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

high frequency words/tricky words

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by mancminx, Jul 20, 2011.

  1. But it's crazy to imagine that when learning to read all those the words the reader would have to apply phonics each time, for all the constituent parts of each word. The reader will recognise parts of words and familiar configurations of letters as they read. The words are also likely to be ones they have heard and know, so they will already have the word in their repertoire before the reading attempt and have an idea of its meaning to support them.
     
  2. Indeed. U can almost define reading fluency as the ability to read all common words instantly, without the need for decoding.
    And whatever Maizie and Msz say re estimates of the size of an educated adult's vocabulary, if u take the trouble to look at a frequency corpus, the first 25,000 already include lots of derivatives from words listed earlier (as u find out by putting them into alphabetical order) or words that u would not expect an average 16-yr-old to know.
    At a much more basic level, any child who can fluently read the 300 most HF words listed in L&S will be off to flying start. Time spent on the irregular ones among those is bound to help:
    <font size="3" face="Calibri" color="#000000">cat dad gran grandad had has hat man &ndash; animals-- saw</font>[/b] want wanted was what water ---







    <font color="#000000"> cold old told -- another coming don&rsquo;t most mother oh once only other work--</font>



    <font color="#000000">could couldn&rsquo;t thought through would you your --</font>
    <font size="3"><font face="Calibri"> down how now town-- grow know snow window--</font></font>


     
  3. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    masha it isn't what maizie or I say about the average vocabulary it is what researchers and experts in linguistics say. The fact that a number of eminent people (not just maizie and I) disagree with you might reasonably be cause for you to reconsider and question your own stance
     
  4. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    The Oxford English Dictionary states that none of the words are derivatives masha so perhaps you need to talk to them!
     
  5. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    No one is suggesting that children have to continue to "sound out" words beyond the point they can read the word.
     
  6. OK.So at what point would you allow that a person can look at a word they have not read before and be able to read it without going through the 'sounding out' process?
     
  7. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I would encourage a child to read the word as soon as I was confident that they were actually reading it rather than guessing but the whole point is to equip children to do just that not to continue sounding out /c/ /a/ /t/ forever.
     
  8. If I come across a word I have never read before I sound it out (probably syllable at a time as it is very likely to be complex). That is after 50+ years reading experience. It's an extremely simple thing to do. I don't see where you have a problem with it.
    How can you possibly look at a word you have not 'read' before and 'know' what it says without sounding it out? (And the tortuous method you describe in an earlier post really boils down to nothing much more than 'sounding out', just doing it in an unnecessarily complex way)
     
  9. That's interesting. I certainly do not sound out. I know that because it takes extra thinking time and effort for me to recognise and make decisions about the phonemes, when I attempt to analyse words in this way. Another reason is that I read in my head and not out loud, which reduces the necessity of being sure about pronunciation. I do tend to chunk new words, simply into 'easy' units, if the word is multisyllabic. For me, your method would be unnecessarily tortuous, and would interfere with my flow of thought.
     
  10. Of course. But then we have to define 'guessing', and decide how we know whether or not a child is guessing, or using other helpful methods. If 'guessing' from context supports the child in reading the word correctly, and they then utter it correctly, the process is helping them to learn that word. Similarly, if the child 'guesses' the wrong pronunciation for an ambiguous grapheme, their realisation that they have not arrived at a meaningful utterance will help them to have another 'guess' and support them in learning the word. Your assertion that using phonics does not involve guess work doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.
     
  11. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    "guessing" is saying random words that may begin with the same letter
    so if they see cart and say cat they are guessing and need to be brought back to the word and sound it out.
     
  12. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I would suggest that isn't guessing but deduction (using knowledge not luck)
     
  13. Well, honestly! You would, wouldn't you?
     
  14. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Getting the correct answer by guesswork is a matter of luck getting the correct answer by using what you know already is deduction or do you disagree?
     
  15. But the likelihood is that they will only go back and look at the word again if they are listening to themselves and reading for meaning, although of course, if directed to look again by the teacher they will obey instructions. We want children to be independent readers, I hope. In addition, the guess you cite is based on a wrong utterance of the grapheme 'ar', it has nothing to do with the 'guessing' from context or meaning that you so abhor ( or as others might assert, 'deducing' ). By the way, a quick think about the word 'cart' comes up with at least one other possible phonic solution. The word could rhyme with 'wart' and still follow the code - a bit of guesswork required.
     
  16. More or less, but what I would say is that there is often an element of guesswork in deduction in this context. You work from evidence, but the evidence can be ambiguous, and your deduction can therefore be wrong because of a wrong guess between possibles. What I disagree with is the teacher's active limitation of children's deductive response to the phonics of what they are reading.
     
  17. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    The likelyhood is they will just keep on reading unless you draw their attention to the error
    Actually nothing to do with the wrong utterance of the grapheme "ar" simply a child who sees the letter c at the beginning and the letter t at the end and guesses the word is cat. I am not talking about children who are using context.
     
  18. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I would also suggest that context won't help if faced with two sentences
    I can see the cat.
    I can see the cart.
    The child needs to read through the whole word they can't use context because there isn't any.
     
  19. If there is no context, there is not much of a text. I guess you might get this problem in a phonics only decodable text, where using any other strategy is forbidden. Point made.
     
  20. I'm sorry, it is to do with a wrong utterance of 'ar', whether the child has paid attention to the 'ar' or not. I agree, you are not talking about children using context, you are talking about a child who is using phonics but without enough rigour and is not using context at all, or being encouraged to use it to help.
     

Share This Page