Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Primary education

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

What is a mixed method?

78 replies

columngollum · 20/02/2014 08:54

Can a brave teacher explain what she means?

Occasionally a teacher pops up explaining how necessary the storybook pictures are. But she gets such a ripping from the phonics fanatics that it's never possible to find out what she means.

Firstly we never know what the picture is of.
And secondly we never know what the word or sentence concerned is.

I think simple common nouns alone per page with their names below are excellent.

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
columngollum · 21/02/2014 13:53

We seem to be getting into the realms of back in the mists of time...

No one really knows...

Caveman did mixed methods too...

OP posts:
mrz · 21/02/2014 13:55

No thankfully whole language hasn't been around that long columngollum just since the time of L&S

columngollum · 21/02/2014 14:02

L&S is older than whole language. The latter comes from Goodman via Chomsky whereas the former comes from 18th C France.

To say that they're the same is a bit like saying that bicycles are cars because both of them have wheels.

OP posts:
Meita · 21/02/2014 14:19

I don't know much about mixed methods/synthetic phonics etc. and am only referring to the part where OP writes 'how necessary the storybook pictures are' and only based on my very limited experience of discovering reading with pre-school DS.

What I find is that the pictures in his books (he has read all 12 stage 1+ songbird phonics books and is now on stage 2 of the same series) are incredibly important. NOT because they provide him with clues as to what the words mean which he doesn't recognise yet (he decodes those words by sounding them out). But rather, because they provide him with background and depth to the story. Let's face it, a story that goes 'I am top cat. Am I top cat? I am! I am! I am top cat. Am I top cat? I am! I am! Pop! Am I top cat?' (that's the whole text) is neither very meaningful nor enjoyable, all by itself. DS would never have become enthusiastic about reading without the images. Thanks to the images, this simple story has become very exciting, DS loves re-enacting it by climbing on the table/windowsill (sigh) or pretending to fly away with a bunch of balloons, and he loves discussing the faces on all the different cats. He reads the story 'with expression' but the expression needed cannot be inferred by the text alone, instead it relies heavily on the images.

And yet, the pictures do pose a few problems, particularly regarding re-reading the same story: a) DS memorises the stories very quickly, and the pictures provide him with the few prompts he needs (if he needs any) to avoid actually re-reading. And b) if he cannot recall the text that goes with a particular page, and starts reading, and gets to an unfamiliar word, he won't sound it out again, but will first search the picture for clues, sometimes in combination with the first letter of the word. Knowing the story already, means that he is usually successful with this strategy; but obviously it means he doesn't practice sounding out, but instead uses 'educated guessing'.

On balance, I would not want to 'lose' the images in his 'learning to read' books. I believe (please do correct me if this is wrong, it is just an assumption on my part) that enjoyment of reading is the one key ingredient that overrides everything else - with it, many if not most children will eventually learn to read no matter what method is used, without it, many children will struggle to learn to read, again no matter what method is used to teach them. Given that when you are just setting out in your learning to read journey, pictures can make all the difference between boring and hard work on the one side, and fun and enjoyable on the other side, I would opt for images and do agree that they are very important. If it means that DS applies a kind of mixed methods rather than just sounding out, when confronted with an unfamiliar word, well I can always encourage him to sound out, but I won't destroy his enjoyment by forcing him to sound out/preventing him from looking at the pictures.

Once a child has advanced past the stage where books are limited to particular sounds/letter patterns, or to simple sentence structures, or to simple contexts, or to very short book lengths, I suppose images would become less important, as more meaning can be conveyed by the words alone. So I would give less importance, in general, to the images. And yet, I would still follow my child's 'enjoyment' - if they only wanted to read comic books or other books with lots of images, I would let them, as long as they are reading and enjoying it.

mrz · 21/02/2014 14:32

The look and say teaching method, also known as the whole word method, was invented in the 1830s and soon became a popular method for teaching reading.

columngollum · 21/02/2014 14:32

Meita, I think what you're saying is spot on. And I think most people agree that a child who enjoys it will succeed far more than one who does not. I don't think they're any doubt about that.

