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

Lists of words suitable for Y1 phonics screening practice...

Discussion in 'Primary' started by giraffe77, Mar 21, 2012.

  1. Does that need a winky smiley bit, too? Isn't that the point of learning to read? To be able to independently read any unfamilair word you encounter? Or does all one's reading have to be confined to text which contains words you 'learned' in YR/1?
     
  2. No winky needed :)I just meant unfamiliar in the sense of not in the children's vocabulary, as I thought that was what you meant. Sorry!
     
  3. Nobody would be doing this if it wasn't for the stupid test.
    Insane tests induce insane behaviour.
    U can't blame teachers for wanting to prepare their pupils for this nonsense, but teaching reading with nonsense words is just that - nonsense. It makes a mockery of the whole process.
     
  4. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    decoding present participle of de·code (Verb)
    Verb:
    Convert (a coded message) into intelligible language.
    perhaps that's the problem thumbie ...people believing decoding is simply about pronouncing

    (I just used google definition for the above)
     
  5. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Who was reading with the child?
    What would normally happen if a child really needs to blend every word phoneme by phoneme (and they were expected to read would be for the adult to repeat each word as the child decodes it helping them to build the sentence word by word then encouraging the child to say the whole sentence.
    so for example
    Dad has a fast car. The child might build up dad and say dad then build up has but say dad has then build up fast and say dad has a fast and finally car and say the who sentence. Obviously this is in the early stages but a child who can't remember the previous word needs could need this to help develop working memory.
     
  6. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    but do people really need to do it or is it as you say insane behaviour?
    Sorry but I thought teaching was enough preparation
     
  7. Good grief. And then bringing your intelligence to bear on it. And your definition is about ciphers. The 'code' which is written English is not a straightforward cipher, however much the SP people want to copyright and franchise the term 'code' as well, giving it their own special meaning.
     
  8. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    de·code
       [dee-kohd] Show IPA verb, -cod·ed, -cod·ing.
    verb (used with object)

    1.
    to translate (data or a message) from a code into the original language or form.

    2.
    to extract meaning from (spoken or written symbols).

    and I'll repeat this once again for you thumbie ....s.. l... o... w... l... y
    I don't teach SP!!


     
  9. There is absolutely no reason why a cipher has to be straighforward; look at the Enigma Code. Many codes are written to be as impenetrable as possible. English Alphabetic Code is complex. That doesn't make it not a code.
    This is really irrelevant rambling and makes no sense in relation to the preceding words. Show me where any 'SP' person has tried to slap a copyright on the English Alphabetic Code? And the adverts for 'Alphabetic Code Franchises'.
    Nothing special about it at all. A code represents one thing with a set of symbols. That is just what the alphabet does. It represents sounds with symbols.
    You are a very muddled thinker...

     
  10. Haha. Maybe I'm just a complex thinker!
     
  11. Which just goes to show that teaching of the Alphabetic Code is not confined to one particular group of people, nor is adherence to some practices; notably, not teaching children to guess words....

     
  12. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    you certainly have your own unique view of things ... obviously all the dictionaries are wrong because they don't agree with your view
     
  13. Lighten up Maizie. I can't believe you took the stuff about copyright seriously. I was being a touch satirical.As for codes, I believe they are created by moving from the words being communicated to the words/ symbols that represent them. There has to be some sort of consistency although that may be very secret. Decoding is then a set process although you may need a computer to do it. This is not an arbitrary process, however complex. I don't really have too much argument about 'the alphabet code', it's a good analogy. However, it is more arbitrary than a genuine code because it has evolved rather than been purposefully created.
     
  14. I suspect you are trying to sidetrack the argument Msz. There is no argument about decoding words giving you intelligible units, if done correctly (let's forget the complexities and inconsistencies for now), but having arrived at the intelligible units through the decoding process you then have to bring your knowledge and intelligence to bear in order to comprehend them, either singly, or even more so, in phrases and sentences. Decoding won't do that for you. After all we could all, as good decoders, have a go at decoding foreign languages into intelligible units, but not intelligible to us. The 'extract meaning' definition of decode is just a lazy one. Where did you find that? It applies better to a formulated cipher though - so maybe that's where the analogy of decoding with reading breaks down.
     
  15. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    No thumbie I'm just trying to work out how you conclude that decoding has nothing to do with finding meaning from the symbols which are our written code ...

    and for what it's worth I stated my view fairly early in this thread that I don't think teachers should need to practise lists of words (real or otherwise) if children have been taught the alphabetic code and know how to blend
     
  16. You will note that I haven't said 'has nothing to do with'. It is connected. As your definition says, it makes the written word 'intelligible', that means it renders it into a form that can be understood. Do you get it now? You must know that children can decode words that are not in their vocabulary, and indeed, nonsense words. Didn't we cover this a few posts back?
     
  17. Unfortunately, your view isn't shared by everyone. I can well understand teachers, seeing that the pass rate in the pilot was a low 32%, will worry that their children might not pass. They will want to give their children the best chance they can of exceeding that - for the children, themselves and their school.
     
  18. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    no thumbie I don't get how you can believe that decoding has nothing to do with comprehension but it does explain why you have such a problem with the concept of phonics.
     
  19. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    No I would say these children can blend these words but without mean they can't decode.
     
  20. Oh that's a good one - change the goalposts! 'Can blend'? Come on! What about knowing ('decoding' to the rest of us) the GPCs in the first place, at least when you change the goalposts be comprehensive in your new definition. By the way, I have looked back through all my previous posts and scoured them for 'nothing to do with'. The closest I got to that was 'independent'. You really don't do subtlety do you Msz? And as a you know after all the sparring we have done on these forums, I do not have a problem with phonics, just with the way SP is set up as THE ANSWER.
     

Share This Page