Question: Given those 'odd ball irregular words' that children are suppose to learn - said, where, were, through, though....how do they learn those except by visually memorizing - 'said'...they could sound out the s and d but the ai will make no sense at the Kinder level....so don't they have to simply memorize visually in these cases?
Okay, this is probably a lot more than you bargained for! If anyone actually reads these comments I am sure someone will disagree with me and that is fine. Anyone is welcome to give feedback and input to your question. First, have you watched Part 2 in this series on Orthographic Mapping? If not, watch it when you have a chance and pay special attention to what David Kilpatrick refers to as "Word Study". He says it is "Unconsciously or consciously making connections between the phonemes in oral words and letters to written words". Here is where I would state that is most definitely not only represented by the letter . Kindergartners are not too young to know this. So rather than teach that language is unpredictable, be honest. We have 26 letters but anywhere from 42-44 sounds represented by those letters. The letter seems to say the short sound or "schwa" more often than short as in . He points out in other chapters that the phonic approach alone won't cut it. A linguistic approach must be added. There are a variety of opinions about what kinders should be doing (or not) that is developmentally appropriate, but let’s just assume as a teacher you must introduce these “sight words” aka "irregular" words by visually memorizing them. This type of instruction goes against everything we know about orthographic mapping. We know we don't store words visually. So focusing on using phonemic skills I would first introduce these words orally, have kids break apart the phonemes heard (3) in the word -->/sed/ BEFORE showing them the correct spelling. This is an opportunity to teach that a phoneme can be represented by one grapheme or more than one. It’s just the truth. Don’t underestimate young ones. Then I would write each letter(s) as they say each sound. /s/ write , /e/, write , /d/, write . Ask them to hypothesize why it might be spelled this way. What other words have similar meanings ( is present tense and is past tense). It is a chance to talk about how "young" English is and how it came from a variety of languages. Etymonline.com is an excellent source to investigate where words come from and see why they are spelled the way they are. I would create a phoneme/grapheme chart. Write each alphabetic letter and their basic, expected or simple taught sound ( says /ǎ/. But when they hear the word they would then need to add the /ŭ/ under the letter on the chart. If we teach kids that the first 26 sounds they learn with the 26 alphabetic letters as the most important, we are doing them a disservice. Yes, they must start somewhere, but it is not true to say vowels only say their assigned short and long sounds. Sticking with focusing on phonemic skills first, here is another example I would use: For these sight words: a, an, any, many. I would say (not show) several combinations like this emphasizing : a pan, a spot, a dog. Then I’d say, overemphasizing the word : an ox, an otter, an apple. Ask kids if they hear a difference. Ask how many of each object you're referring to (just 1). and refer to one thing. Do they hear something different? They should hear you are saying just before some words, and before the others. Why? If they all mean just one, can they hear a clue as to why? Going beyond the phonology I would then see if they can guess (hypothesize) why I say vs . This can be in partners or small groups. They may come up with things like if you are saying an animal you say and before a fruit . Some others will point out, "But what about ?" disproving a hypothesis. This process of inquiry engages kids even at kinder, and when engaged in critical thinking vs just being told the answer ( before base words starting with a consonant and before base words that start with a vowel) they will remember far easier and better. They will start to notice shared spelling patterns are based on meaning, not sound. Continuing with this, say the word , making sure to only present the word verbally because we are focusing on auditory tasks. Ask how many sounds. Break each sound out. There are four. What does it mean? More than one. How might it be spelled? It sounds like . Eventually, write it. What do they notice? Why is the there when we hear ? Because it is related to , , , . Because they are related in meaning, they share spelling. When words are in a "meaning" or morphological family, even if they are pronounced differently, they share spelling to indicate the relationship of meaning. They all refer to quantity. Using a resource like www.etymonline.com is very helpful for finding the origins of words and how they are related to other words. Why is there is in ? Because it's related to , , ...all which have a shared meaning but different pronunciations. The in sign indicates it is related to the