When it comes to using the pictures I not sure we've ever discussed reading the book for the second time. I think the argument usually centres around using the pictures [initially] to work out the word. Although using them to try to guess what the word [he's supposed to remember] is very similar. I think many/most people would question the extent to which either of them is actually reading. Both are more like guessing. Some might say that if the child knew the word originally, then he doesn't need the picture the second time either. He just can't be bothered to read it the second time around and prefers to guess what it might say.

The argument about the pictures being not for reading but for brightening up an otherwise dire book I think most people can relate to and agree with. I certainly do.

OP posts:
columngollum · 21/02/2014 14:36

whole word and whole language are different. That's the point made above Chomsky(wl) vs 18th C Fr(ww)

OP posts:
mrz · 21/02/2014 14:38

"The sight-word method was invented by Rev. Thomas H. Gallaudet, the director of the American Asylum at Hartford in the 1830s. It was designed for the education of the Deaf by juxtaposing a word, with a picture. In 1830, Gallaudet provided a description of his method to the American Annals of Education which included teaching children to recognize a total of 50 sight words written on cards and by 1837 the method was adopted by the Boston Primary School Committee. Horace Mann the then Secretary of the Board of Education of Massachusetts, USA favored the method and it soon became the dominant method state wide. By 1844 the defects of the new method became so apparent to Boston schoolmasters that they issued an attack against it urging a return to an intensive, systematic phonics. Again Dr. Samuel Orton, a neuropathologist in Iowa in 1929 sought the cause of children's reading problems and concluded that their problems were being caused by the new sight method of teaching reading. (His results were published in the February 1929 issue of the Journal of Educational Psychology, “The Sight Reading Method of Teaching Reading as a Source of Reading Disability.”) "

columngollum · 21/02/2014 14:41

And where did Gallaudet get it from?

OP posts:
columngollum · 21/02/2014 14:43

He didn't get it from the Internet. They had no Internet back then.

OP posts:
PandaNot · 21/02/2014 14:48

My dd taught herself to read at the age of 3 so I've no idea what method she used but I suspect it wasn't purely synthetic phonics! She reads far more fluently than her older brother who was taught with SP and even today hates reading with a passion. His love of books was destroyed by having to sound out every single word in a reading book. Mixed methods means just that - using more than one way, not just phonics.

mrz · 21/02/2014 14:52

My son taught himself to read too PandaNot however he didn't teach himself phonics and neither did the school unfortunately ...

mrz · 21/02/2014 14:56

And where did Gallaudet get it from? well he was in an asylum columngollum

columngollum · 21/02/2014 15:22

Yes, but he got it from a different one. But none of this has anything to do with mixed methods. The Frenchmen, one of whom we haven't named yet, were teaching deaf pupils to learn whole words by sight.

OP posts:
mrz · 21/02/2014 15:34

You mean Abbe Bertaud? or perhaps Abbe de l'Epee?

mrz · 21/02/2014 15:58

There is a really nice article on Abbe Bertaud's method in the Dictionnaire de Pedagogie et d'Istruction Primaire written in 1887.

columngollum · 21/02/2014 16:08

Despite the fact that Bertaud/Mann's primer was a travesty it had nothing to do with Goodman/Chomsky over a century later.

OP posts:
columngollum · 21/02/2014 16:10

Sorry, Gallaudet/Mann

OP posts:
mrz · 21/02/2014 16:21

You are the one making a link that was never mentioned columngollum ... no one mentioned Goodman's philosophy.

columngollum · 21/02/2014 19:11

Goodman = Whole Language

(as opposed to (ww))

OP posts:
mrz · 21/02/2014 19:23

whole word = MM
whole language = also MM

columngollum · 21/02/2014 19:25

grapes = MM
pineapple = MM
tractor = MM
planets = MM
ballet = MM
anything not SP = MM (yeh, right)

OP posts:
mrz · 21/02/2014 19:36

If you aren't going to listen to the answers why ask the question or do you only want answers that agree with you? You won't get any I'm afraid.

mrz · 21/02/2014 19:42

Mixed methods = teaching children to use a mixture of "strategies" to "read" a text.

Whole word (Look & Say if you prefer) children are taught words by sight (flash cards) but need to use other strategies to tackle words that aren't in their sight memory, strategies taught - picture clues - initial letter clues (analytic phonics) - think of a word that would make sense in the sentence regardless of whether it is correct.