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.

mrz & Feenie Conceded, but the conversations did seem to drift somewhat (as it usually does).

Also should you point out flaws in isolated posts? I was responding to your questions for some of it mrz, so I can blame you for the distraction in these instances . I'm never sure of the right etiquette...

I am glad neither of you want to remove pictures from reading books altogether though.

You never said exactly why you seemed to think oral tales were superior in terms of teaching narrative features mrz , or is it just personal preference?

Where do you get the idea that anyone wanted to remove illustrations daftdame (that assumption seems to be at the root of your confusion)

Well, we have been talking about covering them up and trying to find stories without them, so I don't think she's far out.

Because children can pick up the modelled features of story and use them in their own storytelling long before they can read or write ... an apprenticeship model of learning.

Surely it depends on how simple the tale is.

Jelly and bean used to do some stories without pictures, but they don't seem to sell them anymore on their website or at least they aren't obvious. Prehaps you could phone up Marlene if she still sells the jelly and bean text.

There are some free resources

www.jellyandbean.co.uk/teaching-guides.html

"The thing is he loves book and being read to. I wonder if just reading to a child without drilling phonics helps?"

It definately helps comprehension to read to your child. Phonics is hard to learn and little people have a short concentration. Learning to read takes time and with most children it does click eventually.

I suggest 5 to 10 minutes a day of practicing word boxes. Jolly phonics do lists of words to practice.

mrz Are you talking about oral narrative re. apprenticeship model? Its just I cannot really remember a time in my life without books, illustrations or being told stories, sung to. I was exposed to them all very early on.

So for or me all types of narrative are equal (but different).

Once again daftdame you are taking it out of context ... yes all kinds of narrative are equal but for the purpose of teaching children skills, orally telling the story is a highly successful method, just as for the purpose of reading instruction no matter how enjoyable the illustrations they won't help the child read the text accurately.

mrz I get the successful method bit, just feel that illustrations have something to offer re. providing opportunities for discussing narrative features and motivation, the comprehension element of reading.

If it is voice expression, punctuation and so on I can see why oral storytelling is good. Is this what you mean?

But for visuals (supporting descriptive text later on), setting, characterisation surely illustrations are equally valid.

You are assuming that doesn't happen which isn't the case daftdame

^ illustrations also support movement the plot, action, scene etc.

OK.

There isn't a great deal of plot, action, scene or etc in early reading scheme books

'or etc' this is why I say you are a tease mrz!

I must admit I have not seen very many early reading scheme books. Neither me or my son learnt to read using scheme books. So here I will have to bow out but its being interesting, thanks .

Just a quick update;

The teacher changed his reading scheme to the Jelly and Bean one and we have used these books for two days now. They are just so wonderful for him. He seem to be reading the same words he was failing to read in ORT.

By the way I didn't intend stopping picture books completely, was just looking for something else to try in addition as it was painful watching my son struggle with ORT.

Hopefully we have something that works but so far so good. His teachers have been very helpful and very supportive.

It's been an interesting discussion hearing your observations. I personally think ORT illustrations or should I just say pictures are way too busy. There is too much going on there and that didn't work for my son. For now we shall put ORT to rest.

Off course I meant 'been interesting'. (But then when do I type what I mean?)

Excellent news Munashe! I don't like some of ORT much either.

Oh I just posted my update before reading the latest post and Really Tired just posted the link to the scheme we are using. So far my son is enjoying it so far, just two days in and yet he seem to have suddenly improved. No more spinning and rolling too, perhaps its the novelty of a new scheme but I think they are just waaaaaaaaaaaay better as they are proper decodable phonics.

We seem to have wandered far away from the main point that was made about illustrations. There's nothing wrong with pictures, the problem occurs when when children are taught to use the pictures to try to guess what a word might be. Which still happens, as demonstrated much earlier on this thread.

harryhausen Wed 12-Jun-13 07:25:43

I've been a professional children's book illustrator for 18 yrs and have illustrated countless school reading scheme books as well as many other titles. I'm quite at the idea of covering up the pictures.

What a joyless experience.

An old fashioned (1964) recommendation - Peter and Jane.

They do have pictures but text in the early levels 1-4 are on left side, pictures on right, allowing easy bending back of pictures while child reads.

I note your lad is at cvc and blending level - the Peter and Jane early books would be good for learning first 100 common words to supplement cvc.

Still in print, available from Ladybird website - and frequently founf in charity shops, car boots, ebay.

eh ? so what if is old fashioned, the poster asked for help.

and why shouldn't peter be bought up to help out in the garden ? Jane does too - and both climb trees, make tea, shop, cook, and golly also have a mum too (but very occasionally she does wear dungarees).

It's a sight reading scheme. And a really boring sexist one at that!