A lot of research continues into reading and writing because they are so important to society. It seems the same arguments turn up again and again.
Professor Max Coltheart of Macquarie University NSW Australia has done in depth research on the reading process.
I am presenting here a summary of his research findings from an interview he did on ABC Radio in Australia.
Dr Coltheart has read 300 and 400 year old books on how reading was taught that long ago. The earliest book he read was written by a man called Mulcuster in 1590.
There were chapters in this book about the whole word and phonic methods of teaching.
The book seemed very modern, even though it was written 400 years ago.
The same argument as today was that the whole word reading didn’t teach people to generalise to new words they hadn’t seen before.
The problem about teaching phonics seen then as now was that it was meaningless drivel that’s hard for children to understand.
In schools today the whole language approach which teaches reading and writing as natural processes like learning to speak and understand speech is the philosophy followed.
The whole language approach is different from the whole word method.
It is assumed that just as most children learn to speak naturally with little trouble they’ll pick up reading and spelling too quite naturally, without systematic instruction because it’s just part of language.
There’s a lot of hostility to breaking language up into whole words or into letter-sound relationships, because that’s seen as artificial and an impediment to the natural acquisition of reading and writing.
The truth is, spoken language is natural and biologically easily acquired, but written language isn’t.
Reading and writing are completely artificial, unnatural processes that only a minority of the human race today acquire.
There are many cultures where there’s no reading and writing, because there’s no writing system.
An 8 year old child’s spoken vocabulary probably contains tens of thousand of words and his sight vocabulary 100 to 200 words.
So what is absolutely critical in learning to read is to be able to sound out words that you are looking at and never seen before.
Children who are not taught to sound out words are missing a fundamental reading strategy.
A fluent reader does not sound out all the time.
What eventually happens for the reader who can sound out words is that a sight vocabulary is built up where many words are recognized in print on sight.
Professor Coltheart states that whole word recognition and letter sound knowledge are both essentials for normal learning to read.
Around the middle 1960’s it was recognized how important it is for young children to understand that words can be broken up into individual sounds.
If that is not known a person will not relate letters to individual sounds. Researchers in kindergartens noticed that some children could not break simple words such as c-a-t into single sounds.
They were also unable to play the game ‘I Spy’ (I Spy something beginning with C or any letter of the alphabet).
Two years later these children had reading problems. In the first couple of years of learning to read the focus is on building up a very small stable sight vocabulary.
These children didn’t have problems in the first two years of learning to read but it was around 7 when they started to fall behind. It is at that time that using sounding out to try and expand vocabulary escalates.
Research indicates that there is a genetic contribution to the problem some children have with recognizing phonemes (sounds). This does not mean they will remain non readers but they will need help.
Professor Coltheart emphasises that to become a fluent reader the two skills that are the building blocks of reading are:
- Knowing about letters and sounds and sounding out.
- Ability to build up a sight vocabulary
This is an analytical way of looking at learning to read.
Learning to read is acquiring a set of cognitive (mental) skills.
It can be boring at times and hard work and many children refuse to do the groundwork. Most people need systematic training as early as possible.
I will let Max Coltheart speak:
“… you can teach children to break “cat” up into three sounds in kindergarten, and that’s going to help them learn to read.”
” there’s certainly a two-way street between learning to read and knowing about the structure of language.”
“(reading) isn’t a biological skill. We don’t need practice to learn to understand speech, or to learn to walk, or anything biological like that. But we do need practice in reading because it’s an artificial skill, no more natural than learning to play chess or learning to play golf. “
“But there’s not a critical period for learning to read because it’s not a biological phenomenon. And so whether a person is six or sixty, you can diagnose the kind of reading problem and the same kind of treatment method is appropriate whether they be six or sixty.”
“Of course the problem with referring to a child as having a learning difficulty suggests that they’re having difficulty learning anything, but in fact it’s just reading they’re having difficulty with. This doesn’t mean the child’s problem is anything to do with brain damage, that’s certainly not true. What it means is that there’s a certain structure that the reading system needs to have …………………………….. in the case of children, they have trouble learning particular components of that structure. “
If you or a child you know has a reading problem first check whether two fundamental skills are in place:
1. Knowing about letters and sounds and sounding out.
2. Ability to build up a sight vocabulary.
If you have any concerns seek advice as quickly as possible. Don’t hope your child will grow out of it.
Many children do not.