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

Need your help on the teaching of spelling

Discussion in 'Primary' started by totallyflipped, Apr 21, 2013.

  1. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I don't think it's old fashioned just "spoonfeeding"
    the point is the child does know most of the answer and are only having difficulty with how to spell certain sounds ... It's interesting to see how "proud" a child is when they realise they can spell 90% of a difficult word and only need a small amount of help from an adult.
    tell them the correct spelling for the sound that they find difficult and let them get on with it.
  2. The government stated the phonic methods in this way because it was aware that SP does not allow for anything from outside phonic decoding to be added to phonics, in the belief that a dilution of phonics would confuse children. At least there is an honesty there about exactly what phonics is and no attempt to draw in non-phonic methods. Rose did state that children should still receive a background of rich literacy experiences, but did not attempt (as some have) to claim that phonics somehow includes a rich literacy background. This will always have to be in addition to phonics and is endangered by the phonics check and the matchfunding criteria. I would dispute that spelling is decoding in reverse. With decoding the letters are available for interpretation, with spelling the writer has to choose the correct letters from a range iof possibilities. That is altogether different. This explains why some excellent readers have trouble with spelling. They do not have the skill required to know the correct GPCs for then specific word, despite having the skill to read and interpret an ambiguous GPC in order to decode a word, probably on occasion using context. The problem posed by reading is quite different from the problem posed by spelling. In theory, spelling is decoding in reverse, but in practice it is not.
  3. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Sorry thumbie I wasn't aware you were a government advisor and your statement demonstrates you don't know much about SP.
    You need to rethink your practice
  4. You only have to read the Rose report and observe how the government has implemented SP to see what it's position is. No need to be an adviser or expert. Find the part of government policy that contradicts what I said, Msz, if you believe I am wrong. I'm not referring to my practice, I'm referring to the practice of spelling a word. Unfortunately, as much as it might be good practice to teach reading and spelling together, they are not practiced together in reality, unless the writer is copying from text.
  5. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Only if you can read without any preconceptions thumbie
    Fortunately there are many, many people who don't share your spelling difficulties

  6. Who is attempting to draw in 'non-phonicmethods' and claiming that they are part of phonics teaching? What precisely do you mean by 'non-phonic methods'?
    I fail to see how a rich literacy background is incompatible with phonics teaching, unless, of course you think that a rich literacy background can only be achieved by teaching children to guess words and by making them read and spell words that are beyond their current state of phonic knowledge.
  7. http://www.phonicsinternational.com/Let_me_help_you_to_spell_that.pdf
    For the word 'mix', we can hear /ks/ at the end, look at the chart for the /ks/ sound, you need this one here, as in 'fox'.
    Other words like that it include 'six', 'wax', 'text', 'taxi'.
    It would also be a good idea to teach talk about single words and plural words for the end /ks/ sound.
    The teacher needs to raise awareness about spelling alternatives and spelling word banks as a constant. A giant Alphabetic Code Chart displayed in a main area is a very helpful spelling reference chart - along with the practice of building up spelling word banks so words with the same sounds and spellings can be associated together.
    Spelling stories, pictures, acting out the words in the word bank, linking the words to pictures and stories, recalling specific numbers of words to partners - all help.
  8. It is actually expressed in the Rose Report and in the matchfunding criteria in a very clear, unequivocal way leaving very little room for interpretation. I don't think preconceptions come into it. Perhaps, instead of trying to discredit what I say as being biased you could find some written evidence from government documentation that contradicts it.
    Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to get at here. I am aware that I made 2 spelling mistakes in the post you are referring to, which I wrote in a hurry and did not check. However, I'm sure you're not capitalising on those uncharacteristic errors to suggest that I can't spell. So perhaps you could clarify.
  9. Well it's a bit of a mystery what I mean by non-phonic methods, Maizie. Perhaps Msz can clear it up. She keeps claiming that I have a narrow view of phonics teaching when, as far as I am concerned, I have the view of phonics teaching used in all the documentation on the subject that has come out of the government, and it seems very straightforward and comprehensive, not narrow at all. Systematic synthetic phonics teaching teaches pupils to decode GPCs left to right through the word and blend them for reading, and to segment phonemes and write the corresponding GPCs left to right through the word for spelling. That is all it is and that is all that should be taught, first and fast. Hence the phonics check and the match funding initiative. Msz seems to be saying that there is more to phonics teaching than that. Ergo there must be more to phonics teaching than phonics (Raa). A rich literacy background is not incompatible with phonics teaching unless time and effort spent in teaching phonics leads to children being deprived of literacy enrichment, which is not available from phonics lessons and decodable texts.
  10. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I was not referring to your spelling but your problem with teaching spelling (encoding) as the reverse of decoding.
  11. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Actually thumbie I don't know what you mean by non-phonic methods either.
  12. Perhaps it would be better if you wrote about concepts which you can explain.
  13. That problem is nothing to do with me, but with the problematic nature of the English orthography when it comes to phonic correspondences. You acknowledged those yourself in an earlier post. Unfortunately teaching decoding and encoding of a word at the same time, although helpful, does not entirely solve the problem.Again, you insist on making the problems of phonics my problems, Msz, when I mention facts and argue a case. Entertaining as that might be, it would be more productive if you could directly respond to the arguments put forward, and more helpful to those looking at this thread hoping to get some pointers for teaching spelling.
  14. Yes, but it hasn't been explained. I'm just told my view is narrow.

  15. You used the term 'non-phonic methods'. Why are you using a term which you can't explain the meaning of? How does it aid clear communication?
  16. It doesn't. But you need to take it up with msz.
  17. Why? You're the person who used the phrase.
  18. Why? Because according to Msz my definition of phonics is too narrow and that is why I see difficulties in using phonics alone to teach decoding and encoding, or indeed, early reading and spelling. However, the definition of phonics I am using is the definition found in the Rose Report. It is the one evident in the matchfunding criteria. It is the one that is tested through the phonics check. Using these reliable sources it follows that phonics teaching cannot provide the complete answer to problems of decoding and problems of encoding in reading and writing due to the irregularities in English which have been described repeatedly. Nevertheless, I am told by Msz that the definition I am using (the government one) is too narrow. I have to assume that she uses something that goes beyond this 'narrow' definition in her phonics teaching. But whatever it is she uses must by definition be in addition to phonics which is very adequately explained by the government documents. I cannot help but reach the conclusion that some non-phonic method is being used here, and that Msz regards it as part of phonics. I would not presume to know what the non-phonics element is, which is why I suggest you ask Msz. It's all pretty academic, as it is the government, not Msz, that decides what phonics is for the purposes of teaching in schools.
  19. Doitforfree

    Doitforfree Star commenter

    When did spelling books go out of fashion? We had them even in my crummy junior school. If we didn't know a word the teacher wrote it in the book. If we still couldn't remember the next time we could look it up on the book, and woe betide you if you asked for a word already in there! It feels like a good extra string to the bow of learning to spell. Not the whole answer, of course, but it's not something I've come across in recent years.
    Eventually children have to internalise spellings one way or another if they're going to write accurately and fluently, and ultimately the only way to do this is practice of the correct spelling, whether that's achieved by spelling using phonics or learning whole words or both. Some children will have to do a lot more practice than others.
  20. Agreed. And it is counter-productive to mislead by claiming that phonic encoding is going to enable this process, which of course it can support - although used wrongly it also has the power to impede.

Share This Page