作者：Misty Adoniou
自然拼读并不适合所有人。
自然拼读，或者说通过语音来学习阅读、写作和拼写常常被追捧为通往读写之路的金色捷径。
英格兰与澳大利亚的教材重申对自然地拼读的重视，而企业家与出版商则紧随其后开发出自然拼读教程与资源以填补市场空白。
但是在你购买他们的自然拼读课程软件或应用前，最好先考虑下这七件事：
1.英语并不是一种表音文字
对于想要推销他们的自然拼读教程的人来说，这个事实可能会给他们带来不便，但是英语并不是一种表音文字，从来都不是。
1500年前，原属于日耳曼语族的英语被带到现在的大不列颠群岛上。随后到来的说拉丁语的传教士说教当地的异教徒们皈依基督教的同时，也开始用拉丁语字母来记载当地的语言。
对于拉丁语的口语来说，拉丁字母是很适用的，但是对于古英语来说则不然。
很多古英语中的发音在拉丁语的发音体系中是不存在的，所以并没有合适的拉丁语字母来匹配它们。也有一些拉丁语中存在的语音，在古英语中是不存在的，就这样，很多拉丁语字母也渐渐消失了。
一些字母被赋予了新的功能，也产生了一些新的字母。然而字母与发音之间的匹配是凌乱的，1500年来语言的发展仅仅让拼与读之间的差距拉的更大。
因此，英语是一种字母文字，却不是一种表音文字。在英语中，仅有12%的单词遵循简单的拼读规则。为了这仅有的12%的数据，你想要设置多少拼读课程，投入多少预算?
2. 语音资料都该是免费的
英语这种语言的发音与字母是通往知识的途径，它完全应该是开放性的。用不着被人唬着去买什么语音教程。
如果你的学校没有教过你发音与字母之间的关系，那是你的学校的问题。但是即使是你的学校不教，你也很容易Google到或者从字典里查到。
3.会发音不等于能阅读
我知道法语的全部发音规则，我读法语读的很像那么回事—尽管听上去像个糊涂大侦探。但是我完全无法理解我读的是什么，这称不上是什么阅读。
高小生和中学生们之所以学不好读写不是因为他们不知道怎么发音，他们的问题在于不能理解。
观察下他们是怎样尝试去拼写和阅读的就很容易发现-他们知道该怎么发音，甚至他们有些过于依赖发音了。让他们学习自然拼读课程无疑是多此一举。
4.那些政客不懂教育
在英格兰和澳大利亚，这样的教育变革是由前教育部长Gove and Pyne发起的，政治家们或许个人成就卓越，但是他们不是教育家，也不是教育研究者。
教育变革不该受个人决策或者政治的影响。
5. 自然拼读课程设置有问题
过分偏狭的专注于发音和字母组合规律会阻碍我们去关注对于学习读写拼来说更为重要的信息。有时候这些教程提供的材料干脆就是错的。
一本很受欢迎的拼读练习本是这样解释单词technician的。
“Technician是一个很特别的词汇，虽然它以发音shun结尾，但是它其实属于cian词族。
把“cian”看作是一个词族在语言学上来说是不准确的，而且也没有讲明白单词“technician”的真正意义。
“ian”是以“ic”为结尾的单词的后缀，并使原意“做什么什么”成为“做什么什么的人”。所以“技术”（technic）一词加上ian后成为“技师”(technical)，“魔术”(magic) 一词加上ian后成为“魔术师”(magician)，“电的”(electric) 一词加上ian后成为变成“电工”(electrician).”
这样的知识有助于学习拼读技巧，提升词汇量并加深理解。告诉孩子们“cian”发音为“shun” 并不会有这样的效果。
6. 涂色不能帮孩子认字
在字母J上面贴满褶皱小纸球并不是学拼读的好方法。在作业纸上把用字母B开头的图案都涂上颜色也不是--尤其是当你觉得你涂的不是珠子（beads）而是项链（necklace），不是瓶子（bottle）而是罐子（jar）的时候。
孩子们忙忙碌碌，但并没有学到什么。
7. 提升读写能力从来没什么捷径
学习阅读，写作与拼写是一项综合能力。而对于大脑来说，读写与说话是两种完全不同的功能。
每个人都该去学习读写，而因为我们的大脑，基因和环境是截然不同的，我们的大脑学习读写的方法也各个不同。
如果有一条捷径能解决我们思维方式的多样化问题，那几百年前大批量印刷成为现实时我们就该已经把所有的问题都解决了。
当然，也有一定比例的学生因为自然拼读而取得了很大的进步-这篇文章下面的评论里一定会有一些这样的例子-但是，不能因自然拼读而受益的比例更大。
自然拼读对于那些有特定需求的学生来说是有用的，但是这些解决细枝末节的细节问题的方法并不适用于所有的学生。
用什么方法来替代？
在购买拼读软件或应用之前想一想你的初衷，你是想用它来解决什么问题来着？
如果你的学生的书写完全是按照拼读来的，或者不能读拼读不规则的单词，那自然拼读就不是解决这些问题的合适方案。
如果是阅读理解或者写作水平的问题，那该在图书与师资上多做投资。买一些高质量的文学书籍以及把钱花在精进专业水平上去。
作者简介：
Misty Adoniou,
堪培拉大学高级语言，文学与英语教学讲师。
文章来源：
“本译文所涉翻译行为已取得著作权人许可，本译文所涉法律后果均由本人承担。本人亦同意简书平台在接获有关著作权人的通知后，删除文章。”
“本译文仅供个人研习、欣赏语言之用，谢绝任何转载及用于任何商业用途。本译文所涉法律后果均由本人承担。本人同意简书平台在接获有关著作权人的通知后，删除文章。”
Seven things to consider before you buy into phonics programs
Author Misty Adoniou
Phonics programs are not helpful for all learners.
