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

Phonics Test

Discussion in 'Primary' started by s7ace, Mar 17, 2012.

  1. Utter nonsense. I have been using a perceptual learning strategy with 63 non-reading Year 2 children since February which is already producing phenomenal results. A few minutes ago I received the following interim report from an N,I, primary school which although by no means the most encouraging, is very typical of all of the interim reports. "<font color="#000080">The design of the program means that children feel they are in control of their learning and reading, it creates independent learning. When the child is interacting with the teacher, they feel like they are explaining or demonstrating their new skills to you, rather than the teacher leading them through some new skill. </font>I would continue to use the package in the future as it has made a change to the reading skills of my struggling readers.

    Its definitely not rocket science - these children were non-readers and they are now readers. They now know a great many of the grapheme-phoneme correspondences without actually knowing that they know them. They have nothing to forget because they have nothing to remember. They have changed from being non-readers to readers without a single ritual lesson. They were learning without knowing they were learning. Or are thede 63 children in a dozen widely dispersed schools across the UK all special cases? Your head is going to remain stuck in this bucket of phonics sand as long as you keep your mind tightly closed to any ideas outside phonics. How do you think the Chinese learn to read? - their orthography has virtually no phonics content? Do you think they're different because they're Chinese? Can you really have your head buried to deeply in that bucket?
  2. it may as well be when you are five or six years old and just starting out
    The brain's perceptual acuity develops at its fastest rate in infants peaking at age 6!
  3. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    and where is your's stuck?
  4. Whereas there are some 820 rimes in commonly used English words. An even larger body of knowledge to learn than 160 -180 GPCs. Which are taught and immediately used in words, so hardly context free.
    And your evidence for this statement is...?
    It was extrapolating from skilled reading behaviour that got us into the 'whole word' mess in the first place.

    As you have lots of time on your hands I suggest that you read 'Reading in the Brain' by Stanilas Dehaene. He's a neuroscientist, so impartial about methods of reading instruction. Once you've read it you could perhaps have a spirited exchange with him about why he is wrong in his conclusions.
  5. Do you know, I am racking my brains to think of why this all has such a familiar ring to it. The name 'Ken Goodman' keeps popping into my head along with a sentence which goes something like 'Learning to read is as natural as learning to talk'. [​IMG]
  6. I just wonder if anyone has seen this which was sent to me the oher day..... and does it add anything new to this thread or not at all...?
    Olny srmat poelpe can raed this. I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty
    uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid,
    aoccdrn! ig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
    in what oredr the ltteers in a word are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is
    that the first and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a
    taotl mses and you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm. This is bcuseae
    the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a
    wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if
    you can raed this psas it on!

  7. The problem with the phonics test is that it increases the profile of phonics (the SP version) to an unjustified degree
    That's the key and the most insightful comment on the forum (apart from my own of course!)
    Nobody is against phonics teaching - it would seem even that everyone is in favour of phonics teaching - its just that some of us believe that awarding religious status is actually harmful and the kind of stupid thing a politician would do. Children are different - they really are! They do not all respond in the same way to the same stimulii (thank goodness) and it is highly desctructive to seek to turn our wonderful infant stage education into some factory-like conveyor belt system which tries to achieve identical outcome from diverse inputs.

  8. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

  9. 'Learning to read is as natural as learning to talk'. [​IMG]
    I dont know Ken Goodman but he definitely has a point with this statement because that appears to be precisely what is happening to the 63 Year 2 non-readers in one of my current projects. Certainly the process they are undergoing in an entirely natural one as it has no ritual lesson components - no top-down teaching - and no overt phonics instruction, yet miracle or miracles - the non-readers have become readers - and only halfway through a one term intervention!
    Naturally Maize you will have some rationale all of your own.

