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

Above average readers fail phonics screening test!

Discussion in 'Primary' started by ginger22, Jul 5, 2012.

  1. yet you happily told the parent of a child you know nothing about to ignore an effective and reliable diagnostic method of identifying possible literacy difficulties?
    Your wandering again. I made no attempt to explain a child's literacy difficulties' - on the contrary,I suggested that the child did not have any difficulties which is I understand, the mother's own perception. A child who enjoys reading has a precious gift and I would regard anything that interferes with this as child abuse.

     
  2. I take that as a compliment. Stanovich is not writing in defence of SP. He is a researcher reporting his findings. It is research such as his that builds the case for SP. you said you wanted to know the evidence - start following the references and get reading. It's all out there - mountains of it.
    Eddiecarron don't be such a 'flat earther'. How silly to sweepingly dismiss 'research'. The first article I have suggested explains far better than I can how science can be used and how it can't.
     
  3. Sorry Eddie - 'past two decades' just does not fit with what I've seen in any of the schools I've been in over the last ten years (or in the ten years before that as a parent). I've only seen phonics teaching beginning to be taught anything like effectively in the past 3 or 4 years, and I've still to see it still being effectively followed up much beyond year 1 for children who still haven't quite got it. And I know that many schools think they are teaching it effectively, but they are still using mixed methods, so they haven't seen the power of a really good start where all children really learn to blend and segment before they get confused by using initial sounds and context.
    That isn't the same as saying that initial sounds and context (or perceptual learning - which I am very happy to try out if I get the resources) don't work for lots of children, but I really think it is unreasonable to write off SP yet.
     
  4. And thankyou zigmania for the Stanovich link. I think it had been mentioned on this forum before, as the name sounded familiar, but I'd not read it before. Really helped me to clarify my thinking.
    Just because I can see SP working, especially for children who are slower to learn to read, doesn't mean that I can't also see children successfully using context or working out code for themselves.
     
  5. OK. I haven't read the whole article yet, but have read pages 108-9, so that I could find out about myself and disagree with it.[​IMG] I guess you would say that supporters of the screening check as a measure of children's decoding skills were operating a correspondence model, and those who do not support the check are operating a coherence model. Well, I don't claim that there is any overall true world view to which administering a phonics check does not cohere, and I'm really puzzled as to what that overall world view would be. My reflections on here are based on the empirical evidence of teachers reporting that good readers did less well than expected because they misread the nonwords as real words. This smacks much more of the correspondence model than the coherence model. It is something unexpected, which does not cohere with the view that good readers are always good decoders. It contradicts the folk-view that you have to decode every sound in order to be a good reader. It is an anomaly in the SP model, and if you are saying that it must be untrue because SP is the only way children become good readers, and that good readers continue to decode correctly for ever, it is you who are operating a coherence model. Actually I think it is arguable that new science is generally arrived at through the ideal of observed correspondence, where old science is defended from this through the ideal of coherence. But old science was new science once. As science becomes established as a true representation of reality it creates its own coherence. New science comes along and disproves tenets of old science through empirical evidence and all those who are well-versed in old science feel threatened and incredulous because if all the investment in terms of time, theory and belief they have made. It goes right back to Copernicus. Don't forget science only becomes wrong when it is superceded. Up to that point it is acted upon with belief by all the scientists.
     
  6. I thought she might do it purely in the spirit of mischief[​IMG]
     
  7. Mmmmm. That is a chewy article which I can see will test my powers of comprehension (and probably of decoding too)
    http://www.keithstanovich.com/Site/Research_on_Reading_files/SSSR.2003.pdf
    "Research into the psychology of reading has been characterized by an emphasis on correspondence theories of truth rather than coherence, an emphasis on analytic reductionism rather than holism, an emphasis on probabilistic prediction (as opposed to a case-based approach), the search for robust-process explanations (rather than actual-sequence explanations),
    and a concern for consilience."
    Gulp. Back in a few hours!
    Finds dictionary to look up consilience. No. A lie. Googles it: Wikipedia "In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" to strong conclusions."
     
