making him "look" and "say." What then has the first part of the process to do with our learning to read? What assistance does it afford us? We are strongly inclined to think that it gives little help and great hindrance. The only apology we can discover for its continued use is, that by fixing the eye distinctly upon each letter, it may assist the second part of the process. Possibly with some children it may do so, but even in this respect we believe that it is generally a hindrance. For it causes the child to look at the individual letters instead of regarding them as a cluster. It is only as they are in a cluster that they differ from the alphabet. It is the peculiarity of their clustering on which depends their sound; it is this that makes them a word; and therefore this, as it appears to the eye, is the proper object of the child's study. It is not until children begin to look at whole words that they begin to read. It is astonishing what an improvement is made in the reading of a sunday school class by simply forbidding all spelling. Yet must it be admitted, that children thoroughly trained in this letter-naming system may often be unable to tell a word by looking at it, which when they have "spelt it out" they can directly pronounce. How is this? Simply because by this out-of-joint and roundabout method, their association had become strong between the names of the letters and the sound of the word, so that the simple sight of the word interprets nothing to them till they have tolled out the conventional names of every member. It is as though we should have no conception what a certain animal before us was, until we had first cried out aloud-four legs, a head, a tail, and a woolly fleece, and then it should all at once come into our minds that it was a sheep. If children are taught to distinguish the thing "sheep" at first sight, without spelling out every part by name, why are they not permitted to learn the word in the same way?

There might be urged a yet further plea for this practice of letter-naming, if the names of the English letters were the same as their sounds, or even if the same sound were uniformly attached to the same letter. But this is not the case. A child, just out of his alphabet, may spell through a word a hundred times, and yet not be in the slightest degree nearer its sound. The sound he will never know till some one tells him: and some one might as well do that before the child undertakes the toil

some labour of piece-mealing the word. How should the uninitiated wits of the cleverest child ever bring him to the discovery that ef-el-oh-double-you was 'flow'? or that oh-en-e was 'one'?

It is doubtless convenient for the sake of conversation and reference, especially for the use of a dictionary, that a child should, at some time, learn to repeat his alphabet. In the same way it will be convenient for him to learn the botanical names for the component parts of a flower, but that is no reason why he should be forbidden to call it a "violet" until he has passed through all that drudgery. Most of us have learnt to read with the use of letter-naming, but it would be difficult to prove that we have learnt anything by letter-naming. The true art of spelling is an after acquirement, very easy to those who have learnt to read first. It is best learnt by writing. See Mr. Thayer's lecture on this subject in the "Schoolmaster."

Discarding, then, the first and useless part of the common process, we return to the other two; and the first question which proposes itself is this: What shall be the distinct subject of our operation? What shall we look at and say? Shall we take a whole word, such an one as "communication" for instance, and teach that at once? or shall we take the separate sound of each letter, as in the "Reading disentangled" and the "Phonic" methods? The first plan applied to such words would be indefinite and clumsy. Neither would we adopt the second, for two reasons. First, because the sound of a consonant cannot really be given alone. The consonants are only different ways of stopping the vowel sounds as they pass the lips and tongue and teeth. To attempt to teach by pronouncing them separately is only a more delicate way of letter-naming. Secondly, because the sound of the English vowels is utterly unknown till we see the connection in which they stand. Teach a child what is reckoned the proper sound of o for instance. Will it help him to decipher the word 'London?' The thousand vocal anomalies of our language must ever render such a method exceedingly puzzling and imperfect. A few rules indeed may be found to guide us, but these all regard the vowel-not as it is an independent sound, but in its relative position fashioning its sound according to the letters which surround it. What method of treatment then shall we adopt with a language so unwilling to

bear the yoke? We answer: divide every word, capable of such division, into as many complete and distinct sounds as it contains. In other words, teach by syllables.

From what has just been said it will appear that 'com-mu-nicate' has only four complete independent sounds. Let an association be established between the look of 'com' and its soundthe same with 'mu'-the same with 'ni'-the same with 'cate.' Then let the ear and eye be practised in sliding them together, and the word is taught. The majority of words in use contain only one complete sound. It will be readily perceived that, upon this plan, the proper sound of each consonant, and the most common sound of each vowel will be quickly caught, without the help of any forced and unnatural isolation. The irregular sounds must, upon any plan, be learnt in the particular cases. This is what has been called the "Look-and-Say" method of teaching to read. We will now illustrate its operation as it may be seen in a sabbath school, aided by an apparatus which greatly facilitates its success.

