Spelling is unimportant!

[Argyll]

Aoccdrnig to extnesvie rseeacrh conudcetd at Oxofrd Uinervtisy in Enlgnad,it deosn't raelly mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are,the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae.

The rset can be in a toatl mses and you usulaly can sitll raed it wouthit much porbelm.Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

Jsut thnik a mommet abuot all the tmie you and I watesed how to splel wrods croreclty.

[Vance]

Taht is irentiesting

[mustamato]

I will try that on the paper I´m writing at the University, will be interesting
to see what the professor says when I claim that spelling is unimportant :)

[flickme]

Taht is ralely naet. I had no poblrem raeindg taht.

[memphiz]

complicated European way of writing

lol

[Operation Ivy]

AWmose

[basket of soft kittens]

whre dud yau git thet fram?

[Maverick77]

hloy siht, nveer aiagn wlil it tkae me two hrous to wtire aynhintg.

[ShadowNeo]

I remember seeing that in a sig on another forum hehe, still pretty cool though :).

[wholagun]

Cool :D <----- waht you dnot konw is taht I sitcwd the two o's aronud...

http://www.TheForumz.com/images/icon_page/022.gif

[ShotOver]

http://forumspam.articblue.nl/thread_related/thread_sucks/images/0199.jpg

[Haiw]

Old news old man...this is at least half a year old. Pretty funny though.

[Merik]

Old news old man...this is at least half a year old. Pretty funny though.

Always the cruel one arent ya Haiw?

[Ratamacue]

Old news old man...this is at least half a year old. Pretty funny though.

Always the cruel one arent ya Haiw?

Well, the Dutch are known for their unrelenting cruelty. ;)

[Operation Ivy]

whre dud yau git thet fram?

still gotta use the same letters though ;)

[Sierra]

I have seen this so many times. It is cool though

[kotrf]

A year ago I saw a presentation on the different methods for learning how to read. I've seen the Oxford University report a couple times and I'm always intrigued. Basically, my point of contention/curiousity lies with refuting evidence in how you learned to read.

There are two main types of reading education, whole language and phonics. The Whole Language approach is where you learn to read by memorizing specific words and parts of words. Later on when you reach more complex words, you attempt to find correlations or patterns by matching up the new words to your past knowledge.

Phonics, on the other hand, works on the basis of sounding out words phonetically, essentially breaking down complex words that you don't understand via the sounds of the letters that compose the word. It just seems to me that people who learned by the phonics method would not be able to read the above passage because theoretically, upon encountering these words they would start to sound them, thus leaving them stuck with an indeicipherable message. I'm not sure if any of that made sense but they're just some thoughts.

[Yard Ape]

Aoccdrnig to extnesvie rseeacrh conudcetd at Oxofrd Uinervtisy in Enlgnad,it deosn't raelly mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are,the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae.

The rset can be in a toatl mses and you usulaly can sitll raed it wouthit much porbelm.Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

Jsut thnik a mommet abuot all the tmie you and I watesed how to splel wrods croreclty. I read this a long time ago & generally cannot dissagree with what it says & proves. In fact, generally you can read this as fast as if the spelling were correct. However, I also notice that as soon the grammar is drastically wrong (such as a missing "the") then things break down. This means AK Lover could never make this work. Looking at the bolded quote, I could not read the sentance & had to look at each word by itself. I may have been able to read it had it been

"we do not raed a lteter by istlef"

[Haiw]

Old news old man...this is at least half a year old. Pretty funny though.

Always the cruel one arent ya Haiw?

Well, the Dutch are known for their unrelenting cruelty. ;)
No man...that's the Germans. :P

[Rantanplan]

Dutch, Deutsch where's the difference. :roll:

[Haiw]

There is no difference. Just the same word in different languages. p-)

[citizen-k]

Dutch, Deutsch where's the difference. :roll:

Deutsch is a misspelled Dutch rofl

[Rantanplan]

Hmm, I never get the israeli humour. It's all Sharons fault. Blame Sharon. p-) ;)

[citizen-k]

Hmm, I never get the israeli humour. It's all Sharons fault. Blame Sharon. p-) ;)

You can say "Dutch is a misspelled Deutsch" if it makes you feel better ;)

[Rantanplan]

So what is Schwiizer-Dütsch now? ;)

[Haiw]

A misspelled Swiss version of Dutch... They tagged it as 'Schwiizer' to make it more clear.

[spoonman]

very old.

very wrong.

someone find the link for this, it has been debunked.

[farmgirl]

A year ago I saw a presentation on the different methods for learning how to read. I've seen the Oxford University report a couple times and I'm always intrigued. Basically, my point of contention/curiousity lies with refuting evidence in how you learned to read.

There are two main types of reading education, whole language and phonics. The Whole Language approach is where you learn to read by memorizing specific words and parts of words. Later on when you reach more complex words, you attempt to find correlations or patterns by matching up the new words to your past knowledge.

Phonics, on the other hand, works on the basis of sounding out words phonetically, essentially breaking down complex words that you don't understand via the sounds of the letters that compose the word. It just seems to me that people who learned by the phonics method would not be able to read the above passage because theoretically, upon encountering these words they would start to sound them, thus leaving them stuck with an indeicipherable message. I'm not sure if any of that made sense but they're just some thoughts.


