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.
Discussion in 'Early Years' started by mancminx, Jul 20, 2011.
or saw even
Good grief.That's why we teach them to look at them in order, so that they read them in order. And I, for one, would not rely too much on just telling them left to right. Msz, when you talk about this being the way children are taught, do you mean it is the way you teach them? We know that the relationship between synthetic phonics and Msz's phonics is not simple, don't we, from previous posts on this thread?
The point is the children are taught to look at the whole word (not just the initial letter) if they can read it they read it if not they use their knowledge to blend through the word and context to make choices if homographs/ graphemes are involved.
The whole point about constant practice and review is to develop automatic recall (i.e with no conscious thought) of the GPCs. This also includes automatic recall of variations (e.g is 'ea' an /ee/ sound, an /ay/ sound or an /e/,as in bed, sound.) You seem to have a concept of children consciously running through a mental list of GPCs when they are decoding a word - it just doesn't happen like that once the recall is automatic. Yes, they do have the 'list' in their memories, but it requires no conscious effort to access it. I hesitate to make an analogy because you always quarrel with them, but it is like recalling a well known phone number. You don't have to work it out or check it each time because you have used it so often that it comes to you automatically.
When you say order what does it actually mean to a young child?
I wouldn't tell a child left to right I would demonstrate wouldn't you?
No thumbie I mean the way that all the DVDs and training packages demonstrate good teaching methods.
Actually I think we have established that LP (sorry I can't take credit for a method that has been around for many decades) and SP share many, many similarities certainly where the essentials of teaching are concerned.
When it comes to the actual teaching of GPCs for reading and spelling Msz's methods are just about the same as those of any SP practitioners. ( We have discussed this off the forum because I was interested in the perceived differences but didn't think anyone else would be)
Msz and maizie, I have hopes for you yet. So, if you can automatically recall 'all', you can be allowed to use that for 'tall', yes? And , fi you automatically recall 'ought' you can use it for 'brought'? Even more adventurous, if you know scratch, are you allowed to guess, 'batch'?
You're an optimist..
Knowing 'all' may help you with fall,small, call, tall, but it won't help you with walk, talk and chalk. Knowing that 'al' can spell /or/ immediately adds more words to the reading vocabulary. What is more, knowing that 'al' can also spell /ar/ will add palm and calm.
But I'm not saying it will help you with those other words. But if you know 'walk', which you might encounter quite early in your reading experience, that will help you with 'chalk'etc. Of course you can learn that 'al' spells /or/ too. In fact you can infer it.
You've chosen rhyming words as your examples maize. Well done.
thumbie, I think it's important to look at the actual research.
After much practice in orally breaking memorised whole words into
onset and rime (hence all the rhyme and alliteration activities used in
mixed method classrooms), it is assumed that children will then be able
to use this strategy with previously unseen words. 'Recognising word
families and patterns helps children develop inferential self-teaching
strategies. If they can read 'cake', they can work out and read 'lake'
without blending all the individual phonemes' (Phonics. Lewis/S.Ellis p4)
But, Dr Macmillan says, '…teaching children about onset
and rime as a route to discovering individual phonemes is
similar logic to thinking that a person can be taught to read
music by memorising chords on, say a guitar or piano. Although
it may be relatively easy for a person to learn the names
of some musical chords and how to play them, there is little
possibility that this knowledge will lead to the ability to
read musical notation, to the ability to play individual notes
on these instruments in response to the corresponding written
symbols.' (Why Schoolchildren Can't Read' Macmillan p82). And, recent studies 'have shown conclusively that children do not
use rhyming endings to decode words; hardly ever decode by
analogy to other words; and that ability to dissect words
into onsets and rimes has no impact whatsoever on learning
to read and spell. (D.McGuinness Why Children Can't Read
Thank you SusanG. There is interesting research around the whole reading debate. It should be treated with a little scepticism, however. The Clackmannanshire research that has been so influential has been found flawed is some respects.
Orally breaking down words is unlikely to help children read unseen words. The children need to see words and break the written word into onset and rime, supported obviously, by saying the words. Oral rehearsal is an earlier step to help them to develop an ability to recognise rhyme.
But children with a good grasp of rhyme do not necessarily need to use that to discover individual phonemes. If you can read a word each time you get to it, you don't need to know the phoneme correspondences to read the word, you only need to know the whole word to read the word. Then it is a short step to reading the rhyming words. True, it is very useful to know the GPCs, that's not in dispute. But your aim is to be able to read the words.
Well, was the study about decoding or reading? D McGuiness needs to make up her mind.
thumbie, all expert readers are decoding as they read, they just aren't conscious of the fact, but brain scans show that the motor area of the brain is 'sounding out' each word. The eye movement research confirms this.
The Clackmannshire research wasn't 'flawed'. The whole language folk who oppose synthetic phonics attempted to subvert its findings as they didn't like its conclusion that, 'synthetic phonics was a more effective approach to teaching
reading, spelling and phonemic awareness than analytic phonics'
'Fact and Fiction about the Clackmannanshire study', which also includes comment on the Torgerson et al review: http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=170&n_issueNumber=59
Both sides probably use language in their own special ways Susan. Look at the way the word 'guess' is abused in order to discredit by SP people. There will always be claims and counter-claims arising from research, because, as you rightly say, there will always be people who dislike certain findings. Of course, that is a necessary part of discourse as we all attempt to improve reading skills. If there was nobody willing to question, what progress would ever be made? If you enter the classroom with your mind made up you risk missing what your eyes and ears are trying to tell you (I mean 'if one...'). So the way forward is to find out as much as you can and have an open mind.But this discussion seems to have gone full circle. Sadly, it doesn't look as though it's got enough steam to last for more pages than those ones which are devoted to people wanting other's planning.
I hope not. We might just as well all talk to ourselves if there is no common understanding of what words mean.
We (i.e Msz and I) have given you several dictionary definitions of 'guessing' which you will not accept. We can't help it if you don't speak the same version of English that most people do.
But then you apply the definition selectively, don't you maizie?
a. Say I don't know the word 'although', but I do know that ough can be 'oe', 'or', 'oo' or 'ow', and I use that to decode the word.
b. Say I don't know the word 'although', but I read through the whole sentence, "I did not win, although I ran very fast and came second" and I use that knowledge to read the word .
You can't have it both ways, either both methods involve guessing, or neither method involve guessing.
Why not combine the methods and increase the evidence base?