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 mystery10, Jun 7, 2011.
dawn of realisation
actually I was referring to your post not andy's
Much the same way as andy, really, moonpenny - any criticism for him for doing the same?
I've been following it since the link was posted on the opinion forum - do you have a problem with that?
Same situation...a link was posted and I followed it.
Could you please provide links to my personal attacks on masha and on weebecka.
My response to his - and your - nonsense is that you should remind yourself how silly employing Godwin's law is...
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%)."<sup id="cite_ref-canonical_version_2-0" class="reference"><sup id="cite_ref-WiredMCM_1-2" class="reference"> In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any
online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably
criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs
held by Hitler and the Nazis.
Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form.<sup class="Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;"> The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis
might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a
reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.
It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be
appropriate, Godwin has argued<sup id="cite_ref-CRDFSDA_3-0" class="reference"> that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
The trolls used to stalk certain people (I know this because I had my own personal trolls - about 3 of them) and follow various posters round different forums being nasty and personally abusive using any personal info gleaned from postings .
I remember some people kicking up a huge fuss about this sort of behavior.
What some are doing with Masha is no better than the vindictive behaviour the old system of trolling allowed.
In fact, it has made it worse.
Oh dear, moonpenny. I'd very nearly believe that you'd never dream of doing such a thing if only I hadn't been around these forums for long enough to know otherwise.
If you're seeking to imply that that is what I have done despite the fact that links were provided to threads on other forums you're making yourself look foolish again. If you're also seeking to imply that I'm a troll then more fool you that you'd take personal dislike that far!
Repeating it does not make it true. Disagreeing with posters is allowed. More than one person disagreeing at a time is allowed. Get over it.
I'm honoured, however, that you've suddenly decided to respond to my posts - it makes a change. What a pity it is that you've chosen to ignore every one of my posts which disagrees with your professional opinion - at least a discussion based on those posts would have been vaguely sensible.
Perhaps you need to read more carefully but I'll post it again just for the slow of understanding:
I followed a link to a thread - it's really that simple.
At what point will you understand that posters on here are individuals who post or do not post as individuals and who express their own opinions as individuals.
I dislike these accusations, moonpenny - you have already had a couple of such posts removed because they are unfair as well as wrong since they imply something that simply has not happened.
Perhaps because you and andy compare notes when you post you believe everyone does the same thing but it isn't the case at all. (I see you have not attempted to censor him by putting the same questions to him...)
Now....I've answered your questions - perhaps you could do the same for me...please provide links to the PERSONAL attacks I have made on masha and point out your difficulty with my post on THIS thread which was neither addressed to masha nor made ANY reference to masha. Other than ONE post commenting on repeated spelling mistakes made by a pupil of mine (bearing in mind that I am an actual teacher who teaches pupils with dyslexia) my other posts on this thread have been addressed to YOU regarding your stupid accusations (oh...and to andy for his stupid accusations).
In the meantime I'm passing on this post to the moderator as I will do with any others making or implying these accusations.
In fact, moonpenny - it's YOUR "fault" that I'm on this thread because YOU took the discussion on this thread over to opinion. The link to this thread is in post 14 and you will see that it is a couple of days since it was posted so I've followed the discussion for that length of time without posting on the thread and didn't post until I had something to say (the comment regarding spelling mistakes made by my pupil).
THAT is how posters move from one forum to another - people like you bring discussions from other forums to the opinion forum and links are provided by them or others to explain why the question is being asked.
Now, for any normal poster this would be sufficient explanation to answer their questions and to cause embarrassment at making spurious accusations. I'd like to think it would bring to an end your nasty wee digs and comments but somehow I doubt it.
Sorry, I missed out the link:
(oh and all your thread on opinion proved was that people pronounce 'saturate' and 'corduroy' differently, which you knew just by comparing the way you pronounce them to the way andy pronounces them)
Debbie said this in Post 95 - see italics below. ( I'm still very interested in this post as I want to understand the best ways of teaching spelling )
Now, the pot half full teaching approach is to teach that the grapheme 'ue' is code for two sounds /yoo/ and /oo/.
the words which children will find helpful to know as they grow older
and which make these words 'regular' and learnable - rather than a group
of 'irregular' words.
It's the same for the split digraph 'u-e':
this is code for /yoo/ and /oo/ and has a useful bank of words which are
very teachable/learnable - especially when introduced through practical
resources and perhaps spelling stories.
mashabell's approach is
to list words which include some letter or letter group in common with
different pronunciations to promote the notion of spelling reform.
the meantime, surely it is better to provide materials which regularise
the language and make it teachable/learnable - because that is how the
English written code exists right now - and children need to learn it to
prevent, or minimise, dyslexic tendencies.
To support this, there
are other kinds of free resources, starting with various Alphabetic
Code Charts to illustrate the relationship between sounds of speech and
How about we do our best as teachers to
sort out the English written code for our pupils? This is not an exact
science, but we can certainly make the alphabetic code teachable with
some thought and organisation.
The pot half full approach that Debbie mentions is the one that Read Write Inc uses - the little phrase for u - e is "huge brute" - so two sounds here - yoo and long oo. So I have found Read Write Inc helpful in understanding how to teach my children, and I presume Floppy Phonics, Phonics International etc teach it in a similar way.
