1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

A story for Ior1973

Discussion in 'Primary' started by maizie, Nov 16, 2011.


  1. Further to our discussion on another thread I was curious to see what
    a piece of text looked like with every word, apart from the fiirst 100
    HFWs, removed. So I found a children's story online, that seemed to be
    at the reading level of a competent Y6 and took out all but the HFWs.
    This is the first couple of paragraphs. (The *** and ----which
    substitute for the missing words don't bear any relationship to the
    length of the missing word, it would have taken hours to do that!)
    Ior
    suggested that a child could get the gist of a text knowing little more
    than the HFWs. I was interested in testing that. My challenge: what
    is this story about? [​IMG]
    Interestingly, I have removed 95
    discrete words from this short passage. About half a dozen of them may
    have been from the next 100 HFWs, but they only occurred once in the
    passage.
     

  2. Further to our discussion on another thread I was curious to see what
    a piece of text looked like with every word, apart from the fiirst 100
    HFWs, removed. So I found a children's story online, that seemed to be
    at the reading level of a competent Y6 and took out all but the HFWs.
    This is the first couple of paragraphs. (The *** and ----which
    substitute for the missing words don't bear any relationship to the
    length of the missing word, it would have taken hours to do that!)
    Ior
    suggested that a child could get the gist of a text knowing little more
    than the HFWs. I was interested in testing that. My challenge: what
    is this story about? [​IMG]
    Interestingly, I have removed 95
    discrete words from this short passage. About half a dozen of them may
    have been from the next 100 HFWs, but they only occurred once in the
    passage.
     
  3. Doh! Just replied on opinion. Have a look at this website: http://www.duboislc.org/EducationWatch/First100Words.html. First 25 words make up 33%, first 100 words about 50% and first 300 words make up 65% of all written text. The point I was trying to make is that if children can read these HFW by sight (if they can't decode) they will be able to get the gist of a text. Not sure how many of the first 300 words have been blanked here. Maybe you could unblank them and repost?
     
  4. I know what the statistics look like and it was fascinating seeing just how many HFWs there were in the story (I actually changed the font colour of all of them in the 4 page story)
    From looking at the 95 words I have removed from these two paragraphs (and I thought that was a staggering amount of discrete word to encounter in such a short passage) I would say that very few would be in the next 100 HFWs, maybe about a dozen, tops. And none of those words were repeated in that bit of the passage. In fact, very few of them were repeated in the entire story...
    But my real point is that you cannot make anything meaningful out of a string of HFWs. The large percentage of text that they comprise is meaningless without the words in between...
    Or do you not agree with me?
    What is the story about?
     
  5. Confusing having the same thread going on 2 forums!
    Just to clarify, I was responding to this statement:


     
  6. I attended a conference recently where there was much made about the percentage of words in texts which are 'high frequency' with the suggestion that therefore emphasis needs to be made of learning these high frequency words.
    At one point there was an analysis of how many words were, for example, in all the ORT books and it was something like 30,000.
    The first thing that occurred to me was that even if the children could read 15,000 of the HFW automatically, what was it that would enable them to read the remaining 15,000 - many of which would not be words (necessarily) which are learnt or used through spoken language?
    I continue to suggest that people who begrudge the promotion of systematic synthetic phonics are highly unlikely to have taught it themselves - or they wouldn't be so begrudging!
     
  7. I agree with teaching phonics. What worries me about programmes, such as your own DH, is that teaching /ai/ says short /e/ because it is in one word is confusing. Teaching /cy/ says /s/ - for cyanide? Do we really need to teach this at such a young age? It's like trying to teach decimal numbers to reception age children because they're going to come across them at some stage.
     
