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

ou

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by Zebrahead, Jul 12, 2013.

  1. is 'ou' a grapheme? i think not and that the 'ou' is the tricky word as in out, about..


     
  2. Hiya Zebrahead

    ou is not a grapheme - graphemes are single letters e.g. a, b, c, s, t, etc

    one school i did a placement in taught the children to say 'two letters, one sound' for phonemes with two graphemes such as ou. When saying one sound they made a squiggle in the air - they followed read write inc.

    ou is not a tricky word - tricky words are words that can not be sounded out e.g. the would be sounded out as th and e which would not sound as the if that makes sense

    I may be wrong but don't think i am

    Please correct me if i am!
     
  3. Forgot to say so chn are taught ou as ow for out, shout etc

    1. /ow/ as in found

    about, house, shout, mouse, count, loud, sound, hound

    2. long o as in four

    pour, course, court, gourd, mourn, fourth

    3. /oo/ as in you

    your, tour, crouton, group, coup

    4. /uh/ as in country

    cousin, double
     
  4. 'ou' is a digraph rather than two graphemes - ie it represents one phoneme but is composed of two letters. It can represent a range of single sounds, as you say, sometimes depending on the local accent. Just to confuse matters, in my part of the world it can represent two phonemes - some people round here say something close to 'ow-er' for 'our' - the vowel sound is a diphthong. All good fun.

    I'm not sure about your 'long o' or your /oo/ incarnation (it is /oo/ in 'you' but not in 'your'). Do you mean it can represent /or/? Maybe that's down to accent as well. I think 'our' is generally regarded to be a trigraph in words like 'your' and 'court', representing /or/.
     
  5. A grapheme is a letter or a letter group which is code for a phoneme.

    A phoneme is usually described as the smallest identifiable sound in words which change the meaning of words such as:

    /b/ /oa/ /t/ and /k/ /oat/ /t/

    The /b/ and /k/ sounds change the meaning of the word.

    Graphemes are code for phonemes.

    Bear in mind, however, that some letters and letter groups are code for two phonemes such as 'x' as code for /k+s/ as in 'fox' and /g+z/ as in 'exam'.

    In some words, u, -ue, u-e and ew are code for two sounds /y+oo/ as in uniform, rescue, tube and stew.
     
  6. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Simply put a grapheme is a letter or letters that spell a sound in a word.

    and <ou> is most definitely a grapheme

    in cloud it represents the sound /ow/ as in out

    in soup it represents /oo/ as in moon

    in trouble it represents /u/ as in run
     
  7. Thank you all!

    Obviously I'm not up to scratch with all the vocabulary! In regards to the long sounds - i copied and pasted from online - haha!
     
  8. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Have you had any phonics training?

    It's unfair of schools to throw people in at the deep end without good training
     
  9. What's worse is when it is implied that some sort of specialist knowledge is needed to analyse the way one's own language is written. This de-skills people who already know phonics, but might not know the 'official' terms and jargon. Anyone who can read is able to identify the 'code' with a little thought, there's nothing specialised about it.

    The result of this belief that you need to be given 'the knowledge' is that people rely on the input they have from 'experts' rather than using their knowledge as proficient readers and writers. I would say a one hour introduction, to familiarise student teachers with the terminology used by the various schemes and programmes, is enough to bring them up to speed. They are already expert readers, and therefore expert 'decoders'.

    Any training beyong that would be specific to the logistics of specific programmes- not exactly phonics training.
     
  10. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

  11. Why's that?
     
  12. Perhaps it means that you're talking nonsense...
     
  13. We can only speculate what it's intended to express, being virtually meaningless.
     
  14. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    [​IMG]It's a thumb for thumbie and wasn't meant to express anything at all
     
  15. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Would you say the same if someone didn't know what ellipsis were or conjunctions or hyperbole ... or do you reserve your "ignorance is bliss attitude" for phonics Unlike you most teachers prefer to understand what they have to teach ...
    no thumbie it's basic subject knowledge not specific to a programme ...and as teachers we should possess that BASIC knowledge!
     
  16. I haven't said that ignorance is bliss. I have simply pointed out that as readers and writers of English we already know phonics, although some may be ignorant of the terminology in use. This is easily remedied by a bit of training and/or reading. A problem arises when it is presented as some sort of rocket science. This misconception fuels a sense of helplessness in the face of what is perceived to be difficult, privileged knowledge. If we want people to teach phonics with confidence it needs to be de-mystified. It is not difficult, privileged knowledge. They already know it.

    I learnt the meaning of terms such as 'conjunction' and 'hyperbole' at school, Msz. And before I learnt those I learnt how to read and therefore learnt phonics, although no one taught me 'grapheme' and 'phoneme'. I know those terms now. I looked them up.
     
  17. Zebrahead is so befuddled by the phonics gravy train that she has forgotten that she knows what a word is.
     
  18. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Who is presenting it as rocket science? It's basic knowledge but if teachers are unsure - and many readily admit they know nothing about phonics then schools need to provide training rather than expect them to follow a handbook.
     
  19. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I can honestly say your phonic knowledge often leaves me me completely speechless thumbie
     
  20. I'd love to have an example of something that's rendered you speechless. That would be a first.

    The teachers that say they know nothing about phonics have imbibed from the fountain of SP myth. Of course they know about phonics.

    Training about a specific phonics scheme is probably useful if that is the scheme being used in the school. Some of them seem very involved and prescriptive, so a bit of time getting heads around how they work does not come amiss. One doesn't want to be accused of not following them properly, a common accusation levelled when results are not as expected.
     

Share This Page