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.