  8. Not entirely correct, a word such as 'said' can be read through 'tweaking' or modifying the pronunciation. This is a massively empowering technique which levels with children from the outset that the alphabetic code is complex and they need to be fearless and try different sounds, for example.
    When SPELLING, however, the subject knowledge for teaching is often different from that needed for reading. So, for spelling, the child identifies the sound /e/ in the SPOKEN word 'said' and needs to be 'made aware' that "in that word" the code for the /e/ sound is 'ai'.
    At the same time, it makes sense to teach the word 'again' which is similar.
    And also, 'says' which has the middle /e/ sound. These words can be approached in one way for reading, if necessary, and another way for spelling.
    Re things being 'too complicated' in programmes 'such as mine':
    I have three new buzzwords which I'm using to try to describe how young beginners can access the phonics teaching, - they 'assimilate', 'adjust' and 'absorb'.
    I get very concerned indeed that the promotion of detailed 'assessment' and of 'differentiation' leads to a very premature grouping of children - leading to too many children being the 'phase 2' children forever and a day.
    Whilst I provide very detailed and, arguably, rigorous phonics programmes, I also promote very simple preparation ideas, very core phonics routines and very simple management of the programmes - avoiding complex grouping, premature grouping, avoiding extraneous activities - and so on. I have different ways from many phonics proponents of providing differentiation.
    I promote the approach of the systematic, step by step route - but also the 'incidental' route - thereby liberating the teaching adults to use their common sense to teach the alphabetic code as required at any moment - whether in the phonics lessons or the wider curriculum - whether for individuals, groups or whole classes.
    In my very last Reception class during my very first phonics class - teaching /s/ and 's', Alice pointed out that she had /s/ in her name but not the letter shape 's'. I immediately went on to teach her about the 'ce' grapheme as in her name - and she doubled her learning - and this was personal to her. It didn't matter if it was over the heads of other children in the class.
    I worry that there are many teachers that, as yet, don't know what is really possible with phonics teaching.
    I visit schools and see a sea of floating graphemes, not based in exemplar words, and with no logic as to where they are displayed, how they are displayed, or how they are used. Phonics without structure and organisation becomes a linear, sea of floating graphemes which are basically meaningless and not helpful to learners.
    You are mistaken with your comment and I suggest that you are not aware of the possibilties.
    However, some schools are getting on board with rigorous and <u>organised</u> phonics teaching - and so more and more people are starting to realise what is possible.
     
  9. Just a little aside: No letters 'say' any sounds.
    Soft c: The letters 'i' 'e' and 'y' alert the reader that the preceding letter 'c' is code for the /s/ sound.
    There are many, many common words where letter 'c' is code for the /s/ sound. Many of these words are common in children's story books.
    City, circus, cirle, bicycle, icecream, Lucy, life cycle, icy, face, place, nice, twice, Cinderella etc.
    There is also the 'ce' grapheme as in 'Alice' - in words such as 'dance', 'prince' 'palace', 'voice', 'force', 'fence', 'pence', 'pounce' etc.
    If you always write the sounds in the slash marks, you wouldn't write something like /cy/ - in 'cyanide', 'cy' is code for two sounds /s/ /igh/.
    The notation in the slash marks always stays the same for the same sounds.
     
  10. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    I like the fact that your code chart and course goes into more detail; I do not have your course but I do have your guide to the complex alphabetic code. I have worked my way through all the RWI decodable books with my own kiddies and there are many finer points of the more complex code which are missing. I find this has been a hindrance both to my explanations and my children's reading, so at a certain point they seem to end of guessing.
    Now I'm sure with some children that doesn't matter (it never mattered to me) but for my children it seems to, and I have found that any extra SP input I have given them at home has always reaped dividends. Or it might explain my distant memory of reading an Angela Brazil book to myself and quoting at some point or other to my mother "oh you are decent Angela" and being laughed at because I had pronounced it "d /e/ /ck/ /e/ nt".
     
  11. Why should it be?
    What is really illogical is teaching words like 'said' before children have mastered the simple code. When advanced code teaching starts children are taught the fact that sounds can be spelled in more than one way and they learn to be flexible in their approach. Teaching advanced code words out of sequence, for the dubious 'benefit' of being able to use the word in suposedly 'natural sounding' text is the problem.

    Mystery; it took a superior elder sister to point out to me that one of the children in the Narnia stories was called 'Lucy', not 'Lucky'![​IMG]
     

Share This Page