by Donna | May 23, 2011
In writing Mother’s Day, I reminded you that the day belongs to one mother–your mother. Thus, you write Mother, then you show possession to the word mother: Mother’s Day.
Possession can be so tricky because we think of whether the word is singular or possessive; we contemplate whether the apostrophe should be on the inside or outside of the s, etc. It doesn’t need to be that complicated! You are probably thinking too hard!
Tricky Trick to Help It Stick: Do not worry about whether the word you want to show possession to is singular or plural.
1. Just write the word you want to show possession to
2. Then see if it does or does not end in an s:
a. If it DOES end in an s, just put apostrophe on the outside of the s that is already there (s’)
i. glass
ii. glass’ rim
b. It it does NOT end in an s, add apostrophe s (‘s)
i. cup
ii. cup’s rim
by Donna | May 23, 2011
May is halfway over! And so are May’s holidays! Here is a list of the holidays for May, spelled and punctuated correctly:
*Mother’s Day
1. Remember, you have one mother–the day belongs to her…
2. Show possession of mother by writing the singular word mother–doesn’t end in an s, so we put ‘s to show possession to it***
3. Cap M and cap D
*Memorial Day
1. No s or ‘s in this holiday
2. Cap M and cap D
***HINT: Do not worry about whether the word you want to show possession to is singular or plural.
by Donna | May 19, 2011
I was flipping through a magazine at the beauty shop the other day and came upon another of my pet peeves—the “who wore it best” feature of a celebrity magazine. The pet peeve of this stems from the fact that there are two gals wearing the outfit—but the question asked is “Who wore it best?” If only two people are being compared, it would definitely be “Who wore it better?”
The rule for this is the comparative and superlative forms of words—
Comparative words are used to compare two things or one thing to one other thing:
- better, worse, more
- She wore it better than the other gal.
- He is taller than she.
Superlative words are used to compare one thing to many:
- best, worst, most
- She wore it best out of all of the celebrities.
- He is the tallest in the room (of many).
Oftentimes, it is not clear what comparison is being made—and it can be tricky (and even subjective) to determine whether the comparative or superlative should be used. However, in cases where it is extremely clear (two people or things being compared), it should not be that difficult to do it properly.
So….the first article—with two gals wearing the same dress—should ask “Who wore it better?” but the next page—with three girls wearing the dress—was correct to ask “Who wore it best?” J
by Donna | May 19, 2011
Another Wacky Word pair that trips people up is that of breathe and breath. (The latest sign I saw of this had to do with helping people to “breath clean air”!)
This pair is tricky, along with all of the ea pairs, because ea says short e and long e–all by itself. For example:
1. Today I will read the book.
2. The leaf fell to the ground.
3. The thief is going to steal the diamond.
The key to knowing whether to use breath or breathe is to consider the pairs that do have e at the end–it is there to show that, that word is the long e one (not the short e one).
For example:
1. Take a deep breath (breth–short e).
2. Breathe deeply (long e).
3. He took great pleasure in it (short e–plezz).
4. They want to please him (long e).
While there isn’t a fullproof trick (like their/there and affect/effect), it does help to keep in mind that if one of the set has an e at the end of it, it is there for a reason–in these cases, to make the first vowel say its long sound–breathe (long e) vs. breath (short e).
by Donna | May 16, 2011
“You may have tangible wealth untold; caskets of jewels and coffers of gold,
But richer than I you could never be; for I had a mother who read to me.”
So what were the commonalities I found in studying the environment of “natural readers”?
Common Characteristics of Natural Readers:
1. Interaction with adults—these kids were with adults a lot—and definitely not around peers more than adults. They had adults on hand to discuss things with, to answer their questions, and to provide examples of proper speech patterns, etc.
2. Much book handling by the child—these children were surrounded with books that they were permitted to interact with. They were often found at very young ages with stacks of books around them, just looking at the pictures, making stories in their minds from the pictures, etc.
3. Print abounds and interest in print is evident by itself—not only did the homes of natural readers contain books themselves, but they also contained all type of print. The parents of these children read magazines, journals, newspapers, etc. I think the “interest in print” part probably began with something like a parent saying, “Honey, look at this whale they found beached on the coast of Florida,” as he or she brought the little one up on to her lap to see the picture that was provided with the article in today’s newspaper, etc. This type of activity causes a child to become interested in print.
4. Tapes and books are used—nowadays, of course, this would say “cd’s and books are used”; however, this is the reason why I began using book and tape sets a few times a week for my preschoolers and elementary children—and why we have used audios (talking books, radio dramas, etc.) every week of our lives since our oldest was one year old. “Tapes” and books show our children the benefits and “fun” that reading provides.