In some ways you are right. If anyone relied soley on phonetics or whole language to teach, your theory would have some merit. Although trends come and go and the amount of emphasis placed on teaching through phonics and/or whole language vacillates, the truth is, we use both. The fact is, different people learn in different ways, and readers use a variety of methods to decode language. We don't think about what strategies we are using.... we just do it. It becomes as natural as breathing. However, for some people, it never becomes that natural, and that is the challenge.
My son started reading on his own with no instruction. There are people out there like that. I watch him read, and I can see him using a variety of strategies to decipher words with which he is unfamiliar. He does it naturally. Watching him helps me to help struggling students. Finding a variety of ways to approach teaching is the trick. If everyone learned in the same way, teaching wouldn't be difficult at all.
Reading is so very important. If one can't read, so many avenues are closed to them. It's amazing how our minds can cope with differences such as the ones presented in Argyll's post.
I know that it was presented as humor, but I find the human mind fascinating.
okay.... I'm done.... I'm getting my Master's in reading, so I have a lot of interest in the topic. :D

[Nondescript]

A year ago I saw a presentation on the different methods for learning how to read. I've seen the Oxford University report a couple times and I'm always intrigued. Basically, my point of contention/curiousity lies with refuting evidence in how you learned to read.

There are two main types of reading education, whole language and phonics. The Whole Language approach is where you learn to read by memorizing specific words and parts of words. Later on when you reach more complex words, you attempt to find correlations or patterns by matching up the new words to your past knowledge.

Phonics, on the other hand, works on the basis of sounding out words phonetically, essentially breaking down complex words that you don't understand via the sounds of the letters that compose the word. It just seems to me that people who learned by the phonics method would not be able to read the above passage because theoretically, upon encountering these words they would start to sound them, thus leaving them stuck with an indeicipherable message. I'm not sure if any of that made sense but they're just some thoughts.


In some ways you are right. If anyone relied soley on phonetics or whole language to teach, your theory would have some merit. Although trends come and go and the amount of emphasis placed on teaching through phonics and/or whole language vacillates, the truth is, we use both. The fact is, different people learn in different ways, and readers use a variety of methods to decode language. We don't think about what strategies we are using.... we just do it. It becomes as natural as breathing. However, for some people, it never becomes that natural, and that is the challenge.
My son started reading on his own with no instruction. There are people out there like that. I watch him read, and I can see him using a variety of strategies to decipher words with which he is unfamiliar. He does it naturally. Watching him helps me to help struggling students. Finding a variety of ways to approach teaching is the trick. If everyone learned in the same way, teaching wouldn't be difficult at all.
Reading is so very important. If one can't read, so many avenues are closed to them. It's amazing how our minds can cope with differences such as the ones presented in Argyll's post.
I know that it was presented as humor, but I find the human mind fascinating.
okay.... I'm done.... I'm getting my Master's in reading, so I have a lot of interest in the topic. :D

Wow, maybe if I'd had a teacher like you farmgirl I'd have overcome my dyslexia before turning 18. And people say that the Swedish school-system is good. :cantbeli:

BTW I had no problem reading what Argyll wrote, a couple of years ago that probably wouldn't have been so.

[farmgirl]

A year ago I saw a presentation on the different methods for learning how to read. I've seen the Oxford University report a couple times and I'm always intrigued. Basically, my point of contention/curiousity lies with refuting evidence in how you learned to read.

There are two main types of reading education, whole language and phonics. The Whole Language approach is where you learn to read by memorizing specific words and parts of words. Later on when you reach more complex words, you attempt to find correlations or patterns by matching up the new words to your past knowledge.

Phonics, on the other hand, works on the basis of sounding out words phonetically, essentially breaking down complex words that you don't understand via the sounds of the letters that compose the word. It just seems to me that people who learned by the phonics method would not be able to read the above passage because theoretically, upon encountering these words they would start to sound them, thus leaving them stuck with an indeicipherable message. I'm not sure if any of that made sense but they're just some thoughts.


In some ways you are right. If anyone relied soley on phonetics or whole language to teach, your theory would have some merit. Although trends come and go and the amount of emphasis placed on teaching through phonics and/or whole language vacillates, the truth is, we use both. The fact is, different people learn in different ways, and readers use a variety of methods to decode language. We don't think about what strategies we are using.... we just do it. It becomes as natural as breathing. However, for some people, it never becomes that natural, and that is the challenge.
My son started reading on his own with no instruction. There are people out there like that. I watch him read, and I can see him using a variety of strategies to decipher words with which he is unfamiliar. He does it naturally. Watching him helps me to help struggling students. Finding a variety of ways to approach teaching is the trick. If everyone learned in the same way, teaching wouldn't be difficult at all.
Reading is so very important. If one can't read, so many avenues are closed to them. It's amazing how our minds can cope with differences such as the ones presented in Argyll's post.
I know that it was presented as humor, but I find the human mind fascinating.
okay.... I'm done.... I'm getting my Master's in reading, so I have a lot of interest in the topic. :D

Wow, maybe if I'd had a teacher like you farmgirl I'd have overcome my dyslexia before turning 18. And people say that the Swedish school-system is good. :cantbeli:

BTW I had no problem reading what Argyll wrote, a couple of years ago that probably wouldn't have been so.

Thanks! :) I have two brothers who have struggled with dyslexia, so that has increased my interest in finding ways to help others. My mom and my sisters are also very involved in education. Iowa's education system is one of the best in the US. I'm proud to be a teacher. :D