophies and general strange approach. My sisters did go to school on and off too. But presumably they missed out on lots of foundation work when my parents were supposed to have been teaching them.

Claig, one parent posted within the last week saying that her noticeably deaf, (rather than completely deaf,) son can't read. But it looks as though he was being taught as a listening child and just not learning properly.

Yes. I would guess that a sight method rather than a sound method would be teh best way, but I don't know.

learnandsay, did you go to school and learn to read there or did your parents teach you?