  8. That isn't the same as saying that initial sounds and context (or perceptual learning - which I am very happy to try out if I get the resources) don't work for lots of children, but I really think it is unreasonable to write off SP yet.
    I was trying hard to resist commenting further on this thread but....I support SP. I have always supported SP since and in some respects prior to the Clackmannanshire revelations. I have always fully supported its use as the principle initial means of teaching reading and continue to do so. I supported the setting up the the RRF website and forum which promotes SP. Mona McNee, a former chairperson visited me just after she stepped down. The RRF is now dominated by self-aggrandising pseudo-intellectuals who have destroyed its usefulness (in my view)I depart from the RRF perception of SP in that I do not subscribe to its exclusivity. I work with children who have completed SP courses which were very successful with the majority in classes but failed in a minority of case to deliver good reading skills. An SP dogmatists response would be that such children should simply be required to complete more of the same exercises that have already failed - I regard this as a destructive philosophy - I do not believe that there ever can be a one-size-fits-all strategy in the teaching of reading - Whole word, searchlights etc etc didn't do it and all the signs from independent stats indicate that SP alone isn't doing it.SP dogmatists cannot fail - they say that if the SP course fails to deliver - its not the fault of the course - its the fault of the teacher. PL has and needs no such get-out-of-jail-free card because, not counting children with self-evident physical or psychological impairments, it always succeeds where phonics alone has failed. That is not something I read in book - that is something I know from masses of past and current practical research.
    which I am very happy to try out if I get the resources)
    If you teach in a school and request the resources from me at eddiecarron@btconnect.com you will receive them next week - there will be no costs or obligations and I require no prior data - I only expect that you willl post your outcomes (warts and all) on this or some other similar forum. But bear in mind LP neither replaces nor displaces any other teaching strategy.
     
  9. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    really ... I'll be alert for when you are feeling "mischievous"
     
  10. Haha! As if![​IMG]
     
  11. Quijote

    Quijote New commenter

    So not so much literacy difficulties as a problem with writing? I'm still intrigued. This is a puzzle worthy of only my third post in 6 years. I wonder what "couldn't" means in the context of writing: inability to hold a pencil, or to press a keyboard? Or is "couldn't" a slight exaggeration and the issue is that writing lags behind reading, as it does for many, children and adults. I also wonder why two separate ed psychs would be called in to assess. Was this a really unusual problem that called for a second opinion? Or does the word "separate" imply that the assessments were made at different times, and for different purposes? If the school were assuring you that there were no problems, where did these ed psychs come from? Did you make two separate private referrrals?
    Intrigued as I am, however, I can't help thinking that the difficulties experienced by a child who has achieved Level 6 in Reading by the age of 11 don't shed a huge amount of light on phonics screening tests at Year 1.
     
  12. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Really? Good thing you aren't an EP then. If he had been screened for phonics at age 6 it may have come to light much earlier that he had no phonic knowledge and wasn't able to encode words he could easily read.
     
  13. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Couldn't in the context of being able to produce meaningful written words and sentences.To the extent he couldn't read back what he had written earlier. It was recommended he use a laptop and appropriate speech recognition software.
    No it means the assessments were carried out by two different people because one went off on maternity leave and her report wasn't available for the new EP so a second check was done. Both assessments were carried out by the LEA at the request of his secondary school.
     
  14. harsh-but-fair

    harsh-but-fair Star commenter

    I think it will all turn out to be a strom (sic) in a tea-cup.

    Pib! Pib!
     
  15. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    vus?
     
  16. Couldn't in the context of being able to produce meaningful written words and sentences.To the extent he couldn't read back what he had written earlier. It was recommended he use a laptop and appropriate speech recognition software.
    This does indeed suggest a fairly complex and quite unusual case - I did on one occasion only ever come across something similar although in that case it was girl. In fact, there was a history of this in her family - I remember her brother had a similar affliction but did get a good honours degree in something or other. I was in my last year of teaching and I initially developed my current, supported dictation courses with this girl and she was in fact able to read back what she had written by dictation. I have no idea how she fared in the long term although I know her family wanted her to go to uni.
    I am sure you will have tried many things with him yourself including a ritual phonics regime but did you ever try a supported dictation course of the kind in the Literacy Toolbox which automtically adapts to individual writing pace and short term memory span?

     
  17. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    No Eddie I have not tried teaching him phonics because I believed all the people who told me it didn't matter because his reading was exceptional.
     
  18. You have to wonder why his writing problems were not picked up and investigated before he was 12 years old. Did they attempt to remedy this in primary? This sort of imbalance in skills should be just the thing to set the alarm bells ringing.
     
  19. No Eddie I have not tried teaching him phonics because I believed all the people who told me it didn't matter because his reading was exceptional.

    And do you really believe that a phonics regime would have made a significant difference in his case?
     
  20. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I don't know Eddie (my instinct is that it would have helped rather than solved) but I do know a screening check would have identified his difficulties much earlier.
     

Share This Page