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


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

  1. Rose told me, the RRF told me.

    You can't have it both ways, Msz. You either insist that SP is what Rose says, and what the RRF says, and explicitly bar other strategies, shelving comprehension, or you admit that other strategies, which are not phonic strategies, are allowed into the decoding process.

    Which is it?
  2. Debbie, you paint such as rosy picture. I can understand you think phonics is the bees' knees in your circumstances. Let's wait for some evidence that the English phonics drive is improving real reading long term, shall we? (A proper sample, Msz).
  3. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    We won't get any evidence if most people share your view of what is and isn't phonics and teach accordingly

    at least you have shown that there is a real need for high quality training

  4. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    No they didn't

    you read Rose and because the document identifies KEY features you decided that there are no other features [​IMG]

    Maizie and Debbie have told you otherwise yet you insist you know better than the people who run the RRF [​IMG]

    Other strategies used in the Searchlight model are not part of SP no guessing from picture clues, no looking at the initial letter and working out what word starting with that letter might fit in the sentence and no lists of words to memorise by shape/sight, but nowhere (except in your version) does phonics exclude comprehension and vocabulary

    When have I insisted that thumbie ... that would be NEVER!
  5. A bit more of Rose for you, nothing about key features, just a plain definition of what SSP is:

    In a paper presented at a seminar on phonics conducted by the DfES in March 2003, Linnea Ehri wrote:

    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.

    Then there's this, about teaching phonics first:

    The recent Australian report, Teaching Reading, came to much the same conclusion:

    In sum, the incontrovertible finding from the extensive body of local and international evidence-based literacy research is that for children during the early years of schooling (and subsequently if needed), to be able to link their knowledge of spoken language to their knowledge of written language, they must first master the alphabetic code – the system of grapheme-phoneme correspondences that link written words to their pronunciations.

    How about this, about how phonics and comprehension are different:

    Further progress can now be made if the searchlights model is restructured to separate and clarify the two components of reading, word recognition skills and language comprehension processes, that are presently confounded within it. In this context, word recognition is the process of using phonics to recognise words. Language comprehension is the process by which word information, sentences and discourse are interpreted: a common process is held to underlie comprehension of both oral and written language.

  6. By the way, no you haven't insisted, that's the problem. You want to have your cake and eat it. Which is why I said "Which is it?". Comprenez?
  7. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    interestingly none of those actually mention synthetic phonics ...but ignoring that ...none of them actually back up your claims [​IMG]
  8. I'm past the stage of paying heed to your unsubstantiated comments Msz. Where's the beef?
  9. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    or could there be a middle ground that you just don't want to see ... that your view of what Rose and the RRF is flawed ... that KEY features in Rose means exactly that ... the KEY ie most significant but not only features ...

    I don't agree that other strategies that are not phonics strategies are needed so why should I admit it ...

    What I will admit is that I simply don't understand where you get your ideas of what are and what are not phonics strategies or why you think understanding and vocabulary building are strategies [​IMG]
  10. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Sorry thumbie but your responses are getting more and more bizarre

  11. It's perfectly clear to me what are and what are not phonic strategies. Please quote from Rose where it says that applying comprehension is a phonic strategy.
  12. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    It is perfectly clear to me that what you understand to be or not to be phonic strategies is your own unique creation
  13. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Since you seem to like Rose so much ...

    "High quality phonic work is not a ‘strategy’ so much as a body of knowledge, skills and understanding that has to be learned."


    "This is because skilled readers do not rely upon strategies to read words, as they have already developed the skill of word recognition.They may use knowledge of context and grammar, which are conceived within the searchlights model, to assist their understanding of the text but, crucially, they would still be able to decode the words if all contextual and grammatical prompts were removed."

  14. I admit to being totally bemused, too.

    Perhaps thumbie would like to describe in detail the strategies she is talking about which phonics instruction is so deficient in (to her eyes). Perhaps she would like to define her understanding of 'decoding' for us, too, as the the only strategies which are unnecessary when teaching phonics are those which were related to decoding (i.e sounding out and blending) words in the Searchlights model and were of no value for decoding; but I do appreciate that 'decoding' has more than one interpretation according to one's training and beliefs..
  15. Now - here's the thing - I attended the DfES phonics seminar in 2003 where Dr Linnea Ehri presented her findings.

