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 'Primary' started by totallyflipped, Apr 21, 2013.
Yet you read it as meaning one thing and others read it as more
When were they a fashion?
Well let's let people following the thread decide. The Rose Report states:"What is Systematic Phonics Instruction? Phonics is a method of instruction that teaches students correspondences between graphemes in written language and phonemes in spoken language and how to use these correspondences to read and spell words. Phonics instruction is systematic when all the major grapheme-phoneme correspondences are taught and they are covered in a clearly defined sequence." (p17)and"Having considered a wide range of evidence, the review has concluded that the case for systematic phonic work is overwhelming and much strengthened by a synthetic approach, the key features of which are to teach beginner readers:
? grapheme/phoneme (letter/sound) correspondences (the alphabetic principle) in a clearly defined, incremental sequence
? to apply the highly important skill of blending (synthesising) phonemes in order, all through a word to read it
? to apply the skills of segmenting words into their constituent phonemes to spell
? that blending and segmenting are reversible processes." (p20).
and where in that description does it exclude all the things you keep telling me aren't phonics?
Well that depends what they are, doesn't it? If they come within that description they are included, if they do not they are excluded. Presumably they come outside as you say they are outside my 'narrow' view, which is simply the government understanding as stated above and elsewhere.
1970s. Everyone had them in our area. My mum taught at another school and they had them because she used to bring them home sometimes. She taught the 'slow' children in years 3 and 4, as they are now, and none of them left her class unable to read, write really well (she still has lots of the evidence) and do maths competently. We were taught mainly look and say with a bit of phonic type instruction AFTER we'd started reading! Maybe it was meant to sweep up the slower readers but I remember finding it completely incomprhensible!
In the 1970s I wore platform shoes ...another fashion faux pas of the time
The remit for the Rose Review was the teaching of early reading.
As most of the words that are used for teaching beginners to read have simple, phonically regular spellings, they are relatively reversible for spelling. This becomes less and less so beyond the basic stage
e.g. <font color="#0000ff">http://improvingenglishspelling.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/long-and-short-vowels.html</font>
where hundreds of spellings have to be learned word by word.
spieling is carp!
so I donut you silly boher wit it
Yes. However, many of the words early readers need to read (and spell, if they are writing) are among the most irregular in the language, or, if you prefer, use the rarest of alternative spellings. SP enthusiasts urge us to teach these by teaching the 'tricky bit'. But it is not particularly useful to learn a GPC if it appears in only one word, or only a handful of words, although there is no harm in pointing it out to help the child blend the word first time to find out what it is. After that, it is much more useful for the child to remember the whole word, eg 'of'; it makes more sense to memorise 'of' as a whole word than go through the process, on each encounter, of remembering that 'f' sometimes denotes /v/. There is a downside, too, of teaching the tricky bit. It means the child is shown the word in segments. This means, for some children, a delay in learning this unusually spelt but common whole word and responding automatically when they see it. In addition, in a book which introduces 'of' a child may learn the word and (with support) the correspondence 'f' =/v/. There is then a tendency to use this correspondence when reading (and spelling) other words containing 'f'. This can be confusing for a child in the way that learning that the whole word 'of' is pronounced 'ov' may not. Luckily most children soon learn to recognise 'of' as a whole word using their natural abilities, despite teaching method. There isn't an easy way with English spelling. SP proposes a closed system which, it is claimed, will be sufficient to teach children to decode accurately. If only a child knows the 'alphabetic code' they will prosper, apparently. Unfortunately the premises underlying this argument are faulty. The 'alphabetic code' is an opaque code which is not reliable for decoding or encoding. Other strategies from outside the closed system have to be used and added into the codebook to ensure accuracy, and these strategies do not fit the definition of SP decoding. It is unfortunate that SP enthusiasts are so rigid in their insistence that SP is the answer to decoding problems, because SP is an excellent strategy for early reading despite its limitations. But instead of realistic consideration of the arguments we get this blinkered defensiveness, leading to a lack of progress in finding the best route to reading and spelling for children. Comprehension is another issue of course not dealt with directly on this thread.
Clutching at straws, thumbie?
Another defensive response.If you think I am clutching at straws what is your fear of saying what the straws are and why they are straws?
I'll leave it to Msz. She can't be acused of never having taught 5y olds to read.
I'm sure that she wouldn't make such hard work of teaching 'of'; nor would your 'objections' even cross her mind...
Bringing it back to personal stuff again.I think you will find I have only ever asked you when you taught four year olds to read, Maizie. It's never been an accusation, and I have only brought it up when personal experience has been the issue (Msz is constantly making it an issue). Your experience of supervising older children and not beginners sometimes shows in your responses. In fact, I think it shows in the way you seem to dismiss the teaching of 'of' as something trivial. However, you don't have to be a teacher to have valid opinions about how children learn and the acquisition of reading skill. My description of teaching 'of' is in line with SP advice about not teaching 'tricky words' as wholes, but teaching the tricky bit. To me, this is making an unecessary meal of it when you could simply teach the child the word. But, no, I don't think Msz would entertain that thought. Anyhow, who knows for sure whether Msz is a bone fide teacher. She's just a voice on an Internet forum like you and me.
Actually maizie does know that I am a bone fide teacher as she has met me and a number of my colleagues thumbie (just as I can vouch she is who she says she is)
But how do we know Maizie is who she says she is, either? Or that you are telling the truth when you say you have met her? That's the problem with using personal information or data on an Internet forum. You could write anything, with total impunity. Best to keep to known and verifiable facts and logical argument if you want to discuss something at any level of seriousness.
Would you like to share the extremely short list of words that contain a spelling for a sound not found in any other words? answers on a pin head please
I'm not sure if you make a habit of gatecrashing training pretending to be a teacher thumbie but I don't think you would get away with it.
That's a bit of selective quoting. This was what I said:
And some of these words are the most frequently used in the language.