336 REPORTS ON THE STATE OF sCimNCE,~1912. 
advantage. Thus, Mr. E. J. Gill, of the University of Sheffield, has 
examined the children of three schools adopting different methods of 
reading—Phonic methods in two cases and a variety of the Look-and- 
Say, known as the ‘ Sentence ’ method, in the other one. He examined 
the children in both reading and spelling. But his results in spelling 
are of most interest in the present connection. They warrant the con- 
clusion that ‘ the sentence method of teaching reading produces, in a 
much shorter time, a spelling efficiency at least equal to that produced 
by synthetic methods; in equal times a greater efficiency.’** Still 
more striking is the fact that at the school ‘ where letter-sounds are not 
the basis of the early reading lessons, we have the highest percentage of 
words spelt on phonic analogies. The children have arrived at the 
phonic analysis of words almost unaided, and seem to rely upon it more 
than children of the same standing in other schools where synthetic 
methods of teaching are the rule. A better illustration of the innate 
analytic disposition of the human mind could hardly be advanced.’ '° 
We see, then, that, taking the word reading in its strict sense—the 
fairly rapid appereeption of words as indicating sound-meaning com- 
plexes—there is only one method, viz., Look-and-Say. But since this 
process is often in danger of breaking down before difficult words, 
especially in the early stages, the process of deciphering which has 
been described as the Phonic Method is a valuable support. When the 
early stages are occupied entirely by the process of deciphering by means 
of letter-sounds, the teacher is said to adopt the Phonic Method, and 
the fact that the Look-and-Say Method supervenes is ignored. When 
real reading (t.e., Look-and-Say) is attempted from the commencement 
and the process of deciphering is arrived at more or less subconsciously 
on account of the gradual understanding of the powers of the letters 
which develops, the whole method is usually called Look-and-Say. It 
is obvious, however, that neither system confines itself to what is 
indicated by its name. 
Still more misleading are the terms analylic and synthetic, which 
are often applied to the Look-and Say and Phonic methods respectively. 
Both terms should be applied to the Phonic Method. For synthesis 
eannot occur until analysis has produced the elements which are to be 
combined. And the Look-and-Say Method in its essence is neither 
analytic nor synthetic, in the sense here indicated by those words. It 
has sometimes been called the Chinese Method, the reason being that, 
as in the case of the Chinese language, the child learns to recognise 
each word as a whole. 
All writers admit that Look-and-Say is the chief goal for the 
beginner. All also admit that some analysis and synthesis must take 
place in order to render possible the process of deciphéring in the case 
of difficult or new words. Dispute arises as to whether this analysis 
and synthesis should take place at the very beginning as a special and 
definite exercise or whether Look-and-Say should take precedence 
throughout, analysis and synthesis developing incidentally. The two 
18 Article on ‘The Teaching of Spelling’ in Journal of Hxperimental Peda- 
gogy, June 5, 1912, p. 315. 
9 Op. cit., p. 313. 