  10. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    yes it's quoted almosts as often as the ghoti idea and just as bogus I'm afraid.
    not the best sources but the first to pop up on google and since I've been up since 3am I'm off to bed.
  11. You're the only person I know of who has awarded it religious status, eddie.
  12. Sorry, it adds nothing to this discussion unless you are more impressed by internet memes than research. It's been doing the rounds for years and years. It's reasonably easy to read as it stands all falls apart when the words get longer and less common.
    Read about it here:
    (You'll have to copy & paste the link. TES is holding up posts with live links in them so I've given up doing them)
  13. Not so. You RRFers have awarded religious status to SP by your dogmatic commitment to the idea that all it needs to achieve virtaully 100% literacy is SP, more SP and then more SP and nothing else. Your credo is that there is no sight vocabulary - that everyone reads and decodes every grapheme in every word serially - no matter how many million times that word may have been previously encountered. You award SP the status of a religion by proclaiming the heads should not be allowed to teach any strategy other than SP in spite of the fact that one child n five still leaves school unable to read - you close your eyes and your mind to that reality and in so doing, harm the great value that phonics teaching undoubtedly has. You haebv talked abotu 'proof' that the human brain cannot retain more that about two thousand discrete images ignoring the fact that most Chinese can instantly recognise five thousand phonics-free characters. You perpetuate pseudo-intellectual ideas and use the word 'evidence' and 'proof' as if they were interchangeable.
    I do not doubt that you do this because you believe it to be true - but to close your eyes and your minds to the realities shown by the national data is unforgivable. how would you rationalise the results i have posted from my current Y2 project which has no phonics components yet is turning a significant number of non readers into readers in about one term?
    I have no doubt that you would claim that this transformation would have happened anyway - well their own teachers dont think so and the national data in showing that 20% of children leave school unable to read, confirms this.
    Next academic year,I anticipate that between 100 and 200 schools will use this intervention with their Y2 pupils and achieve similar results.

  14. The thing about rimes is they reveal connections between known words and unknown words whereas with SP words are fragmented into their smallest units, fragmenting similarities. Children trained in SP may recognise these small units, but instead of linking them to known words they are expected to link them to sounds or groups of possible sounds. Am I alone in thinking that a word is more memorable than a series of possible sounds? There is nothing wrong with learning and exploring GPCs - unless it means that children are given artificial restrictions to their learning. And yes, the GPCs learnt may be demonstrated immediately in words, but the usual SP wisdom is that they should be seen, not in similar words, but in a range of diverse words. So the GPC is seen at work but deliberately in dissimilar words. Why not show it in similar words and reinforce it through rhyme, assonance and alliteration?My evidence for the reading behaviour of adults comes from being an adult. I think I was taught using phonics, as I certainly know the sounds represented by letters, but at the same time I have to think pretty hard to identify words containing certain GPCs, and that's not because I can't read the words, it's because I've never needed to think too much about the GPCs until required to do so by delivering phonics, as it's conceived these days. I think it is fairly recent that phonics has been taken to the extremes seen currently (Jolly Phonics was first published 20 years ago), and this represents a nationwide experiment which is yet to show success. Meanwhile SP becomes more and more extreme and entrenched. You suggest I read Stanislas Dehaene, and perhaps I will, but if you want to convince people on this forum that he has a good case which supports SP it would be a good idea if you summarised what he has written and let people judge for themselves. Just naming a scientist and making vague claims will not convince anyone. It's known as 'name dropping'. Why don't you give us a flavour of what is so convincing in his arguments, Maizie, a little taster to whet appetites to find out more?
  15. Here are some nice quotes for people to mull over. I think that eddie and thumbie will particularly like some of them.

    Who said it? (More than one person)
  16. You just don't have any intellectual curiosity, thumbie.
    Why should I do all the work for you? I certainly don't intend to painstakingly summarise a whole book just to have you pull my summary to pieces. And still not bother to read the book.
    Google 'Reading in the Brain' (or are you too idle to even do that?). Plenty of information about the book on the web.
  17. For a minute there Maizie I thought you were going to supply some interesting quotes from Stanislas Dehaene.
    I don't know the sources, but am pretty sure none of them are me or Eddie. If you want to argue with the sentiments expressed, don't let me stop you.
  18. I didn't say that they were quotes from you and eddie. I just thought that you might both agree with some, or all of them. I'm not arguing about any of them.
    Here's another quote, but, to be fair, it does apply to eddie more than to you:




    /* Style Definitions */
    {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
    mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
    font-family:"Times New Roman";

  19. Hmmm. You believe that Stanislas has some good arguments in favour of SP training. You want to convince readers of this forum that SP training is the best way forward. However you are not willing to put the arguments before us. And you are calling me idle. Come on, Maizie, show some commitment! [​IMG]
  20. 'A lack of professional courtesy to opposing viewpoints makes reasoned debate difficult' Have you had an epiphany, Maizie?

Share This Page