I find it helpful in further spelling work to have some more examples. As I'm not a teacher I don't have ready free access to lots of ready sorted word lists illustrating specific phonemes and graphemes etc so before I had ever seen these forums I found Masha's book "Understanding English Spelling" book on Amazon. It looked from the blurb as though it might be helpful in some way. Tables R50, R51 and R52 point out the pronunciation yoo and long oo of the various u e combinations. I have found this kind of list helpful when adding to and expanding upon the weekly spelling lists that come home.
At this level I haven't found a conflict between the two approaches - one can add to the other.
And yes the alphabetic code charts produced by others are useful too. I find it all helps.
Have I got something wrong?
Some of Masha's statistics did surprise me on the way through. For example, until I read it I had never stopped to think that there are very few words with oo in sounding the short oo sound. Masha has identified 15 - book, brook, cook, hook, look, rook, shook, took, good, hood, stood, wood. I would add room (depending on regional pronunciation), foot. Maybe there are a few more but not many, so the point still stands. Presumably this was the kind of point that the dyslexic that Masha was quoting was making.
Don't forget that pronunciation of words graphemes can vary widely according to accent. Just because one of masha's lists say that a word is pronounced in a certain way it ain't necessarily so. Teach to the accent, not the word list...
I would suggest that you go to the Sounds~Write website and download their 'Lexicon of English Spelling'. It not only has word lists grouped according to 'sounds' but also has a very well informed introduction about spelling.
First link on the page, 'English Spelling'
It now costs £2-50 to download (it used to be absolutely free) but it is worth every penny
(no commercial interest at all)
I'll take a look at that too, thanks.
When you say "teach to the accent, not the word list" how do you do this when you have a variety of accents in the class (or in my case, family!!)
Personalised Learning of course
Not a single argument here. Just denial and denigration which was precisely my point.
"Masha has identified 15 - book, brook, cook, hook, look, rook, shook, took, good, hood, stood, wood. I would add room (depending on regional pronunciation), foot. Maybe there are a few more but not many, so the point still stands."
And this is precisely my point - that many of the spelling alternatives have very teachable/learnable lists for primary children.
But what mashabell also does is to write long lists of words where the spelling alternative or pronunciation alternatives are different for the list. These lists are an attempt to prove the need for spelling reform and they are not helpful lists.
Spelling differences can help with word meanings: 'here', 'hear'; 'there', 'their'; 'bare', 'bear'.
Whilst I accept that our English alphabetic code is complex, isn't it extraordinary that our English teaching profession are generally not trained in the alphabetic code and not trained for synthetic phonics teaching (until very recently), or to teach and mark for spelling virtually 'at all'?
And isn't it extraordinary that schools can still 'choose' NOT to teach our English alphabetic code and blending and segmenting. There is still an 'option' scenario. This is crazy.
No wonder there are so many pupils and adults who cannot read well and who cannot spell well - this is not at all just about complex spelling.
Yes I'm finding myself questioning whether my children are ever going to be able to spell as well as I do.
Don't have the time to plough through everything while I have been away, but noted that even Debbie has started spreading lies about me again, as above.
Knowing what I do about English spelling and even u admitting, “If only the code was as simple as a letter, or group of letters,
representing any one particular phoneme, then the teaching and learning of the
code would be speedy and straightforward”
<font size="3" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">
to thinking that making English spelling more learner-friendly would be
what I have been concentrating on more and more over the past five years is
showing what makes learning to read and write English difficult. So I have grouped words by spellings to show when use of identical letters causes reading difficulties (on - only, once, other) but also by spellings for sounds. For sounds which have no dominant pattern (leave, sleeve, believe) or only a week dominant pattern (stoop - group, move, rude, bruise) I have listed all the words with that sound for teachers to group as they please.</font>
[/b] – (tube, tuba; due)
– In the stem of words the
'open u' spelling has relatively few
Use, units... - Eucalyptus. you/ewe/yew,
Assuage, fuel... - Sewage, jewel, steward.
Feud, feudal, neutral, pneumatic, pseudo,
Luminous - Lewd, newt,
- Beauty. Suitable, suitcase.
Reduce … - Juice, nuisance,
Muse, music… - Tuesday.
In endings the spelling of this
sound is more varied:
Cue/queue, due/dew, sue.
Argue, avenue, barbecue, continue, imbue, issue, pursue,
statue, subdue, tissue,
Chew, few, Jew, knew, new, pew, spew, stew.
curlew, mildew, nephew.
View, interview, review.
I will use the lists on your learn to read page of your website as one of the many sets of lists from which I have been supplementing school lists with. Thank you for that.
Is there any reason why there aren't more lists on that page - what made you choose just those particular sounds to do the lists for on that webpage?
Which you haven't done, and have provided not a shed of evidence that your claims are true.Spelling issues in Spain are much more problematic than the UK with up to 75% of school leavers experiencing spelling problems. Do you think that has anything at all to do with their orthography being less transparent than English?Do you understand the implications of this?
Shred, or shedload?
The Learning to Read page is organised round the main pronunciations for vowel spellings (a, e, i, o, u, a-e, ai, -ay, -eigh .....and also blends with r [ar, er, ir, ur]), but as the lists are in alphabetical order, it's easy to use them for consonants as well.
I thought that the lists would be useful mainly for the early stage of learning to read, so tried not to include any obscure, little used words.
I found that schools are awash with phonics schemes of some sort nowadays. My lists are really just supplements, but when I did voluntary learning support with very weak readers, I found that some really enjoyed working straight from those lists, concentrating on just one or two spelling patterns at a time in short bursts.
I used to print off words for the patterns I noticed giving them trouble in their reading book in one lesson and bring along words for practising them in the next one, before doing a bit from their reading book again.