morphological word families. This is just a small sampling and this goes well beyond just phonology and orthographic mapping. But what I would say in summary is this; because we know we do not store words visually, to orthographically map "irregular" words it is the same process as phonetically "regular" words; introduce orally, figure out the letter-sound correspondences and then map by unitizing. Again, if you haven't watched Part 2, I recommend watching it to further understand how we move from decoding to unitizing parts to storing as whole words in the brain. Have you heard of structured word inquiry (SWI)? It is very much like the "Word Study" or linguistic focused approach Kilpatrick discusses in his book. If you search here on RUclips for Pete Bowers, you'll see how he can successfully use inquiry-based instruction effectively with kids as young as kindergarten. Here is a video about teaching "irregular" words. ruclips.net/video/SDWo2qSipn4/видео.html That said, we want to keep focused on phonemic skills development so we need to start with oral words which you won't necessarily see a focus on with SWI--at least in the classes I've taken. Whenever possible, I prefer to use the SWI Approach to teach "irregular" sight words. The whole premise of "irregularity" is not subscribed to in SWI. But when I introduce these words, I always start by introducing these words without the printed words but just the sounds like the examples I gave above. Even if kids have seen these words before. There are other approaches that focus on using Kilpatrick's ideas of word study to help with "irregular" spellings such as this website: www.reallygreatreading.com and what they refer to as "Heart Word Magic"-although it isn't focused on understanding meaning (morphology), it does break apart words by sounds and teaches kids to unitize the parts of "irregular" words that don't seem to make sense like the in . Main point: always start with the sound and auditory components of language.
@@msjanestutoringdyslexia Have you found much success with the SWI approach in kids with challenging cognitive profiles or more language based disorders? Why don't you extend the SWI approach into other areas beyond irregular words? I'm currently trying to investigate the overlap between orthographic mapping and more linguistic based approaches like SWI, so this is an interesting comment.
Frank Vazquez good question...I do not incorporate enough SWI to determine this. I use SWI mostly when learning non-phonetic sight words. I am not skilled enough in SWI at this point to feel comfortable using that approach primarily.
I have Kilpatrick's book, but I have not begun to read it. I have only heard good things in regard to this type of learning and skills. Thank you for piquing my interest!
It's so nice to see a familiar face/name on here Cynthia! I thought I replied to you ages ago, but it didn't show up! Thanks for your supportive comments!
Thanks Ms. Mora, I am working on part 2 and hoping to get it published in the next month or so. Learning animation and expressing complicated subject matter are like being hit on both sides of the head at once!
Thank you Ms. Lawrence! I am working on part 2, and it is proving a beast! Animation is not easy! Add in the complicated subject matter and there are days I think I will never get it right. Thanks for your supportive comment!
Portia Lawrence Part 2 is published! Subscribe if you haven’t and please give a thumbs up and share, share, share! Everyone needs to understand the science of reading acquisition!
Thank you for this. I appreciate your close attention to David Kilpatrick's contribution to our understanding. I shall be sending this clip out to teachers.
Sue McMillan I have posted Part 2 on my channel. I hope you find time to watch and subscribe and share so we can encourage others to understand the science of reading and teach all kids the way they need to learn.
This is so well done! You have such a pleasant, soothing voice. As a substitute teacher of almost 16 years, I've seen lots of reading curriculums/ techniques. I'm happy to report that some classes I've been in do phonemic awareness work with auditory exercises.
Thanks Janna! I get freaked out if I focus on my voice. That was another huge learning curve; going from regular voiceovers using iMovie or the animation software to setting up garage band to try and make my voice sound a little smoother. Still not professional at all but that’s not my goal.
Wow! Thank you for taking very complex information and presenting it so well. This is exactly what I want the teachers I work with to know. Excellent job!
lpbrooklyn thanks! I’ve been working on Part 2 off and on for three months. My goal is January. It’s complicated material and the animation learning curve is steep! Thanks for the supportive comment.
This was great, Ms. Jane! I'm in my practicum year of Orton-Gillingham training, Associate level, and this addressed what I am working on with one of my students. I have plenty of time to watch videos these days, so I"ll save Part 1 for tomorrow!
