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. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Eddie you seem to forget that you kindly sent me a copy of your CD Rom last year. Would I have requested a copy if my mind was closed?
    is it? or does it indicate that good teaching can also reduce the number of children failing to become fully literate?

     
  2. No, wrong in the sense that letters which are not in the word are substituted for letters that are in the word. The substitutions were in different parts of the word not just the initial letter, with varying results for reading speed.
     
  3. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    If different is wrong to you fine
     
  4. Sorry, don't see your point. You said initial letter, but it wasn't just the initial letter that was substituted (wrong, different) in the study. Substitutions were tried in different positions in words and reading speed compared.
     
  5. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Odd you want to continue arguing when I'm agreeing with you
     
  6. You didn't seem to be. You said 'initial letters'. I was puzzled. I am puzzled.Never mind.[​IMG]
     
  7. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    you clarified what you meant by wrong I said "fine" not sure how you see that as disagreeing???
     
  8. Eddie you seem to forget that you kindly sent me a copy of your CD Rom last year. Would I have requested a copy if my mind was closed?
    I maintain no record of the schools I send surplus copies of the reseach resources. You did say later that the only reason you requested a copy was 'curiosity!'
    I can't remember which of the two Ms it was but one of you said in a recent post "I am worried that some people might actually believe what you say" This suggests that one or both of you do not believe that, when a child is failing to respond to a ritual teaching appraoch, no other strategy is necessary or should be tried!
    And 100,000+ children leave school every year unable to read or write and one in five adults cannot correctly read the dosage instructions on a child's medicine bottle!
    Is there anything else to be said?


     
  9. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Yes Eddie I was curious to see if it offered us the route to 100% reading success.
     
  10. Haha. Because you said 'initial' letters when the quote I posted explained it was letters in different positions. It appeared you had misunderstood, so I explained again. But maybe it was just a slip on your part. It happens. [​IMG]
     
  11. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Rubbish Eddie ...you said luck I said hard work from PUPILS and staff
    Your inference skills definitely need some work ... perhaps your perceptual learning isn't doing very well on that front.
     
  12. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    thank you thumbie
    surely teacher enthusiasm for everything (not just phonics) we teach has a positive impact on pupils learning.
    My pupils know they are readers and they love reading and are enthusiastic devourers of books, but they are equally enthusiastic when it comes to maths or science or art or PE ....
     
  13. gcf

    gcf

    Thumbie – I find the descriptive limits of ‘self-selection’ a difficult one …

    Would you call the Oxford Brookes students – joined at the hip to your multi-strategy approach – a ‘self-selected’ influence on local schools through their multi- strategy approach ? Does this ‘self-selection' contribute to apparently the worst SATs 2 results in the country ?

    Or Brighton University with its pgce and its early reading instruction driven by Professor Henrietta Dombey’s miscue analysis etc: would this self-selected group of teachers contribute to mediocre results in Sussex primary schools? (In other respects the Brighton course has a good reputation and is certainly robust in its introduction to children’s literature).

    Or is the Jolly Phonics school in a deprived NE town with 100% SATs and a emphasis on wider reading – and the hundreds of other SP instructed schools achieving excellent results - self-selecting?

    Presumably they are self-selecting as they will probably have a whole school awareness of SP, ensure that children are fluent readers by the end of year one – with strugglers given the extra help they need. In schools where there is little awareness of just how much extra help/practice some 20% of children need, the children flounder.

    Eddie having read your posts over a number of years I am still at a loss to understand your position. This quote is taken from a US reading forum :
    At the end of first grade you either read or you don't
    Higher levels of reading are attained by exposure to new vocabulary and concepts
    Your reading skills are learned in K-1, you either decode effortlessly or you
    don't.


    This is what the decoding check will be addressing. It would be better were it to be carried out much earlier (but the howls of rage makes this politically inexpedient).

    Teachers in the US constantly battle against ‘balanced’ literature, inappropriate spelling lists, sight word learning, high frequency words taught as sight words, disconnected worksheets (many schools here have elements of this malinstruction – with lip service paid to SP). Perhaps some of your energy could be devoted to ensuring that all student teachers receive high quality training so that their confusion and muddlement about phonics does not harm that 20% of children you, and most of us, are concerned about.

    I’m not sure even now if I understand exactly what your approach would be if you were a Reception/Year 1 teacher or if you were giving 4-6 year olds additional help?