5. Memorization takes place—these natural readers often followed a certain pattern—they memorized a picture book (usually many), then through the memorization, they began making print-sound-word connections. That is, when they turned the page and recited, “If you give a mouse a cookie,” they began to understand that i-f says if and y-o-u says you. Natural readers were experts at memorizing large portions of text.
6. Interest in writing words and “language experience” activities—many years ago, there was a movement in education to replace phonics instruction with “language experience” activities (also called a “whole language approach”). Phonics proponents everywhere were up in arms at the thought of “activities” of writing what the child said (dictation) for him, making little homemade books, etc. taking the place of phonics instruction. While I am a strong phonics proponent, I believe that these “language experiences” and “whole language” activities augment the reading instruction greatly. And, of course, the natural readers in the research were exposed to these types of activities early and often. These kids were the ones who dictated thank-you notes to Mom to go to grandparents and colored a picture to send along with it; they were the ones who had a chalk board in the kitchen in which Mom or Dad wrote the day of the week each morning; they were those who “said” stories aloud and parents copied it in little “journal” books for the child. And on and on. Why wouldn’t these types of experiences and activities increase a child’s relationship with print and love for learning?
7. Experiences related to literacy and books—these obviously include the types of activities listed in number six, but these kids knew from birth that books and reading were important. They were the ones in a double stroller at the library lawn sale as toddlers—child in front seat with back seat full of picture books. They were the ones who had their own “book basket” in the corner of the nursery almost from birth. In other words, they were immersed in literacy and books from an early age.
8. Self-regulated behavior and risk taking—This characteristic related to how they “organize” their little lives. These kids would pull all of the Curious George books off the shelf and stack them up to look at after lunch. They often had little learning systems in place at ages four and five. And they were not afraid to be wrong. This, of course, stems from not being talked down to or made fun of when they did ask questions. These kids were risk takers because taking risks in learning (“Mommy, is this word (dapper) ‘Daddy’?”) yielded information that helped them in their quest to learn. The questions did not yield put downs or “you should already know this.”
9. Read to often—Obviously, a link has to be made from the squiggles on the page to the sounds that those squiggles make in order for a young child to teach himself to read. Thus, a child must be read to (or follow along with books and tapes) in order to learn to read without formal instruction. Now, this is not to say that a child who is read to will automatically learn to read early and on his own. I read aloud to our first three kids three to five hours everyday for years and years—and not one of the three was a natural, or early, reader! But it certainly created a love for print and learning in my children!
Tomorrow—how does this reading environment teach informally what could take years of instruction to learn?
by Donna | May 16, 2011
“I would be most content if my children grew up to be the kind of people who think decorating consists mostly of building enough bookshelves.” ~Anna Quindlen, “Enough Bookshelves”
For homework help this week, I am going to introduce readers to creating a reading environment for new readers. If you do not have a new reader, please read anyway! Lots of info that pertains to families with all kinds/levels of kids!
During my graduate studies (in Reading Specialist) at Ball State University, I did a master’s thesis about children who learn to read without any reading instruction. That is, the kids just suddenly started reading books without ever having phonics lessons, basal readers, or other “formal instruction.” It was a challenging thesis simply because there is so little data about it because of our “early school attendance age.” Seldom does a child learn to read “naturally” before age six or seven, and with kids going to school at age five (and often beginning reading instruction in kindergarten), the research was sparse concerning these “instructionless” readers.
I did find enough, however, and I was also blessed to find a family who had a natural reader to compare the printed data with. My observations, coupled with the studies in teaching journals, etc., led me to find what I called the “environment” in which natural readers are raised. This led me to other lines of thinking—if a child can learn to read with absolutely no instruction in a literary-saturated environment, wouldn’t this environment be conducive to helping those who DO receive instruction learn to read better, more easily, and more naturally?
The answer, of course, was yes. Study after study shows the type of environment that causes kids to learn better. Duplicating the “natural reader’s” environment can only help our kids learn better. Maybe our creating this “literary atmosphere” will not automatically make our six year old pick up a book and begin reading, but if it makes the learning process (actually any/all learning processes) easier, more enjoyable, and less stressful, why wouldn’t we want to duplicate it in our homes for all of our kids?
Tomorrow and the next day I will detail this environment and its outcomes. But today I will leave you with a little hint: one of the characteristics of the home of a natural reader has something to do with the quote at the beginning of this post. Smile…