    First of all, it was disgraceful that she was given such a short time to speak (all the speakers were given 10 minutes and Linnea was granted 15 minutes as they had flown her all the way from America to speak).

    Anyway, at the end of Linnea's talk when we were invited to ask questions, I pressed her on something she had mentioned even within the short time that she had been allowed to speak.

    She had already mentioned the dangers of children guessing their words in reading and the 'bad habit' that resulted from this. This was exactly my concern, and the concern of the RRF, that the 'Searchlights' strategies promoted the guessing habit which teachers like myself saw as a disadvantage.

    [At that time, however, there weren't all these sets of cumulative decodable reading books that we are lucky enough to have now.]

    Linnea Ehri confirmed, categorically, that guessing from a multi-cueing strategies was a worrying 'bad habit' and not a set of desirable reading strategies.

    What she also said was that systematic phonics, whatever the size of the units of sound, was better than no phonics or just incidental phonics teaching.

    When I pointed out that the 'Searchlights reading strategies' were being delivered as guessing from various cues, this was not mentioned in any shape, size or form through the follow-up summaries or in Greg Brooks follow-up paper summarising the phonics seminar.

    In other words, this was tantamount to denial and cover-up about the dangers of teaching children to guess - and from giving them reading books to read INDEPENDENTLY which do not match the phonics taught to date - in other words, giving books to children which necessitate them guessing their way through the book - and lead to the danger of the supporting adult telling the children to guess the words.
  16. Is this supposed to be Rose saying that applying comprehension is a phonic strategy? He's saying that 'word recognition' does not require knowledge of context and grammar, so the opposite ie phonics will enable word recognition (decoding not reading). That is true for skilled readers who have many words in their spoken vocabulary. It falls down with most 5 year olds whose word recognition will be based on phonics plus a very basic vocabulary. Remove the words from context and you're asking for extra because their experience of language is much more about stock phrases and extracting words, especially conjunctions, articles etc from the flow of spoken language will be more difficult for them than for someone who can already read. Additionally their speech may well be immature and they will not associate the word 'crisps' with something they know as 'crips'.

    As your quotation makes clear skilled readers do not rely on strategies to read words, as they have already developed the skill of word recognition. 5 year olds aren't in this group. To reach the stage of recognising words they need to decode them repeatedly. Context helps them to decode them correctly, as already discussed. Stanovich says it too. His longitudinal study shows that younger and less able readers use context more than older and more able readers. Well, what a surprise. Sadly some have drawn the false conclusion from this that you should bar the younger/ less able readers from using the strategy which is supporting them in becoming older/ more able ones.
  17. Interesting passage from a blog post:
    (my emphasis)


    <a name="4669443990748732519">[/URL]

    <h3 class="post-title entry-title">The emotional reading elephant in the room </h3>
  18. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    No thumbie it isn't because applying comprehension isn't a phonics strategy ... using phonics to understand what you are read is a reading strategy ...because if you can't read the words you can only make a guess at the meaning a text.
  19. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    No thumbie my quotation makes it clear that the type of strategies you seem to think need to be taught are unnecessary ... children and skilled readers need to be able to read unfamiliar words when they meet them ... yes even skilled readers don't know every single word they might encounter ...they don't need to be taught to guess.

  20. How do you explain the fact that Msz's pupils, who are not taught to use context to identify words, are very successful readers?

    Stanovich's results are open to the interpretation that the children tested were taught to use context to identify words but only became skilled readers when they applied phonological decoding to word identification. This scenario is more than likely as he was testing children at a period when phonics was not much used for the teaching of reading.

    And you are telling me that the word 'crisps' won't be in their receptive vocabulary? When their mum says "Would you like some crisps?" they won't know what she is talking about? You do work hard to make difficulties.[​IMG]

Share This Page