Sight reading and decoding

[runoutofnameideas]

How do slightly older children learn new words which are irregular - do they still decode somehow with rules I'm not aware of or learn them by sight? Something like "unusual" for example?

Do they work out that there are different ways to pronounce say the middle u and then try them out in their head or something?

Ds just finished reception. He is a very able reader (well I might just be being a proud mum thinking that!) and has zoomed through the levels (and before anyone says too quickly, he does understand and has good expression, rarely sounds out out loud) but he wasn't taught at his level at all for reading within school so I feel a bit lost about how this all works. He is a natural sight reader although he can decode if he has to so I am wondering if he will just learn these sorts of words by sight as he goes which is I'm sure what I did but maybe that's not the done thing these days?

Advice would be great if my question isn't too vague and confusing!

That should read 'some phonemes'

I'm afraid you are quite wrong about the phonemes taught at this stage. Reception children would certainly encounter phonemes represented by two letters, and fairly quickly, too. You seem very confused as to what is taught in Reception.

Phonemes represented by two or more letters have to be taught in Reception else the whole 44 could not be covered and an #essential part of synthetic phonics teaching would be lost! And they should be covered (at the rate of, say, four a week) in 11 weeks, i.e. less than one term!

Children have to learn digraphs 'th', 'sh', 'ch' and digraphs for all the long vowel sounds (in fact, some programmes start off teaching a trigraph, 'igh', for the 'long /i/ sound)

#'essential' in that once children know at least one way to spell each sound they can use that knowledge to write any word in a phonetically plausible way. Which should give them more freedom and confidence in their independent writing.

Also note that all the best practice I have seen/heard described by experts such as Sue Lloyd (Jolly Phonics) and Ruth Miskin, make it very clear that all children should be taught the correspondences at the same rate, with early, intensive intervention work for the slower to learn.

this is a genuine question, not a criticism of phonics BTW - I'm a lot less than I used to be about it.

how are 'put' and 'but' both regular? I don't geddit :(

Because children are taught (in this case)
the two sounds that the middle 'u' can make.

Less of a problem in the North, where we live, since it's the same exact sound in those two particular words!

oh I see, but surely they'd still need to just remember and recognise which sound the u made in each case?

I was also wondering how 'put' could be regular since it is pronounced 'poot' following phonics.

"but surely they'd still need to just remember and recognise which sound the u made in each case?"

Ye-es. That's what phonics is all about - learning the different sounds made by different letter combinations, or the same sound made by different letter combinations.

"I was also wondering how 'put' could be regular since it is pronounced 'poot' following phonics."
Not sure what you mean by 'following phonics'. Following good phonic teaching, children would learn that 'u' makes the 'u' sound as in 'under', the 'yoo' sound as in 'unicorn' and an 'oo' sound as in 'put'.

It's not as complicated as it seems when practised in short bursts each day - it's fascinating to watch a well-taught Reception class saying all of those sounds with total confidence.

I see... I think

I just would've thought that remembering the difference between put and but etc would count as whole word recognition. and when you added in 'rut' they would be none the wiser without experimenting with different sounds for u?

thanks for explaining maybe I'm just over thinking it!

No, whole word recognition would be learning those words as a whole, so that when they encountered 'rut', they wouldn't be able to necessarily apply that knowledge.

A child who was taught phonics well would experiment with different sounds very quickly to read the word - that what it's all about, giving them the skills and knowledge to be able to do that.

Not sure what you mean by 'following phonics'. Following good phonic teaching, children would learn that 'u' makes the 'u' sound as in 'under', the 'yoo' sound as in 'unicorn' and an 'oo' sound as in 'put'.

I see. I didn't know they were taught like that. I just wonder how these kids can tell the difference in writing.
In reading,it is probably easier. In writing how can they tell just by phonics if to write

Pull or pool
bite or bight

Or do they just get used to them as they go? My dd has learned 'put' as a whole word and not by phonics(sounding out)

It sounds so confusing but then again this is my first exposure to phonics so I might eventually get used to it too. I hope...

At first, when they first learn to write, any phonically plausible writen word is celebrated - later on they learn the correct combination of letters to use through continued phonic teaching (all the way through primary school).

written

Feenie, that's just not right. in the school I was working at last, the sounds below are only taught if and when the children have mastered the commoner ones:

ea, igh, ie, ow, oa, ue, ew, oor, ore, aw, au, air, are, ur, ow, oy, oi, ire, ear, ure,ph, ll, le, mb, kn, wr, ce, ti, ci

The rate at which this happens varies widely.

