Teaching the Syllabary *instead* of modern Phonics

[sarahv]

Here is a link: http://www.thephonicspage.org/On%20R...bstersway.html

Noah Webster wrote his speller almost two hundred years ago. He did not teach phonics like we know today. He taught the Syllabary.

Does anyone do this? I've always loved the Blue Back Speller, but didn't know how to teach it. It is an extremely interesting concept - spelling by syllable. It makes so much sense, but it's not like Webster laid out teaching plans step by step, so I'm putting it out there for others. Does anyone use Webster's Blue Back Speller and the Syllabary? If you know anything about it, I'd love to dialogue on the pros and cons.

Of course, teaching the Syllabary is still phonics, it is just a different approach than modern phonics programs like Phonics Pathways (my current fav).

I think that Abeka was modeled after the Blue Back Speller, but uses the same scope and sequence of Phonics Pathways - Abeka does not teach the Syllabary.

Anyone have thoughts?

[ElizabethB]

That's my website, I used it with my daughter, it was very effective. She was reading at a 4th or 5th grade level when we started using Webster in K (we had previously used several other phonics programs--I have about 20!) After working through Webster, she can now read at about the 12th grade level.

I also use it with my remedial phonics students. It's especially helpful for ESL students because the words of more than one syllable are arranged by accent pattern, so it helps them greatly with pronunciation of unfamiliar words once they get the hang of the schwa pattern of unaccented syllables.

It's a bit challenging to use at first, and progress is slow up front, but when it all comes together, the progress is amazing. Since students who completed Webster historically went right into reading from the KJV of the Bible, I would think that most students should also be reading at around the 12th grade level if they were able to read the KJV.

I also like Phonics Pathways, we're doing a bit of work from it this year, although we're mainly concentrating on math and Bible verses. I never teach an open syllable as short in Phonics Pathways with my daughter, although I've had some young remedial students who couldn't catch on to the concept of blending unless taught that way. That was before I found Webster, however. The 2 letter syllables may have been short enough to allow them to learn to blend without resorting to teaching an open syllable as short. Three letters at a time was too confusing for them.

[Amber in AUS]

I am using 100 EZ to teach reading but have just found the Webster Speller.

We are using the word lists in the speller as reading lists. They are grouped by sounds and so far so good DD is reading the words and even remembering how to spell them later.

I don't really want to teach sounds by themselves without teaching the word because my DD being young it is too abstract for her. When she sees a word i can point out the blends which she gets so long as they are presented in context. I take a bit of a CM approach and she is not pro learning blends in an abstract sense.

I love the way Webster divides up the words to make them easier to manage. I was taught a little like that in school myself so it feels familiar. I have also done this previously with DD when she asks what something well above her reading level says.

Great thread, i ope the conversation is interesting.

[sarahv]

Thank you for your reply, Elizabeth! I have been so interested in your site! It has been eye-opening for me.

Originally Posted by ElizabethB

I never teach an open syllable as short in Phonics Pathways with my daughter, although I've had some young remedial students who couldn't catch on to the concept of blending unless taught that way. That was before I found Webster, however. The 2 letter syllables may have been short enough to allow them to learn to blend without resorting to teaching an open syllable as short. Three letters at a time was too confusing for them.

What do mean by "teach an open syllable as short". I'm just beginning the reading process with my oldest ds (who will be 5 in March). We are just in the very beginning of Phonics Pathways, and could switch to a different program very easily, but I'm not sure how Webster's would be taught at the beginning level, or if it even can be. Do you think a child needs to be older (to understand the rules) before he can use the Syllabary, or do think they should be reading first, before starting the Syllabary?

And I'm interested to know how you tweak Phonics Pathways to use with Websters.

I apologize for all the questions. I REALLY want to use this, I am just having a hard time figuring out how to do it PRACTICALLY.

[sarahv]

Hi Amber! Thanks for joining the conversation!!

Originally Posted by Amber in AUS

I don't really want to teach sounds by themselves without teaching the word because my DD being young it is too abstract for her.

In what way are teaching the sounds by themselves abstract for your dd? My son is 4, and we have really only worked on beginning phonics so far, i.e., teaching the sounds by themselves. I've considered teaching the letters individually with the phonetic symbol as a better way of teaching the sounds without context.

[ElizabethB]

Originally Posted by sarahv

What do mean by "teach an open syllable as short". I'm just beginning the reading process with my oldest ds (who will be 5 in March). We are just in the very beginning of Phonics Pathways, and could switch to a different program very easily, but I'm not sure how Webster's would be taught at the beginning level, or if it even can be. Do you think a child needs to be older (to understand the rules) before he can use the Syllabary, or do think they should be reading first, before starting the Syllabary?

And I'm interested to know how you tweak Phonics Pathways to use with Websters.

I apologize for all the questions. I REALLY want to use this, I am just having a hard time figuring out how to do it PRACTICALLY.

You don't need to understand any rules to teach the syllabary. Ideally, you would start with the syllabary and work through Webster's Speller, then supplement with another phonics program such as Blend Phonics or Phonics Pathways or OPG to make sure they have over-learned the phonics basics. Everyone was taught with Webster's Speller or another Speller with a syllabary first in the 1700's and early 1800's, and they did not use readers following the Speller, children were reading well enough to read out of the Bible after completing the Speller.

I plan on reviewing phonics through at least 3rd grade and doing phonetic spelling through at least 6th grade, it doesn't take long and reading is such a foundational skill, it pays to make sure the basics are over-learned, I've seen the results of incomplete teaching of phonics with many of my remedial students.

