to think that primary school teachers should be made to sit the year 1 nonsense words test

[ReallyTired]

It would be really interesting to see what proportion of existing qualified teachers can pass the year 1 phonics word test. Those who fail it should be sent on an intensive phonics course and then resit the test. Those who pass should be given a bonus. (It make make those teachers who have suffered a pay freeze for the last 3 years a little happier!)

www.lancsngfl.ac.uk/curriculum/assessment/download/file/Year%201%20phonics%20sample%20materials.pdf

How ridiculous that people still think that teachers get a say in anything. TEACHERS DID NOT SET THE TESTS. FFS.

What an odd thread

kim - I didn't see that ... I should watch it! Thanks.

Well yes LRD, and how we read is very interesting - but doesn't mean that you and many other fluent adult readers would fail this test which is what you originally stated.

No, that's not what I stated.

I would quite probably fail it.

I said other fluent readers would likely make momentary errors. Why would that cause them to fail? They might barely even register they'd made the error (though I think priming tests would indicate whether they had or not - if they'd 'seen' a real word, they'd have it in their memory for a bit).

Here is the test. Take it. You have all evening and you know there are fake words. You might surprise yourself.

www.lancsngfl.ac.uk/curriculum/assessment/download/file/Year%201%20phonics%20sample%20materials.pdf

Why on earth would you fail a simple test designed for infants though? That's just bizarre. You'd know it was a test but still be unable to read new words?

TheScience - I'm sorry if my post upset you in some way. It was only meant as a casual observation, more or less thinking out loud. And I made it because I was thinking how interesting it is that we do tend to see real words where there is nonsense, and how this is closely related to the very skill that helps us to read quickly.

I never said most people would fail.

I did point out that I'm not a teacher.

Therefore, since I'm not a teacher and I think teachers would pass, I don't see why it's relevant why I might fail. I don't see why you need to claim it's 'bizarre,' though.

If you want to know more about reading non-words, put 'reading non-words' into google scholar and have a ball.

I really struggled to use phonics when I learnt to read. My DM says that I didn't seem to hear words very clearly, so what mediocre phonics tuition we had in the 1980s was a bit lost on me. In my teens I still struggled a bit with a few words that looked similar e.g. complication/compilation as I was very much a whole word reader and would find it hard to split a word up into sounds. Now in my 30s I have no problems reading anything as I have just done so much reading that my poor early phonics isn't an issue. The only things I struggle with now is working out how many syllables are in a word and making sense of things with incorrect homophones (e.g. when someone uses "there" instead of "their").

So I think that most adults educated to degree level, even if they weren't trained in phonics early on, would be able to pass the test just by having enough acquired experience from reading.

I certainly wish I'd prefaced it with 'just thinking aloud', Kim!

ReallyTired I can only imagine you were trying to be amusing by spelling 'successful' incorrectly considering your thread is about an aspect of literacy. Brilliant!

I think perhaps some posters may want to think about assumptions they are making

Yes, I was just wondering what these assumptions about teachers are based on.

LRD your post didn't upset me, I'm just confused that an adult who can obviously read thinks they would fail a test reading words like vapp and tox

Those who are saying they would find it hard to read nonsense words, can you read this?

"I cdn'uolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg: the phaonmneel pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rseearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Scuh a cdonition is arppoiatrely cllaed Typoglycemia .
"Amzanig huh? Yaeh and you awlyas thguoht slpeling was ipmorantt."

Me too, TheScience!

phantom - erm ... that's proving the opposite point!

When you read that passage, you are not reading nonsense words. You are transforming them into real words.

If a child did that in the test, he or she would fail.

Now, a five year old has less experience of reading real words, so actually, they may be less likely to do this than an adult. But most adults who are fluent readers will automatically glance at a non-word like 'blveiee' and see 'believe'. They will then, of course, correct, because they know they are meant to be reading non-words. But I do believe they will for a split second only register the 'correct' version.

In the Year one class I work in we play lots of phonics games on the interactive board. The games have real and made up words which the children have to sound out. So they get exposed to the idea of reading these words. They do phonics everyday and play these games at least twice a week.