The teacher sits with a board like this supported on his lap.

It is simply a number of moveable letters placed on shelves. He can, of course, look over it upon the letters, and is in the best position either for pointing to the letters or keeping a watch on the eyes of his class who are standing before him.

1. First, commencing with the smallest word, he inquires as he points to it: "Who knows this word?" If the class have been at all taught before, several hands will be held up to signify that their owners are ready to speak. When one has been pointed to, if he is correct, the teacher

2. Next says, as he points to the word, "Let us all say." Then, just as his finger falls upon it, the whole class gives its sound in one voice-'to' 'to' 'to'- -as often as the teacher indicates by his pointing finger that he wishes the look-and-say process to be repeated. In this the teacher will be guided by the amount of

their previous knowledge. If he thinks that all know the word he will not stop to repeat it.

3. The word 'unto' he divides into his syllabic parts separating them with his fingers. One of these he would probably move so that it might stand directly over the last word taught. He would first ask for the sound of one syllable, and then for that of another-causing the children to look-and-say as before. The children would then say after his pointing-un' 'to' ‘un'‘to' 'un' 'to,' and, suddenly, as he pushed the two together, 'unto,' 'unto,' &c.

4. He then points to the former word-the children saying 'to,' 'unto,' &c., as he points. The word 'me' would be taught as in Nos. 1 and 2.

5. The next word, we will suppose, no one of the children has ever seen before. The teacher, seeing no hands up says"Then I will tell you. Listen to me." Then, as his finger moves very slowly along the top of each letter he pronounces the word very distinctly. "Now, all together," he continues, "slowly and distinctly, as my hand moves." "Co me,' 'c o me,' &c. The previous process is then repeated, 'come,' 'come,' 'to,' 'unto,' 'me,' &c. The word 'suffer' will, of course, be divided into syllables; and when each syllable has been taught, as in Nos. 5, 1, and 2, you may hear again the voice of the class saying as the finger moves, 'suf,' 'fer,' 'suffer,' 'to' 'come,' 'unto,' 'me,' &c., as in Nos. 3 and 4.

6. The teacher says to this or that child, What is this word? 'Come.' And this? Me,' &c. Or he calls upon one or

another to show him 'suffer,' 'unto,' &c.

7. When the teacher wishes to test or to secure the accuracy of memory, or to relieve the attention, he says: "Who can put up this word ?" And one being chosen who had held up his hand, the word is thrown loosely and confusedly down. It is his task to reconstruct and replace it. This is a difficult, but always interesting exercise-it has put some of the best "spellers" quite at a loss.

8. At the close of this twenty minutes' exercise the sentence is read straight through, the teacher telling the children the words they have not yet learnt. 'Suffer,' T. 'little,' C. 'little,' T. 'children,' C. 'children,' 'to,' 'come,' 'unto,' 'me.'

It will be seen that these exercises require throughout the

most strenuous attention on the part of the children. As the class have to speak at the intimation of a visual sign-the motion of the hand-the teacher is able to detect instantly any wandering of the eyes. For when an eye looks off, the voice of the class ceases to be as one. Such a demand upon attention-that uncultivated faculty of the child's mind-may sometimes plead for relief, and will always ask for patience on the part of the teacher. Let the teacher carefully show the children that if their eyes are off they are not learning to read. It is only by bringing eye and voice together that they can learn to read.

The effect of this method in improving the enunciation of children is very obvious, and every practical man knows that a clear and distinct enunciation is one of the best helps a child can have in learning to read. Its taking the syllable as the only complete and finished sound into which words may be divided, and calling this, not by any name, but by its proper sound, greatly aids the development of distinct pronunciation.

་

This method has been in use now for more than three years in one school, and for shorter periods in several others, and, although often in the hands of untrained teachers, has been, in every case, successful. Hitherto, whatever text the superintendent chooses, on the previous evening, as the subject of his collective lesson, is put upon the boards for all the classes. There has been no arranged system of progressive lessons. The higher classes have learnt to read the whole sentence, while the others have learnt such words out of it as their time and capacity would permit. We are inclined to think that this is the best plan for sunday schools. It makes the child most familiar with the words most used, and gradually introduces him to those which occur less frequently. But for day schools something more of method is required. We should recommend for such a purpose the syllabic classification which is exhibited in "Lennie's Child's Ladder"- —a school book very popular in Scotland, though, in England, little known.

Our next number will contain a full description of the board, box, and letters, which are required, with such measurements and directions as will enable any country carpenter to construct them.