When I used Phonics Pathways with my daughter, we skipped the portion of the book that taught ba as short a as in bat, instead sounding them from left to right while looking at the entire word. In the syllabary, ba is taught as long a as in ba-ker. This is an open syllable, a syllable ending in a vowel. In words of 2 or more syllables, open syllables are generally long, although they often schwa in unaccented syllables. In later Webster tables of 2+ syllable words, the words are arranged by which syllables are accented. This helps children figure out how to decode long words and learn the rhythm of their pronunciation.

Webster teaches mostly by pattern, although a few rules are listed. For example, there are not rules for syllable division, the words are just divided for the student: di-ner vs. din-ner. My daughter was incapable of learning by rule last year in K, she was capable of learning by pattern. This year, we went over the rule in Phonics Pathways, spending several days on the subject. Rule based learning, while possible this year, is still quite slow. I only do a word or two from pages in Phonics Pathways that she knows well, things that are more difficult for her or that teach a rule, we'll spend more time with.

Last year, I did teach her a few rules that I knew while working through Webster's Speller, such as the rule that short words ending in s, f, and l are often doubled. However, I think she learned better by just seeing the patterns, I'm not sure if the rules sunk in or not. However, since she was learned to spell these words correctly, she was figuring something out!

With the rule that c says s before i, e, or y, she was also incapable of learning that last year. We had worked through 2 or 3 phonics books working on c as s, and it helped some, but she still would miss new words from time to time. However, after learning the pattern of the syllables in ca, ce, ci, co, cu, cy and sca, sce, sci, sco, scu, scy (this took 2 or three months!), she quit saying the wrong sound for c before i, e, and y.

I had my daughter learn to spell and read all the 1 syllable words (she didn't have to spell all of them, she just had to be able to spell enough of them to demonstrate that she could spell the rest. I had her spell a few of each type in each table.) I had her read all of the 2 syllable words and spell a few. I had her read most of the 3 syllable words, but didn't require her to spell any. For the 3 and 4 syllable words, I did not have her do the ones that were way outside the vocabulary of a 5 year old. We did maybe 60% of the 3 syllable words, 40% of the 4 syllable words, and 10 to 20% of the 5 syllable words. This year, we're learning rules from Phonics Pathways, then we'll work through Webster's Speller again, adding in a few more words from each table. I often teach the definition of a word she doesn't know. When she asks, I always tell her the definition and use it in a sentence. Some of the words are so archaic I've never heard of them before, and I read extensively and know a lot of archaic words!

[Amber in AUS]

We started learning to read when DD was just turned 4. She really wanted to read by herself and already knew all her letters. I think she is one of those people who needed/wanted a whole language approach. She wanted to read the word not learn the sounds. It took us about 3 to 4 months to work thru the first 20 or so lessons in 100EZ. They give the letter sounds with phonetic symbols.

Prior to this i had used a different program which teaches every blend combination in isolataion and uses phonetic symbols too and she would just glaze over. ma, ma, ma looks exactly the same but says 3 different things. I think that was just way to much for someone who wants to read the word not say the sounds. It was too abstract for her. Not everyone would find this a problem, i guess a lot depends on the age of the child and their learning style.

I persevered with 100EZ because i realise how important phonics is. Once she could start reading some 3 letter words after learning individual sounds not blends she took off. She had that drive for more because she could see she was achieving what she wanted, to read words. We are now 3/4 of the way thru 100EZ and she isn't sounding, only new words, the rest she reads and quite fluidly, not stop start.

So i guess i should have been more clear before. Teaching blended sounds was abstract but not the sounds of the letters. Now she is reading however i can point out that 2 letters make a certain sound in the word she is reading and she gets it. We read thru the 1st list in Websters last week, bag, hag, rag etc. She fully understood the ag sound but i am not about to intro the ag sound all by itself without showing it to her in a word that she can read or sound out. She sees that they rhyme and she gets the pattern. The first program that i was using taught ag as a sound before ever showing it to the child in a word.

Websters also has all the sounds listed prior to the word lists. I skipped over that part for now. It may be something i look at in the future. Right now i am happy for her to read thru the word lists and finish 100EZ.

By the way even tho we found 100EZ hard going at the start i think it is a great program and plan to use it again with DS and DD2. Like i said before i think DD wanted whole language approach which she wasn't going to get which is what made it a little tough to begin.

[sarahv]

I totally see what you are saying, Amber. My son really likes to read the words, and when I have him read a blend, he immediately says the word that he thinks it sounds like. Since Phonics Pathways encourages this, I let him be creative. Don Potter had some really interesting things to say about whole word reading that opened my eyes to how kids who were taught phonics end up reading whole word. Thats why I am more convinced than ever that a really good spelling book is so necessary! The decoding is the easy part of language, encoding is the hard part!

Thank you for your posts! It is really great to hear real to life, everyday experiences.

Elizabeth, your post answered all of my questions. I have alot more confidence now in planning the implementation of Websters. I am really excited about this! Thank you for your input! And great job with your website, it has been so very helpful.

[Amber in AUS]

I completely agree encoding is the hard part. I am a great reader and terrible speller, always have been. I am sure to learn heaps thru teaching my dc. I want them to be good at both.

I am going back to Don Potter to read about the whole word thing, i didn't read it before.

[sarahv]

Actually, Amber, I think I saw it in one of his you tube videos. And I will admit to maybe putting a connection in my mind that he may not have necessarily spelled out in so many words. He was talking about how kids see words by shape, (like big, bag, bug all have the same shape) and my mind understood that when kids read the wrong vowel, it's not just that they are not being careful to read the word properly, they are actually whole-word reading. I think he talked about it in his you tube video about blend phonics, maybe?

My son falls into this category, I think. He is very visual, as is my dh and my dh's brothers. They tend to read whole word, even though they were all taught the same phonics program as myself. I think it's just a bad habit that kids with good memories can get into. I'm not too concerned about it, but being aware of it is good because it will make me be more vigilant about the spelling program.