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

Teachers views towards Systematic Synthetic Phonics

Discussion in 'Primary' started by tomjoyce, Apr 2, 2013.

  1. Lol! A series of meaningless non-sequiturs! It appears that I am alone in the forum but for the troll. Time for bed...;)
  2. WolfPaul

    WolfPaul New commenter

    You definitely need more experience if you think I am a troll. [​IMG]
  3. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    A clear case of guessing (incorrectly) from limited information bit like using initial letters to work out words.
  4. Not in Chinese.
    That's true.
    That is not true. More complex spelling systems, such as the English one, defeat far more people than simpler ones, such as the Finnish.
    This was also true of the old DOS system for computing which defeated many. The invention of windows made computing more widely accessible. The ability or inability to learn to spell English is largely a function of having or not having a good visual memory. The best spellers are all blessed with it and have to work less hard at it than average spellers.
    Not in the normal sense of the word.
    I am often accused of wanting to make English spelling phonetic, although I mainly merely
    try to make teachers more aware of exactly what makes learning to read and write English exceptionally difficult and why so many children have trouble coping.
    I would love to see learning to read and write English made easier and more children attaining higher educational standards, but I am not hopeful of this happening any time soon (because the majority of those who have learned to cope with the current system are not interested in making it easier for those who can't) although a few modest improvements would make an enormous difference. Just removing some of the worst gremlins would be enough.
    There is no doubt whatsoever that improvements to the transparency of English spelling would make learning to read and write the language easier
    Irrespective of how teachers feel about spelling reform, I believe that a better understanding why so many children have literacy problems, regardless of teaching methods, can only do good.

  5. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    are we teaching Chinese?
    Try Hanyu pinyin
  6. I am quite happy with different spellings for identical sounds, as long as they are regular,
    such as 'date, day', as long as they are logically fathomable,
    unlike 'late - wait, straight, eight, great...'.
    Only unpredictable spellings necessitate word by word memorisation.
    PS If I spelt my name Marsha, Americans would misspronounce it, and they are the main readers of my posts on here and of my blogs too. (Many tes readers are not from the UK.)
    Moreover, Maizie would defend the spellings of 'ask, mask, castle'
    which in standard English have the same sound for a as the first a in my name.
    She is a staunch defender of English letters having the right to have any sound whatsoever,
    so her obsession with the spelling of my name is a bit odd.
  7. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Yes it is true but it relies on readers knowing the ways sounds are represented in English.
    I've only seen one person make this accusation and I think partly based on your insistance on spelling words phonetically especially your habit of using a capital u for the words you.
  8. Unfortunately the 'complex' does not build on the 'simple'. In many instances the 'complex' contradicts the 'simple'. This idea that moving from simple to complex is helpful does not hold water. You just have to learn all the possibles and use other strategies to apply that knowledge. Where moving from simple to complex does make sense is in the presentation of information and the assurance of coverage - the systematic part of SSP that prescribes an order of teaching.
  9. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Your evidence for this assumption?
    hardly since different programmes introduce sounds in different orders.
  10. My evidence is the observation that the complex doesn't build on the simple. It's not like moving from addition of units to addition of tens. It involves learning new facts which might well be inconsistent with what has already been learnt. For instance, having learnt that 'a' represents /a/, you then have to learn that it can represent /ai/ or /o/. Yes, schemes do introduce sounds in different orders, which rather proves my point. But if a school uses a scheme carefully it can ensure that every child gets exposure to all the correspondences (except where attendance is dire), and teachers can know that their teaching is in line with the chosen progression.
  11. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    So you have no evidence other than your own belief which is based on experience of teaching a phonics programme in this way?
  12. My evidence is the fact that, however you teach a phonics programme, or whether you teach one or not, or whether you are a teacher or not, the 'code' consists of correspondences, such as 'a' represents /a/ which are facts, and which are not derivable from each other. Knowing that 'a' represents /a/ is irrelevant to knowing that 'a' represents /o/. You cannot get one fact from the other. In other words, you have to learn both possibilities more or les from scratch. This means that it doesn't matter what order the GPCs are introduced in, although it is probably helpful to introduce the most common first and to have a set order of introduction within a school. So my evidence is not a belief or anything to do with my experience (although experience bears it out), it is facts.
  13. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Fortunately your facts have no basis in reality
  14. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

  15. Well, they do actually. How about, instead of putting a link you actually engage with the argument and explain why you think my facts are untrue and argue the point instead of just asserting your belief? Your belief may have some factual basis. Let's hear it. If your link backs up your point if view, tell us how.
  16. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Why do I know your facts are untrue simply because they are contrary to my experience of teaching hundreds of children to read and write over two decades.

  17. palmtree100

    palmtree100 Lead commenter

    I reckon that's what Mrz means by simple to complex. The easier correspondences are the common ones and then you can move onto the rare ones.
  18. You should congratulate yourself on teaching them a corpus of disparate facts effectively, and congratulate them that they were able to apply them well. However, what you are saying does not prove that the facts I mentioned are untrue.
  19. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    simple - one letter representing one sound
    complex - 2,3 or 4 letters representing one sound - one sound represented by more than one spelling - one spelling representing more than one sound.
  20. The page u linked to was certainly not simple in that sense because it is very much like my tables in
    If complex meant merely
    and those spellings were predictable (like variant spellings in other languages mostly are), learning to spell English would take a fraction of the time it does.
    It is because differences like 'they play weigh' are unpredictable and have to be memorised word by word (for at least 3,700 common words) that pupils of average ability take so long to learn to spell, and many never do.
    U may well be an excellent teacher. If u are, it's a shame that u cannot reveal your magic tricks in discussions on here, instead of resorting to uppity put-downs, or filling pages with infantile emoticons.

Share This Page