So I love this and want to share with parents I work with but the length is going to put them off. Next time you are super bored ;) if you could make a 3 minute version that would be super super good for getting your message out.
Hi! I wish there was a way to condense this information, but science is rarely brief. My intended/expected audience is primarily educators and those who are interested in the science. I know there are several other videos out there on OM, but many are someone presenting, or demonstrations of OM skill building activities. So, I have no intention of making it any shorter and this is only part one of two. Part two is even longer, and I cut several things out that were hard to cut because it further explains how our eyes move across a page with jumps and stops. The best thing for parents is to get Dr. Kilpatrick's book and read the information. It is very complex and so making these animations was two fold; first, it helped me to process and understand the science of reading acquisition and second, for anyone who is visual like myself, it can reinforce the research presented in Kilpatrick's book.
That is a very complicated question. I used a work around. I could not find an animation program that had alphabetic characters, so I created each letter myself using a lengthy process and each time the letter changes expression, it is a different image I created. I am learning animation as I go and by no means am I experienced. Older videos make me cringe, but I remind myself my goal is not professional animation, my goal is being a resource and providing information about teaching, advocating, etc. Regarding the synchronization of the mouth, that is too long to explain and is basically a work around. If you go to Vyond, and search how to make an "asset speak", they have an article that demonstrates a work around for doing this.
@@msjanestutoringdyslexia thanks for the detailed reply. I will have to check out Vyond Studio some time. I like the talking avatars like you created. I subscribed and look forward to more SofR content.
Question: Given those 'odd ball irregular words' that children are suppose to learn - said, where, were, through, though....how do they learn those except by visually memorizing - 'said'...they could sound out the s and d but the ai will make no sense at the Kinder level....so don't they have to simply memorize visually in these cases?
Great question! I want to craft a decent response so I’ll get back to you when I am at home.
Okay, this is probably a lot more than you bargained for! If anyone actually reads these comments I am sure someone will disagree with me and that is fine. Anyone is welcome to give feedback and input to your question. First, have you watched Part 2 in this series on Orthographic Mapping? If not, watch it when you have a chance and pay special attention to what David Kilpatrick refers to as "Word Study". He says it is "Unconsciously or consciously making connections between the phonemes in oral words and letters to written words". Here is where I would state that is most definitely not only represented by the letter . Kindergartners are not too young to know this. So rather than teach that language is unpredictable, be honest. We have 26 letters but anywhere from 42-44 sounds represented by those letters. The letter seems to say the short sound or "schwa" more often than short as in . He points out in other chapters that the phonic approach alone won't cut it. A linguistic approach must be added.
There are a variety of opinions about what kinders should be doing (or not) that is developmentally appropriate, but let’s just assume as a teacher you must introduce these “sight words” aka "irregular" words by visually memorizing them. This type of instruction goes against everything we know about orthographic mapping. We know we don't store words visually.
So focusing on using phonemic skills I would first introduce these words orally, have kids break apart the phonemes heard (3) in the word -->/sed/ BEFORE showing them the correct spelling. This is an opportunity to teach that a phoneme can be represented by one grapheme or more than one. It’s just the truth. Don’t underestimate young ones. Then I would write each letter(s) as they say each sound. /s/ write , /e/, write , /d/, write . Ask them to hypothesize why it might be spelled this way. What other words have similar meanings ( is present tense and is past tense). It is a chance to talk about how "young" English is and how it came from a variety of languages. Etymonline.com is an excellent source to investigate where words come from and see why they are spelled the way they are.
I would create a phoneme/grapheme chart. Write each alphabetic letter and their basic, expected or simple taught sound ( says /ǎ/. But when they hear the word they would then need to add the /ŭ/ under the letter on the chart. If we teach kids that the first 26 sounds they learn with the 26 alphabetic letters as the most important, we are doing them a disservice. Yes, they must start somewhere, but it is not true to say vowels only say their assigned short and long sounds.
Sticking with focusing on phonemic skills first, here is another example I would use:
For these sight words: a, an, any, many.
