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

Year 1 Phonics assessment today!

Discussion in 'Primary' started by ESLAB, Jun 18, 2012.

  1. fendertele

    fendertele New commenter

    Of course he doesn't recognise any sight words - they don't exist in his phonic only world - and what you don't see doesn't exist - ring any bells MsZ? - sound a little familiar? After all didn't you just tell me that there is no such thing as sight words - just words that are read really,really, fast - so fast we don't even know it is happening. And isn't your phonic only theory that he will eventually learn these words on sight after he has read/worked them out enough times. Sort of contradicts the brain theory bit as well doesn't it.
    What have you got to lose - if he can learn some abstract squiggles and arbitrary sounds he will have no difficulty learning full meaningful words like "mum" and "aeroplane" !"look" "i" etc. - you only need a few and if you give them related actions he will learn them all the quicker. You only need about 6 and you can start making sentences up - another 6 and he will have acess to the first 12 reading books on Ginn 360. He might even start to believe in himself in a reader.
    What have you got to lose but your professional ego - what has he got to gain but the ability to read, motivation and self esteem
    Go on- it's not as if he is going anywhere fast now is it? You can even teach phonics at the same time and who knows he might even get to the stage when it will help him among all the other strategies he will then have access to - I will even send you the materials and ideas to do it with. Self made mostly as the eductional publishers and manufacturers asr too focused on where the current money is - phonics. They must love our fickleness.
     
  2. fendertele

    fendertele New commenter

    Especially if they have relied too heavily upon an auditory approach to spelling ( that would be phonics then) Unless accompanied by a vsual approach and the training to check - your good phonic KS1 often becomes the lazy poor speller at KS2 - bit unfair really when he spent KS1 being praised.
     
  3. fendertele

    fendertele New commenter

  4. Doitforfree

    Doitforfree Star commenter

    One of the ways my OCD manifests itself, when it's really bad, is that I have to read every letter of every word. Not only does it stop me deriving meaning from what I'm reading but it's also incredibly slow. It's great for proof reading - nothing gets past me in OCD mode, which shows up how very ,many mistakes there are in the average piece of text. My normal, approximate way of reading is much better in every way. I expect I read words that aren't there and don't read words that are but that really doesn't matter very often. When I'm reading in OCD mode I still read on, even while I'm unable to stop myself reading every blinking letter on the page. My brain is desperate to read normally and can actually do both kinds of reading at the same time. There is no way the normal reading is phonically driven. It's in my peripheral vision and I can understand it even while I'm spelling everything out in a different sentence at the same time. People need to get past phonics reading as fast as possible. It's a hindrance to normal, adult reading. It's not needed at all once a person can read reasonably well. Anyone who can read can work out words for themselves with the knowledge they've acquired.
     
  5. fendertele

    fendertele New commenter

    read something like this before - based on tha fact the brain actually sacns the word and this was seized upon as definitive proff that the brain had discovered synthetic phonics before even Mr Jolly himself. My brain scans everything I see - some more intently than others - doesn't mean it is in any god given sequence.
     
  6. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Even though research using MRI suggests good readers process words letter by letter naturally ...
     
  7. fendertele

    fendertele New commenter

    A kindred spirit - and one based on personal experience rather than dogma
     
  8. fendertele

    fendertele New commenter

    MsZ - he <u>experiences</u> two different approaches - did your researchers research Doitfor free?
    Why do you put so much faith in research - or is it the one sided research - have you explored all the myriad explanations out there?
    If all you do is teach phonics that is all you will ever see- stop putting your faith in books and let reality teach you something - i don't know how experieinced you are but you have to keep an open mind and develop your own theories
    I embrace yours as an essentail element of the learning to read process . But not to the exclusion of everything else that works - not because any particular reified school of thought has made me this way - it is the day to day, year by year, decade on decade of teaching successful readers across the ability range. It is called a bottom up approach.
     
  9. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Perhaps you need to ask Doitforfree that question
    although I doubt it as most research is outside the UK due to the cost.
     
  10. fendertele

    fendertele New commenter

    so if the research is based on how good readers read then that suggests bad readers read in other ways?
    But I thought it was 100% of all words were read systematically - even pseudo? the word pseudo I mean - and laugh how many e sounds in remember - I've forgot
    This is getting too easy MsZ - I am starting to feel like a bully - perhaps that is why you have stopped responding
     
  11. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

  12. fendertele

    fendertele New commenter

    It's not only Govt. Mel . They rarely think of something themselves - alot of this is propagated by our very own educationalist such as HMI - who are beyond mere rational arguement and even their own proof - read "reading by six" and you will see how they even dismissed the 2 schools that were doing really well thru a hoistic approach even though had held them up as very successful schools at teaching reading - there is no competing with this kind of spin,
     
  13. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Or perhaps we bothered to read the research and see how it relates to our own experience before making up our own minds fendertele
     
  14. fendertele

    fendertele New commenter

    Okay you win - you have read loads of stuff - i have experienced loads of stuff - and read a bit too - but I submit in the face of your overwhelming ablity reference.
    Where these off the top of your hea or did you copy and paste them off google or the back of some learned tome?
    Or perhaps they are all Mr Men books - you just keep on digging don't you MsZ.
    Obviosly I won't read these MsZ - i believe what my eyes see and experience in real life - not in some "scholar" who has written in order to gain a doctorate
     
  15. fendertele

    fendertele New commenter

    Own mind?
     
  16. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Yes fendertele some of us have one
     
  17. Just wanted to add this mirrors exactly what I've experienced in my classroom, dyslexic children especially seem to find phonics impossible as a route into reading, and we have found developing a good sight vocab of high frequency words helps tremendously
    Absolutely true, on receiving my new yr3's every year, I invariably discover some exellent 'decoders', although quite robotic to listen to, who struggle with simple comprehension as they focus purely on this scientific process rather than retaining the meaning of the text they are barking out
    .
    <h5> Us too, our school has a 99.9 % Eal intake, so our children have as an additional obstacle, 1, sometimes 2 extra languages with their own phonemic patterns, using a plethora of approaches to reading works best for us and luckily our head believes strongly that phonics should not be a dominant approach for our children</h5>.
    Unquestionably true

     
  18. fendertele

    fendertele New commenter

    Based on your Deaf Society interpretation just how well did you digest all that information. there is a world of difference in barking at print and reading for meaning ...........it is a universe away from actually analysing and intrepreting that information within a credible frame of experiential reference
     
  19. Maybe worth a search on Msz's posts over the past few years on here would save her a lot of effort, fendertele? Why assume that her point of view is not based on her experience as well as her reading?
    As I've mentioned before, I've taught more than one year 6, level 5 reader, who could not decode unfamiliar long words and whose spelling was pretty atrocious - if they'd had phonics teaching earlier it would have sorted out both of those issues (which they were aware of, and not proud of). We did do some phonics in year 6, but there are so many other things by then.
     
  20. So you know that all these articles say that poor readers rely on contextual cues for decoding more than good readers do? Have you read them all? It's a circular argument really Msz, and you don't need all these researchers to tell you the self-evident. Poor readers, by definition do not recognise words. If you can't recognise words you use other available information, avoiding the actual words which you know present an insoluble problem. So you use context, if available to you.On the other hand, good readers check their recognition of words against context. This is shown by the fact that readers will re-read text which does not make sense, a clear use of context to correct word recognition mistakes.
     

Share This Page