When you were a kid did you learn the alphabet as you know it now, or phonetically? And if you have kiddies, which way do they learn it?
I ask because my wife stumbled across a thread on uk-yankee.com where American mothers are horrified to learn that their kids (in UK schools) are learning the phonetic alphabet. So they've been taught that the alphabet goes uh,buh,cuh,duh instead of ay,bee,cee,dee, etc. My wife, and everyone else I've asked today and yesterday, had never heard of phoetic learning. I had, but honestly cannot remember how I learned it - I suspect being born with a hearing problem that I learned an entirely different way. But I must say that I have no idea why a kid would learn it that way - won't they just have to learn the alphabet again?
Anyway, any thoughts would be appreciated if only to reassure my wife this isn't as weird as she thinks.
Back in the dark ages I learnt ABC at home and in my infants school, then we moved and I changed schools and found all my new classmates were learning phonics. I found that harder to do! Having said that I was a top reader and already knew the sounds of the letters. I don't see the point of learning the alphabet phonetically - it's good enough to learn the names of the letters and then to learn what sounds each letter can make.
The wierdest thing was "ita" the Initial teaching Alphabet.
On a similar theme, I always find it odd that kiddies here learn to write in capital letters before lower case ???
I'm waiting for the first person (adult) to spell out their name, street name or city in the phonetic alphabet. If you did that now you'd get a punch in the face for being sarcastic.
I can't stand it when people write words and use capital letters in the middle - specially f's and r's. Drives me nuts!
The wierdest thing was "ita" the Initial teaching Alphabet.
Yes, this was very confusing. Both my kids could read before they started primary school in England but they were taught again by their school with the ITA method. My daughter was fine and made the transition back again ok but even now my son (who is super inteligent) still has problems with spelling and I am sure it was caused by this teaching method.
I do remember, funnily enough, we learned that each letter had a name and a sound that was different. Once we were happy with that, they complicated it by telling us that some times it sounds like it's name, particularly with an "e" at the end.
Mat and mate.
Cel, high IQ doesn't necessarily make a good speller. High IQ people are generally bad at routine, clerical, tasks, they can't be bothered, and for some people, spelling is in that category.
High IQ people are generally bad at routine, clerical, tasks
What rot.
On a similar theme, I always find it odd that kiddies here learn to write in capital letters before lower case :???:
Only my youngest has been taught that way, but in 1st grade he is making a surprisingly smooth transition to using the correct case. Now if we could do the same with his spelling we'd be fine!
londonsquare: High IQ has little to do with spelling or organisational skills and the lack or presence thereof. It has more to do with personality and left-brain / right-brain differences.
I could quote many examples of people with high IQs who either illustrate or disprove your point. Generalisations can leave you on dodgy ground.
Oh and as an aside, I wish they'd stop using that twit Tarek on "The Apprentice" as an example of a Mensa member!!!!
I was taught the alphabet phonetically in England and then moved to Hong Kong for my education where the alphabet was not taught again.
Its funny, because I still spell words phonetically in my head, and if anybody asks me to spell something I write it down for them because I am sure they would laugh out loud if they heard me.
High IQ people are generally bad at routine, clerical, tasks
What rot.
Not at all. Two of my three were in gifted and the other just missed. They all did well on the Pennsylvania's standardized tests except for the clerical task parts. When we asked if they needed more time learning the clerical work, we were told to not worry because the results were typical. We checked with other parents and found that their results were in agreement.
My youngest is now 29, so I don't know if the testing that's done now, checks in the same way, or even checks the same things.
High IQ people are generally bad at routine, clerical, tasks
What rot.
Not at all. Two of my three were in gifted and the other just missed. They all did well on the Pennsylvania's standardized tests except for the clerical task parts. When we asked if they needed more time learning the clerical work, we were told to not worry because the results were typical. We checked with other parents and found that their results were in agreement.
My youngest is now 29, so I don't know if the testing that's done now, checks in the same way, or even checks the same things.
Not exactly a sound basis for a stereotype of humankind. Trust me, I'm a doctor. In this field, as it happens.
In fact, high IQ -as demonstrated by high scores in the test that Mensa etc. use- is related to skill in routine, clerical-style tasks like the solutions of multiple equations and anagrams.
I am beginning to suspect that you are referring to physical "clerical" tasks like filing, which of course have nothing to do with IQ per se, regardless of what PA thinks. Anyone with an IQ not significantly below the norm can file. Not everyone is willing to alot the mental effort. Big difference, nothing to do with ability or intelligence.
and back on topic.....
Phonetics based systems work brilliantly, IME. We used
Letterland to teach our children to read. It is so easy. They get it so quickly. Aa is not just "ah" but "Annie Apple". All the letters have characters, and there are stories about how the characters interact which explain how certain letter combinations work. For example: Sammy Snake hisses so loudly that when he comes near Hairy Hat Man, Hairy Hat man says "sh". You only ever need explain it once.
We also taught them the names of the letters and that the names also gave a hint as to the sounds.
Schools here are changing to phonetic teaching.
Also, schools in my district teach lower case writing first, but I guess this must be a new thing, because all the children who can write their name when they come to school write in capitals. The thing is, straight lines are easier than curves, so upper case is easier to write. If your aim is legible writing , then upper case is the way to go. But if your aim is literacy as a whole, you need to use lower case because that is easier to read and if children can read their own writing, they can link reading with their desire to express themselves and hey......we're off!
The skill of educating everybody (not just the naturally curious) is still on the steep part of it's learning curve, so methods are changing rapidly. It is natural for people to rebel against things that are different from when they were at school -after all, change implies that their education was imperfect. But change is good. Surely we all have some pretty crappy school memories that cannot be replicated in the current system. Like doing gym in our knickers only if we forgot our uniform. We trusted the system to change that, why not trust them with this?
Welsh is my first language, and it's a phonetic language, so I had no problems on that one. I do however have recollections of finding English a very strange language since many of the letters are actually not at all phonetic (eehh, bee, cee, etc..). I also remeber not seeing any logic at all in words which had similar spelling but totally different pronunciation (e.g., bough, cough), something I still don't actually understand.
Having to be totally bilingual actually helped me on my way to learning more languages and made the process easier for me.
I do agree with monster - capital letters are far easier for children to learn. and, yes, indeed, we do need to accept changes in the way our children are educated (also having memories of doing gym in my knickers!!).