I would say (not show) several combinations like this emphasizing : a pan, a spot, a dog. Then I’d say, overemphasizing the word : an ox, an otter, an apple. Ask kids if they hear a difference. Ask how many of each object you're referring to (just 1). and refer to one thing. Do they hear something different? They should hear you are saying just before some words, and before the others. Why? If they all mean just one, can they hear a clue as to why? Going beyond the phonology I would then see if they can guess (hypothesize) why I say vs . This can be in partners or small groups. They may come up with things like if you are saying an animal you say and before a fruit . Some others will point out, "But what about ?" disproving a hypothesis. This process of inquiry engages kids even at kinder, and when engaged in critical thinking vs just being told the answer ( before base words starting with a consonant and before base words that start with a vowel) they will remember far easier and better. They will start to notice shared spelling patterns are based on meaning, not sound. Continuing with this, say the word , making sure to only present the word verbally because we are focusing on auditory tasks. Ask how many sounds. Break each sound out. There are four. What does it mean? More than one. How might it be spelled? It sounds like . Eventually, write it. What do they notice? Why is the there when we hear ? Because it is related to , , , . Because they are related in meaning, they share spelling. When words are in a "meaning" or morphological family, even if they are pronounced differently, they share spelling to indicate the relationship of meaning. They all refer to quantity. Using a resource like www.etymonline.com is very helpful for finding the origins of words and how they are related to other words. Why is there is in ? Because it's related to , , ...all which have a shared meaning but different pronunciations. The in sign indicates it is related to the morphological word families.
This is just a small sampling and this goes well beyond just phonology and orthographic mapping. But what I would say in summary is this; because we know we do not store words visually, to orthographically map "irregular" words it is the same process as phonetically "regular" words; introduce orally, figure out the letter-sound correspondences and then map by unitizing. Again, if you haven't watched Part 2, I recommend watching it to further understand how we move from decoding to unitizing parts to storing as whole words in the brain.
Have you heard of structured word inquiry (SWI)? It is very much like the "Word Study" or linguistic focused approach Kilpatrick discusses in his book. If you search here on RUclips for Pete Bowers, you'll see how he can successfully use inquiry-based instruction effectively with kids as young as kindergarten. Here is a video about teaching "irregular" words. ruclips.net/video/SDWo2qSipn4/видео.html
That said, we want to keep focused on phonemic skills development so we need to start with oral words which you won't necessarily see a focus on with SWI--at least in the classes I've taken. Whenever possible, I prefer to use the SWI Approach to teach "irregular" sight words. The whole premise of "irregularity" is not subscribed to in SWI. But when I introduce these words, I always start by introducing these words without the printed words but just the sounds like the examples I gave above. Even if kids have seen these words before.
There are other approaches that focus on using Kilpatrick's ideas of word study to help with "irregular" spellings such as this website: www.reallygreatreading.com and what they refer to as "Heart Word Magic"-although it isn't focused on understanding meaning (morphology), it does break apart words by sounds and teaches kids to unitize the parts of "irregular" words that don't seem to make sense like the in .
Main point: always start with the sound and auditory components of language.
@@msjanestutoringdyslexia Have you found much success with the SWI approach in kids with challenging cognitive profiles or more language based disorders? Why don't you extend the SWI approach into other areas beyond irregular words? I'm currently trying to investigate the overlap between orthographic mapping and more linguistic based approaches like SWI, so this is an interesting comment.
Frank Vazquez good question...I do not incorporate enough SWI to determine this. I use SWI mostly when learning non-phonetic sight words. I am not skilled enough in SWI at this point to feel comfortable using that approach primarily.
@@msjanestutoringdyslexia Oh my! Thank you very much! Very well explained!
I have Kilpatrick's book, but I have not begun to read it. I have only heard good things in regard to this type of learning and skills. Thank you for piquing my interest!
It's so nice to see a familiar face/name on here Cynthia! I thought I replied to you ages ago, but it didn't show up! Thanks for your supportive comments!
Cynthia Dapello have yo had a chance to read it yet? Part 2 is now published.
Awesome! Can't wait for Part II!
