DOLCH’S BASIC SIGHT WORDS are Ineffective for Pupils Learn to Read
Sir Fai called on me to see his laptop. I moved a little bit of distance to his side and began to glance at his gadget where many listed English words enumerated in MS Word.
“Are these appropriate for Grade 1 to Grade 3 learners?” Sir Fai questioned.
“You mean you’re conducting teaching remedial for reading?” PSDS asked. “Can you still remember our District Post Conference which was firstly conducted in DepED-Sulu Division Conference Hall?” Sir Moore added question. “One of the PowerPoint presentations there facilitated by Ma’am Sisang was “Learn-to-Read” and Read-to-Learn” Strategies.” Supersam clarified.
“If you think that Grade 1 to Grade 3 needs remedial teaching for reading recognition of English words, which is strategy is better, learn-to-read or read-to-learn?” Sir Moore asked.
“Learn-to-read is better” Sir Fai retorted.
“Absolutely, correct” Sir Sam agreed.
Beginning reading especially in Grade 1 level, presentation of listed words like DOLH’S BASIC SIGHT WORDS is so effective to make pupil learn to read any words. This kind of reading teaching remedial is similar to the memorization of the lyrics of a certain song wherein teacher reads first the word and the pupils repeat after the teacher. Yes, all the displayed words become easier for all learners to read because of repetition aids them all to commit all those words displayed into their memory. It is the form or the appearance of the word that leads them to read not the sound of every letter in a syllable.
“Are you sure they can all read if you present others words not belong to the list presented to them?” Sir Moore asked Sir Fai.
This is the reason why school head should assign teacher, in Grade 1 classes who is better enough in the recognition of sound of every letter. We should expect not all teachers can perfectly produce the correct sound of all alphabets. If there are, SLAC (School-based Learning Outcome) is the best strategy for them to develop themselves. It is also through SLAC a school determines certain teacher to be surely designated to handle Grade 1 learners.
ECARP (Every CHILD A READER PROGRAM) moved downward in the advent of K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum. Expectation on it is not true to all grade levels more particularly in English nomenclature in so far as entry of English subject in the third quarter is strictly concerned. It is by subject by grade level. For instance in Grade 1, every learner is expected a reader in L1 (Mother Tongue) at the end of the school year; Grade 2 learner is expected a reader in L2 (Filipino) at the end of school year; and Grade 3 learner is expected a reader in L3 (English) at the end of school year.
“Sir Fai, we can no longer expect non-reader in Grade 4 if we try to visualize the preceding statements” Sir Moore elucidated.
Therefore, Read-to-Learn Strategy is basically expected in Grade 4 classes. It is in this level where the teacher should aim to develop the comprehension level of every learner especially in reading. Enrichment of one’s vocabulary words particularly in English begins here. Especially in English subject, every pupil is expected to speak English fluently in this stage little by little.
Observe your Grade 6 students. Are they now fluent English speaker in a day-to-day conversation inside the classroom? He, he, he. . . Why? What made them fluent? What made them poor?
Classroom of Grade 4 to Grade 6 is not the atmospheric zone of English speaking. Teachers in English, Science and Mathematics dislike to use the language (English) as medium of instruction in their daily lessons. Are they following K to 12? Why are there many teachers complaining the utilization of Mother Tongue as medium of instruction in their daily lessons from Kindergarten to Grade 1? What curriculum are they following? BEC and RBEC still discouraged teachers to have more translation to vernacular while teaching English, Science and Math.
To ensure for the conduct of reading remedial classes, school should adopt CI (Continuous Improvement) methodology which is now integrated into ESIP (Enhanced School Improvement Plan). In CI approach, school is not permitted to directly provide solution for the existing problem unless root-cause analysis shall be applied. Accurate detection of the causes that widens Worm into Trojan shall be determined first or school will be tired of providing more remedies until it is abandoned and accepted normally.
School heads, please, do not blame your teachers. If you insist, you better blame yourselves for having insufficient outputs of your year-to-year ISP (Instructional Supervisory Plan).
District heads, district commissioners, division heads, please, never backbite teachers in any professional gathering. If you cannot hold your sinful tongue, you better review those monotonous outputs gathered by the district commissioners and district heads and then put side by side with Division Instructional Supervisory Plan.
Agency head, please have more time to convene with your down-level partners for assessment and evaluation of what you’ve defended before the House of Congress or House of Senate until DepED emerges as the possessor of the highest national budget.
Teachers, please, do not laugh. Never speak this speechlessly, “You’re now dying!”. If you are powerless to shut your lips, you better prepare lots of justifications, legal basis, photos, videos and updated da-to-day outputs of your responsibility and accountability over the outcomes and effects of the actions of your learners in the society.