I see so I guess by phonics they'd know the /r/ and the two options for 'ut' and then just try each one. whereas with whole-word they would start from scratch.

right. I actually get it now, thanks :)

aegeansky the whole point of effective phonics instruction is that is is taught systematically and with pace. In reception children should be taught the single alphabet letter representation plus ai ee igh oa ue oo oo or ch sh th ng ar er ou ck qu air & ure as a minimum. I have usually covered these by Christmas so start introducing alternative graphemes in January.

The most common ways a sound is represented are introduced first so normally with reception and year 1 children they would try these first in spelling independently and as Feenie says plausible attempts are acceptable until the correct way has been taught.

aegeansky, before you say anything else as daft, can I refer you firstly to maizieD's answer to you above, who is an renowned expert in phonic teaching.

Then you might like to check Letters and Sounds the very latest government document, which most schools use unless they have even better access to phonic teaching up their sleeves. When were you working at this school - because things have changed, and are still a-changing (thank goodness).

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy? Is my DD the only child who has failed to learn how to read despite being taught synthetic phonics?

At the same stage as teaching kids number bonds to 10 - we are trying to teach them 160 phonic 'rules'? (Which aren't rules at all because there is no way to determine when to use which 'rule' so they are no more than common patterns)

We don't even teach column addition till about year 4 because it's too hard....

The amount of logic required to read using phonic 'rules' is way beyond the average 5 year old.... And way beyond the amount of logic expected of them in maths.

It does sound difficult, but I assure you that your average Reception class finds this very easy, and their confidence shines through. It would be good if you could actually see a 15 minute session taught well - it's very inspiring to watch.

Indigobell teaching all 150+ phonemes is spread out over reception and KS1 (so over 3 years or more) no one expects all children to master them at the same rate but for those children who can why hold them back? In the same way we teach column addition in Y1 with those children who are ready. I've certainly taught column addition this year with all Y2s.

Feenie, I have seen phonics being taught - my DD just hasn't learnt anything.

I'm sure the average kid can learn this way - but what about the not average kid?

Are you sure it is the quality of the teaching method rather than the quality of the teacher that matters?

IndigoBell I have taught children with Global Delay (7 year olds functioning below the age of 3) phonics successfully and I had 2 children in my class last year with severe dyslexia and one with dyspraxia who all met or exceeded age related expectations for their age in reading in the KS1 SAT tests.

I would say both. I would also say that for some children extra, more intensive teaching is needed, but that unfortunately they might not always be offered that. This would seem to be the case for your dd.

I meant actually seeing a session, though, not the poor result of the teaching. It doesn't sound as if synthetic phonics are taught well at your dd's school, however.

To be perfectly honest, @ those of you who worry about how children learn to spell, while I know that good synthetic phonics instruction will get somewhere in the region of 95%+ of children learning to read competently, I don't think that it is likely to get a similar percentage spelling 'correctly'.

Correct spelling requires a far better memory than reading as the only thing one has to go by is the sound sequence in a word and the correct spelling of each sound in that particular word has to be remembered. Remembering involves, I think,(in addition to recalling letter sequence, which not everyone can do) two particular elements of memory; kinaesthetic or 'muscle' memory, which recals the unique 'feel' of writing the word and 'visual' memory, in the sense that, when you write a word you're not quite sure of the spelling of, you tend to check it by seeing if it 'looks' right when you've written it.

Both of these are developed by frequent practice; muscle memory through frequently writing a word and visual memory through frquent reading of the word. If you don't write or read particularly frequently then you aren't going to develop these two useful 'memories'! However, if you know at least one way to spell each of the 44 'sounds' then at least you you have a sporting chance of writing something which is phonetically correct and thus recognisable as the word you are trying to reproduce.

The trouble with standardised spelling is that whoever did the standardisation was very arbitrary and not always logical in their approach. Why is it 'mouse' and not 'mous' (or even 'mows'..)or 'give' not 'giv'? ' And why is the surname 'Taylor' spelled with 'ay' when the occupation which gave rise to it is spelled 'ai', 'tailor?

Our forebears were much luckier than us in the days when 'correct' spelling wasn't taken as a sign of superior intelligence

Feenie, manners, please! I haven't attacked you personally, so no need for the rude put down. I can't comment on the links you've sent me. I can comment on my direct, personal and recent experience (right up to last term). This doesn't discredit anything anyone else says, nor call into question anyone's expertise.