Thanks Ms. Mora, I am working on part 2 and hoping to get it published in the next month or so. Learning animation and expressing complicated subject matter are like being hit on both sides of the head at once!
Emily Mora Part 2 is published!
Super excited for part 2! Excellent explanation
Thank you Ms. Lawrence! I am working on part 2, and it is proving a beast! Animation is not easy! Add in the complicated subject matter and there are days I think I will never get it right. Thanks for your supportive comment!
Portia Lawrence Part 2 is published! Subscribe if you haven’t and please give a thumbs up and share, share, share! Everyone needs to understand the science of reading acquisition!
Thank you for this. I appreciate your close attention to David Kilpatrick's contribution to our understanding. I shall be sending this clip out to teachers.
Ms. McMillan, thank you for the comment and for sharing this information with teachers! That is the goal!
Sue McMillan I have posted Part 2 on my channel. I hope you find time to watch and subscribe and share so we can encourage others to understand the science of reading and teach all kids the way they need to learn.
This makes perfect sense. Good job!
This is so well done! You have such a pleasant, soothing voice. As a substitute teacher of almost 16 years, I've seen lots of reading curriculums/ techniques. I'm happy to report that some classes I've been in do phonemic awareness work with auditory exercises.
Thanks Janna! I get freaked out if I focus on my voice. That was another huge learning curve; going from regular voiceovers using iMovie or the animation software to setting up garage band to try and make my voice sound a little smoother. Still not professional at all but that’s not my goal.
Wow, great video. Very creative too.
Wow! Thank you for taking very complex information and presenting it so well. This is exactly what I want the teachers I work with to know. Excellent job!
Glad it was helpful!
Brilliant!! Thank you so much for creating this!
Thank you for the support!
Reading Simplified Part 2 is now published! Feel free to share and subscribe! It helps me track the reach of the message I am so passionate about.
This is great. I hope you do more!
lpbrooklyn thanks! I’ve been working on Part 2 off and on for three months. My goal is January. It’s complicated material and the animation learning curve is steep! Thanks for the supportive comment.
lpbrooklyn Part 2 is now published!
This was great, Ms. Jane! I'm in my practicum year of Orton-Gillingham training, Associate level, and this addressed what I am working on with one of my students. I have plenty of time to watch videos these days, so I"ll save Part 1 for tomorrow!
I meant Part 2.
Wonderful! Thanks for taking the time!
Hi, Thank you for getting this information to my attention! I think it's the missing link I've been looking for! Gretchen
Glad this was helpful!
So I love this and want to share with parents I work with but the length is going to put them off. Next time you are super bored ;) if you could make a 3 minute version that would be super super good for getting your message out.
Hi! I wish there was a way to condense this information, but science is rarely brief. My intended/expected audience is primarily educators and those who are interested in the science. I know there are several other videos out there on OM, but many are someone presenting, or demonstrations of OM skill building activities.
So, I have no intention of making it any shorter and this is only part one of two. Part two is even longer, and I cut several things out that were hard to cut because it further explains how our eyes move across a page with jumps and stops. The best thing for parents is to get Dr. Kilpatrick's book and read the information. It is very complex and so making these animations was two fold; first, it helped me to process and understand the science of reading acquisition and second, for anyone who is visual like myself, it can reinforce the research presented in Kilpatrick's book.
this was great, how did you make your talking animated avatar??
That is a very complicated question. I used a work around. I could not find an animation program that had alphabetic characters, so I created each letter myself using a lengthy process and each time the letter changes expression, it is a different image I created. I am learning animation as I go and by no means am I experienced. Older videos make me cringe, but I remind myself my goal is not professional animation, my goal is being a resource and providing information about teaching, advocating, etc.
Regarding the synchronization of the mouth, that is too long to explain and is basically a work around. If you go to Vyond, and search how to make an "asset speak", they have an article that demonstrates a work around for doing this.
@@msjanestutoringdyslexia thanks for the detailed reply. I will have to check out Vyond Studio some time. I like the talking avatars like you created. I subscribed and look forward to more SofR content.