     
  14. Gcf, all I meant by 'self-selecting' was that on any forum the people posting do not represent a cross-section of the population, or on an education forum, of the education community. It will always be a selected group. It is this that made me refer to the Pro-SP people on here as self-selected. If you have a personal commitment to a particular method or you feel strongly about a certain issue you are more likely to post on a forum about it than not.This observation does not seem to me to be in any way controversial or stated with any sort of sinister intent! I do not see the necessity of your diatribe about it, but will have another look at what you have written later and try to address the issues. What this selection process means is that you tend to get extremes of views expressed on a forum, including the views of people who belong to limited interest organisations such as RRF. You also get the views of people who have experiences or feelings about something (in this case SP, or the idea of the phonics test) which are very positive or very negative.
     
  15. Correction:
     
  16. Eddie having read your posts over a number of years I am still at a loss to understand your position
    This statement really mysitifies - i have stated my postion many times and as clearly and succinctly as I am able and I can think of any way of stating it more clearly than this short extract copied from a very recent post.
    If a child is not responding well to a ritual phonics teaching approach - try another approach - that seems to me to be a perfectly logical thing to do. To persist with a strategy which is failing a child is to cause enormous damage to that child's self-confidence.
    Just over 100,000 children have left school unable to read or write confidently every year since 1939 at least in spite of a series of 'euraka strategies' and government inititiatives including the appointment of a veryitable army of teachers rebranded as educational psychologists, Literacy Consultants, Literacy Specialists, Remedial Advisory Teachers, Literacy Co-ordinators, Special Needs Co-ordinators etc etc etc
    Given this routine history of failure what can possibly be difficult to understand about a postion that claims tht when particular children are not achieving reading skills by a particular strategy, it is worthwhile trying something else. ould anything possible be clearer than that?
    I routinely conduct practical research projects with children who are failing to learn to read in a variety of age groups. I currently have three projects underway. One is in secondary schools, another is with Year 6 children who were predicted to achieve Level 3 English in the imminent KS 2 tests and another with 63 non-reading Year 2 children.
    Tell me what is it about this frequently stated and never changing position is your don't understand? Please?
    .
     
  17. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    and presumably if they don't respond to that you try another approach and then another until you run out of approaches and the child is ready to leave school?
    I think that's a pretty standard approach Eddie hence the 20% reading failure
     
  18. I’m not sure even now if I understand exactly what your approach would be if you were a Reception/Year 1 teacher or if you were giving 4-6 year olds additional help?

    I belive that the earliest it is possible to say confidently that a child is not responding postively to a conventional phonics approach is at the end of Year 1. Prior to that I would persevere with the conventional, age-appropriate strategy. At the beginning of Year 2, if it were clear that a number of children were not responding appropriately to any ritual teaching approach I would put a perceptual learning strategy in place to ensure that these children 'caught up' and I would expect this 'catching up' to occur in the first term of Year 2.
    This is not an ad hoc view - it is based on my own practical research with 63 Year 2 non-readers. After just over one term, virtually all of them are now readers. I have already posteda typical half-way report from one SENco but I will post her email again.
    "We are so grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in your Year 2 project. My sentence follows:
    'If this programme had been available at the beginning of September, I have no doubt that the situation we faced at the end of Autumn with 13 non-readers would not have occurred; after only a half-term 4 of the 6 participants are secure readers, with the other 2 not far behind, and all of them have grown immensely in terms of willingness to read and independence.'

    Eddie, having ended 2011 with these children working towards level 1, hating reading and being completely reliant on adults for reading, the change I have seen in their attitude to reading as well as their independence and ability to recognise key words has been amazing.. What you are doing is fantastic, and I think an Early Years version is a good idea. I would be quite happy to trial something similar in our Nursery/Reception as part of their free choice activities.

    The praise is irrelevant. What is relevant is this statement from her report " Eddie, having ended 2011 with these children working towards level 1, hating reading and being completely reliant on adults for reading, the change I have seen in their attitude to reading as well as their independence and ability to recognise key words has been amazing..
    These children can now return exclusively to the completing the same conventional phonics exercises as their peers but now as confident self-assured readers where they were non-readers in February. Why therefore would I not believe in 'trying something else' particularly when that something else is based on unchallenged and unchallengeable logic of perceptual learning.
    Please forgive the many uncorrected typing errosrs - I have cataract problems. I hope I have fully answered both the spirit and the letter of your question.

     
  19. and presumably if they don't respond to that you try another approach and then another until you run out of approaches and the child is ready to leave school?
    I consider that to be such a stupid statement that I will not dignify it with a reasoned response.
     
  20. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    good response when you haven't got a real answer Eddie
     

Share This Page