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

I think what the phonics movement refuses to recognise is the emotional component of learning to read.

The book I come back to again and again on this is Teacher, by Sylvia Ashton Warner. She was working with at least as difficult a catchment as any we'd find in this country - I think her philosophy is profoundly important to any discussion of early reading.

Interesting article by Rosen, OHBugger. I like Rosen. His enthusiasm and passion shine through. Of course, that doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. It is interesting that he was invited in by the Tory minister to try to encourage children who don't want to read and that he the minister accepted that they would disagree about phonics.

I'm glad that teachers feel that they are doing the best thing by teaching using synthetic phonics -- for as it stands they're not really allowed to do anything else. The only game in town, as far as the Government and Ofsted is concerned, is synthetic phonics. Teachers who wanted to do mixed-approach, or whole word, or real books would get stamped on. So in terms of their own sanity, and in terms of their ability to do their job wholeheartedly, and communicate with children without ambivalence about what they doing, that's probably fine.

But what goes around comes around. It would not surprise me in the least to find that in another decade we are all passionately arguing about the merits of a quite different system. Just as long as we don't mistake the nostrums of our own time and place as universal truths, that's all.

niminy, you are right, which is why they call them the 'reading wars'. Politics and philosophy lie behind the camps, and though victories have been won, the war's not yet done.

Absolute rubbish the reality is that even those schools who claim to teach phonics are teaching whole word because they don't know the difference which is why the phonics screening pilot has produced such shocking results

Many good readers who learnt by whole word are good readers because they taught themselves the alphabetic code. If you come across the little-used word "bedight" most likely you can read it not because you have previously learnt what the word is by sight but because you know that b-e-d is bed, igh makes the same sound as "I" and then you add the "t" to the end. You may break the word up differently than I just did, but you are still applying code to it.

I agree Riverside, there is an application of the code there. How it is done is the fascinating question. Is it a constructivist approach that builds on past knowledge and memory and the recognition of words such as bed and night, or is it the application of rules? I tend to think that it is the first. Even now, if I come across difficult, new words in English or French, I think I make the leap based on previous knowledge rather than an adherence to phonetic rules.
I don't think it can be done by the rules, because I would have trouble breaking some of these sounds down. I think there is an element of holistic pronounciation based on larger units than small letter pairs.

Found an interesting article implying that the reading wars have ended and a balanced approach is the outcome in the States. I don't know if this is really representative of current thinking in the States or not - I somehow doubt it.

old.post-gazette.com/pg/07238/812245-298.stm

'I don't think it can be done by the rules'

I should say, I don't think I can do it by rules, because I don't understand teh rules and can't remember all of the breakdowns and would have trouble identifying the different sounds involved. But others can do it by the rules too.

The method, philosophy and politics of teaching reading are all distinct issues.

Some form of phonics has been used for centuries - it hasn't always neatly divided into analytic/synthetic.

Child-centred education isn't necessarily a philosophical approach - many educators adopted child-centred approaches because they worked.

Whole word approaches weren't necessarily philosophical either. Some children have problems with analytic and/or synthetic phonics and some children manage the decoding but can't cope with the comprehension. Some educators resorted to the whole word approach because it worked.

Evidence suggests that systematic, thorough, synthetic phonics is the most effective way of teaching children to decode text, but being able to decode doesn't guarantee comprehension, especially of complex texts or ideas at secondary level. Working memory and speed of processing are also involved in reading for meaning.

Interesting article in the Economist on how the left wing progressives in New Labour began to ditch the progressive education philosophy in favour of a more traditional right wing approach, which involved phonics and testing etc.

Plowden's Progress

hildegard, you are right, there has always been an element of phonics, even in whole word approaches. It doesn't fit into neat boxes.

Meaning is teh key. Words have meaning, they represent things. It's the same for the spoken and written word. The purpose of sentences and words is to convey meaning. Meaning cannot be decoded, it has to be learned.

The example that proves the point is that you can decode a New Labour speech, but you'll be darned if you can find any meaning in it. You'd be better off decoding the back of a box of cornflakes.

Meaning is indeed key; unfortunately that doesn't mean you address only meaning. Anymore than you can learn to paint by understanding meaning only. If you can't decode text efficiently you can't access the meaning and if you don't know how to make representations (figurative or abstract) with paint on a canvas, meaning gets lost.

You're right. Somehow you have to recognise words from their constituent letters, and decoding is a way - the current recommended way - of doing that.

How do you recognise a face, do you decode it or do you remember it?
How do you recognise a national flag, do you decode it or do you remember it?
How do you know how to spell Moscow, do you use some sort of decoding or do you remember it?

I think the answer is that you remember these things.

I'm sorry to bring it back to New Labour, but I find that they are the litmus test.

How do you recognise that a New Labour spin doctor is lying, do you need to decode their words or is it enough that their lips are moving?

My surname is a very common word - a colour - minus one letter.

Nearly everybody who has to write or read my name thinks it is the colour. They are absolutely not decoding.

They are looking at the word and making a guess about it. They haven't been taught badly, they are just doing what readers do when they read fluently. Look, guess, move on.

If we read by decoding then emails and letters addressed to me would never go astray.

I'm pleased my doctor doesn't look, guess and move on when reading my medical notes!

Niminy, may I suggest that if you think that calling people who consider good teaching excludes vocabulary and comprehension nutjobs 'aggressive language', then a talk board possibly isn't for you.

How about 'people who consider good teaching excludes vocabulary and comprehension should be sacked, along with the two mentalist Heads who removed 'real' books from KS1 classrooms?'

Under attack, my foot.

Look, guess, move on

And you teach reading, you say?

Have I got it right claig opposes phonics because they are a right wing political tool?

Niminy opposes phonics because a few nutjobs removed real books from the classroom?

I don't oppose phonics, but I do think that the progressive philosophy behind whole word or balanced methods does have some merit. I am a conservative rather than a progressive, but that doesn't mean that progressives are wrong on everything and conservatives are right about everything.

and I'm an apolitical teacher who only cares about enabling every child by using the most effective method.

Well you seem very certain about what the best method is, just like Gove and the Head of Ofsted. I don't think they have any doubts.

Cag, mrz is certain because she's actually been doing it successfully for around 20 years - as have I.

My politics have nothing to do with wanting every child in my school to learn to read successfully.

I liked Chris Woodhead, but he probably had no doubts either.

Claig, even - sorry.