Reading scheme without pictures - does it exist?

[Munashe]

Need reading scheme suitable for my 5 year old son without pictures. He is sight reading but once we cover the pictures he really struggles with the words.

The www.phonicsinternational.com/index.html online programme provides plenty of text without pictures.

DS3 is just starting to read (level 1+), unlike his two older brothers, he is in the habit of 'telling what is happening in the picture' rather than reading the words.
At the moment I let him tell me what is happening in the picture, and then say "Now let's see what the author says is happening" or words to that affect. He then happily reads his sentence from the page. But if I try and make him start with the sentence he just gets distracted by looking at the picture.

Harry - my daughter actually LOVES the illustrations so much (she has aspirations to BE an illustrator when she is a grown up) that we couldn't get her to even look at the words and start reading which is why we covered them up, mind I should add she was already reading well when we started to do this (ORT level 6ish) and the books were too easy for her so she just couldn't be bothered. Now she has settled down and looks at the picture, then starts reading and focuses on the reading but she still likes pictures in her chapter books.

I can get a lot of 'joy' from pictureless books, but do love pictures and all my dad's old books with illustrated plates...

My 9 year old reads books without pictures, but is very visual and will enjoy pictures hugely when there are some. They are like stepping stones to her imagination. Not necessary, but wonderful.

I cannot imagine any 5 year olds I know (bar one, possibly) enjoying books without pictures, regardless of reading ability. Children tend to be very visually orientated.

My 5 year old will look at the picture for each page for quite a long time (while his younger sister and I practically doze off!) and then reads the text. Thankfully sounding out when necessary and not guessing. I don't think I would be able to get him to read at all if I covered pictures.

OP I second the idea of writing messages for your son as a morning surprise or something like that. I write on our white board sometimes for the kids and they enjoy it. Or do a treasure hunt with simple clues etc.

When we read a book with lots of picture with my son he stops reading in the middle of the sentence and start looking the picture for minutes. I think most of the school books have lots of pictures. I bought piper books for him. He has the advanced one, but there are piper books for beginners too. There is one little picture on each page or none at all. The books are black and white. There are some sentences on each page so there is impossible to guess the sentences or words from the picture. These books are phonics books (I mean all of the words can be read phonetically). We use them for 2 month now and his reading is better and better. He pays attention to the end of the words (what he did not do before), he learnt decode most of the phonics, the harder ones as well (e.g.: a_e, ai, ure, igh, tion). I think these books are very good and if we finish the books I bought I will buy the next level for him. There are 14 books in most level and 2 stories in each book. We read 1 story most days (sometimes we read the same story twice or three times). But what I found out, that is a lot harder for him to understand the story in books where no any picture are or there are just a few pictures. But it also helps his comprehension, because he cannot guess from the picture that what happens in the story. I use the school books just for bedtime stories.

When you look at good picture books I think the picture is an important part of the story, as much as the words. They really are art forms when you study them.

With the limitations of an early reader, ie. when what they can read is limited, a picture helps make the story more complex. The expressions on a character's face conveys the emotions for example.

With limited options for text, this can provide more incentive to read, as it allows for more of an interesting narrative. For example the text could simply read, 'Stop!', the picture says why.

However the pictures do not help a reader decode, apart from making it interesting. But then if something is more interesting it gives the whole activity more meaning.

rrbrigi: how are the Piper Books leveled? I might get some of those to take away with us this summer. I'm looking for something lighter to bring with us for the 3 weeks away.

I totally agree with daftdame.

Believe me, the illustrations are not just there to be pretty or decorate or make the book more colourful (although they do actually do that by default). You wouldn't believe the amount of planning that goes into the illustrations for a reading scheme book! Months of planning, over viewing a whole series, tone, character, setting etc.

Learning to read isn't just about sounding out or decoding a word. Comprehension of a story is vital. We were often encouraged to discuss the illustrations with the child before we even try reading together. Ask the child
"What do you think this book could be about?"
"Who do you think is the main character?"
"What might happen?"

This can all be gained from the illustration and yes helps when it comes to thinking about words, expression, conversation and inflection. These are all really important. However if you just want a straight forward decoding then no, the pictures will add nothing.

If you can't read the words you can't understand the text ... you might be able to make up your own version that may or may not match what the author wrote from the illustrations.

Harry, in your last post, when you say we, are you referring to yourself (and others) in the capacity of a parent with a child, or your professional self planning the scheme illustrations? (I couldn't follow.)

mrz In a book with illustrations and text I believe both are important. Like Graphic Novels are an important genre, so are Picture Books, an author can do different things with the narrative, faces different challenges when creating them.

Illustrations add to the text, which can be quite limited in Early Years 'reading' books.

I've not seen an early years book story book (designed for a child to read) without them so I can't compare. I suppose it could be interesting but a different genre (sort of).

I'm not saying that picture books aren't important daftdame only that illustrations don't help a child learn to read.

I probably buy 10-12 picture books a month for myself and some I buy just for the illustrations. I adore Jackie Morris and David Wiesner for their pictures but I wouldn't use either for reading instruction.

Me too, mrz - just about to do Tuesday with my Y5s.

I guess you find it useful to separate the skills out, which I believe can be good, for analysing exactly what a child can do

However I believe a more organic approach is also very useful. It can give great meaning to tasks, as children appreciate the why (do it), simply because of the sheer enjoyment, appealing to the senses on more levels. It replicates life in that not every task is separated out into components, like the difference between Sport and Exercise.

I'm using Flotsam with Y1 Feenie

What skills do you imagine I am separating out daftdame?

mrz The decoding and the comprehension skills, to some extent.

With a limited text the illustrations can make the narrative more complex, convey more emotion, give details about setting, contain narrative sub-text etc.

in that case I don't separate them out as you put it.

I teach children to read the words and understand what they are reading

mrz But if the text is very limited because child is at a very early stage with their decoding there will be less opportunity to talk about narrative features.

They might be able to understand what the narrative features are, for example what 'setting' means (if explained) or an guilty expression on illustration of a face. However because they only are beginning to read they can not read words to describe this adequately.

When you are first teaching a new skill it is helpful to have some limits especially teaching inference ... how do you think he feels? how would you feel if that happened to you? What do you think he should do? Why do you think he did that? no pictures required.

I actually like using storytelling without a book to teach narrative daftdame

mrz Storytelling, yes but different to reading again. When you study tales which were taken from the oral tradition they are different in nature to those that are written.

Limits yes, can actually inspire creativity and imagination but it is also exciting when things are opened up and there is free reign, more bombardment of the senses.

What I am trying to say is that I think Picture Books have their place for learning to read. I can remember being an early reader and the pictures inspiring me to persevere with the book and think more about its meaning.

I'm not saying the text has no place, just that there are no rigid rules or regimented linear patterns as to how useful Picture Books are when learning to read.

But I don't study tales taken from the oral tradition daftdame I'm not sure why you would think that

daftdame at no point have I suggested that there shouldn't be pictures or even that the pictures should be covered. Yes they might inspire a child to persevere with a book but so might the promise of a treat ...

mrz Just (badly) trying to explain how oral story telling is as different to reading pure text, in terms of narrative, as reading text and pictures is to reading pure text.

I do believe supplying a book with pictures is better than promising a treat because treats in my opinion de-value the meaning of the task itself, and is far to Pavlovian for my liking.