Phonics, or teaching reading, writing and spelling throughsounds, is often touted as the golden path to reading and writing.
National curricula in England and Australia have been rejiggedto increase their focus on phonics, and entrepreneurs and publishers haverushed to fill the space with phonics programs and resources.
But before you buy their wares, consider the following.
1. English is not a phoneticlanguage
This may be an inconvenient truth for those promoting phonicsprograms, but English is not a phonetic language and never has been.
English began about 1500 years ago as a trio of Germanicdialects brought over to the islands we now know as the British Isles. Latinspeaking missionaries arrived soon after to convert the pagans to Christianity.They also began to write the local lingo down, using their Latin alphabet.
The Latin alphabet was a good phonetic match for spoken Latin,but it was not a good match for spoken Old English.
There were sounds in Old English that simply didn’t exist inspoken Latin, so there were no Latin letters for them. And there were sounds inLatin that didn’t exist in Old English, which left some Latin letterslanguishing.
Those letters were repurposed and some new letters wereintroduced. It was a messy match, and 1500 years of language evolution has onlyincreased the distance between the sounds we make, and the letters we write.
As a result, English is alphabetic, but not phonetic. There is asimple sound letter match in only about 12% of words in English. How much ofyour literacy programming and budget do you want to allocate to that statistic?
2. Sounds are free
The sounds and letters of the English language are the ultimateopen access knowledge. Buying them in a packaged program is just a con.
If you weren’t shown the sound-letter relationships in yourteaching degree, shame on your degree, but in any case you can Google them orfind them in the preface of a good dictionary.
3. Knowing your sounds is not thesame as reading
I know all my sounds in French. I even sound reasonablyconvincing - in an Inspector Clouseau kind of way - when I “read” French. But Ihave no comprehension, so I’m not really reading.
Children who are failing in literacy in upper primary and highschool are not failing because they don’t know their sounds. They are failingbecause they can’t comprehend.
Observe their attempts to read, write and spell and one thing isvery clear - they know their sounds, and they over rely on them. Give them aphonics program and you are giving them more of what isn’t working for them.
4. Politicians are not educators
The push for phonics in England and Australia was spearheadedvery conspicuously, almost personally, by the respective former Education MinistersGove and Pyne. Politicians may have many skills… but they are not educators,and they are not educational researchers.
Educational reforms should not be shaped by personalpredilections or political agendas.
5. Programs get it wrong
The narrow focus on sounds and letter patterns in phonicsprograms obscures more useful information for learning to read, write andspell. On occasion the material presented is just plain wrong.
A popular phonics workbook offers the following explanation forthe word “technician”.
“Technician is atechnical word. Although it is pronounced ‘shun’ at the end, it belongs to theword family ending in ‘cian’”
Teaching “cian” as a word family is linguistically inaccurate,and fails to teach how the word “technician” actually works.
“ian” is the suffix we attach to base words ending in “ic”, toturn them into the person who does the base word. So “technic” becomes“technician”, “magic” becomes “magician”, “electric” becomes “electrician” etc.
This knowledge develops spelling, builds vocabulary andincreases reading comprehension. Being told that “cian” makes the “shun” sounddoes none of this.
6. Colouring-in is not literacy
Sticking balls of crepe paper on the letter “j” is not a gooduse of literacy learning time. Neither is colouring in all the pictures on theworksheet that start with “b”, particularly if you thought that picture of thebeads was a necklace. And is that a jar or a bottle?
Busy work does not teach children to read and write.
7. There are no easy routes to literacy
Learning to read, write and spell is complex. The brain is nothardwired for literacy in the way it is hardwired for speech.
Each individual brain has to learn to read and write, andbecause our brains, our genes and our environments are all different, thepathways to literacy that our brains construct will be different.
If a single program could respond to this diversity then wewould have solved the literacy problem a few hundred years ago when printedtexts for the masses first took off.
Of course there are accounts of students whose progress wasturned around by a phonics program - the comments section of this post will nodoubt have some of those testimonials - but there are many more who languish inthose programs.
Phonics programs can be helpful for students with veryparticular learning needs, but solutions to pointy end problems are not helpfulfor all learners.
The alternative?
Consider what the problem is that you are trying to solve beforeyou commit to buying a phonics program.
If the problem is your students write phonetically, and cannotread phonically irregular words, then more phonics is not the solution.
If the problems are reading comprehension and quality ofwriting, then invest in your library and your staff. Buy quality literature andspend money on professional learning.
网友评论