Why is MN so obsessed with reception reading?

[skiphopskidaddle]

It's a marathon, not a sprint. It doesn't matter if Johnny is on red and Amy is on lilac as (a) different schools go at different paces and (b) children develop different skills in different order.

I can't quite believe the number of reception reading threads I've seen this week along the lines of "what colour book is yours on?". I'm going over to the behaviour/development board now to check for obsessive posting about when children learn to walk. Cos it doesn't matter either, in general.

mathanxiety you admit yourself you don't work with 4 and 5 year olds so how are you so sure it isn't true?

I have taught reception class for 15+ years and know exactly how I taught and it was nothing like the picture you paint.

I didn't have a point it was just curiosity but I suspect know a lot of researchers would argue the existence of dyslexia ...

ymeyer
You have not process of the neurological information which is now widely available, and keep on demonstrating your ignorance.
The Rose Review stated that To be able to use phonics depends on having good LISTENING skills. The Rose review chose to ignore the UK Medical Research Council and instead followed some of the most dubious research ever presented, and listened to the loudest lobbists.

Those who have APD have a LISTENING disability and are cognitively unable to use phonics.

So you are promoting classroom torturer on all children who have APD or any related issue because of your single track phonics dogma and a lack training as to how children learn. This probably you are not adequately trained teach children reading. If you were adequately qualified you would be able to adapt your teaching style and the type of program you use to match every childs learning needs.

A;so if you were properly iformed you would not about the Cognitive Subtypes of dyslexia, and understand that APD is one of the many cognitive causes of the dyslexic symptom.

Many writing systems have been developed and are being used in different parts of the world. We a use the Latin Alphabet writing system, and English has the most complex orthography of the langauges that use the Latin Alphabet writing system.
Unfortunately most of us are not able to chose the writing system which best suites our cognitive abilities, we have to use the writing system imposed on the society we are born into.

Some of us are not best suited to the writing system we have to use do the nature of the society we have been born into. So some of us may have cognitive problems using any form of alphabet, especially id the langauge is not a true reflection of its intended use.

So all of this alphabetic principle theory is great as a theory which it should remain. It is the basis of a man made communication system we some of us are able to use.
However like all man made systems does not suite all, and could be vastly improved so that others can use it more effectively.
so what really needs to be done is to change the structure of the English language so that there are forms of graphic representation of the spoke n word to match all cognitive learning styles

It will never happen, so those who try to teach how to use our chosen form of the visual notation of speech, need to have a full understanding of cognitive differences of how children learn, and be able to adapt their teaching methods accordingly, which means that only children who can use phonics use phonics and those who require alternative program get the programs they need.

As research has demonstrated it can be possible to identify potential dyslexic from 6 months old, and begin to provide some remedial support, it is also possible to determine neurologically the best for of teaching for all the different cognitive learning needs of children preschool.

But you will not find this information in the marketing hype of the UK education industry, nor from hype of those who promote any form of single teaching program such as the Phonics lobby, as it would be detrimental to their incomes either product sales or limited teaching abilities.

maizieD

"Oh dear Lord. Please spare us all the wacky 'dyslexia' theorists."

I know how you hate scientific research, mainly because it proves that you are usually completely wrong in your opinions. But i will try to explain anyway.

In the UK and the USA there is a Dyslexia industry whose sole aim is to make money out of dyslexic selling books, remedial programs, or dyslexia schools. If you check out the money trail, you will see who endorses and sell which remedial programs, who owns which leading Dyslexia Research Journals, the required qualifications to diagnose dyslexic, and supposed to teach dyslexic children. It is morally corrupt to say the least.
The main problem is that the USA and UK dyslexia industry depends on the concept that there is only a single underlying cognitive cause of dyslexia. Which has be obvious research nonsense of the last decade or more, Research has identified at least 3 cognitive subtypes of dyslexia, which are of genetic origin, and the talk about candidate genes as potential causes of dyslexia.

Researchers on mainland Europe do not have to contend with the demands of our dyslexia industry and some have purer Latin Alphabet languages as a starting point.

So if you read any dyslexia research paper of the last decade, then you will know that dyslexia is only a Reading Disability. The most researched learning disability on the planet. What the body of international Developmental dyslexia research has been investigating in recent years are the underlying cognitive causes of the dyslexic symptom, and they are now beginning to compare not just dyslexics against control non dyslexics, but the various cognitive subtypes of dyslexia with one another while also comparing the various subtypes with the control nondyslexics.
The research paer from Germany in 2008 which best summerises these issues is the Cognitive Subtypes of Dyslexia
And i have further research papers in my online PubMed dyslexia research paper collections which research paper collections by related topic, by year of publication, and some of my favourite leading researchers.

I am aware that you hardly ever follow any link that I provide so this will be my final contribution on this thread.

But again as I said above and as Bonsoir pointed out, you can hear language that is read aloud from a book and absorb it. It doesn't have to be included in normal speech. Anecdotal here, but the DCs had a lot of Beatrix Potter read to them and they all figured out what the word 'soporific' meant (and so did I, since I was the reader wink) after hearing the sentence "It is said that the effect of eating too much lettuce is soporific..." many a time. Much repetition of the material is necessary in order for it to sink in. (Hence the soporific element for me, but the DCs hung onto every word and asked for more).

But my observation about the value of reading to enhance vocabulary was made about disadvantaged children. It is funny how all you mums keep reverting to the wonderful, vocabulary rich experience you are giving your children. Those same children who you would have no problem with if they learned to read at age 3. MN is positively awash with these precocious tots.

Yet the children of the chavvy lot who stick their dcs in front of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (or whatever violent film is now preferred viewing), with a bottle propped in front of them, from the age of 6 months until they get to nursery at 3, disadvantaged, cannot possibly be taught to read at 4 because..............because why? Because they haven't had the rich language experience which your children have had? I can't help thinking that, however dedicated these children's teachers are and however much they try to provide rich language experiences at school, these children would be at least teenagers before they were allowed to learn to read...

I am loving this thread. It provides some light relief when I get home from abusing children all day...

I am aware that you hardly ever follow any link that I provide so this will be my final contribution on this thread.

On the contrary, dolfrog. I quite often follow your links. Unfortunately, they never seem to lead to anything particularly relevant. They even, on occasion, lead to abstracts which completely contradict what you say in your posts.

It's a shame you are going without answering my question. Have you actually read in full all the research papers you link to?

Here's another research paper for dolfrog to put in his collection:

psyweb.psy.ox.ac.uk/oscci/dbhtml/All%20papers%20and%20chapters/Dawes%202010%20-%20Psychometric%20profile%20of%20children%20with%20auditory%20processing%20disorder%20%28APD%29%20and%20children%20with%20dyslexia.pdf

MaizieD, you missed the point entirely in order to score some silly and actually quite snide socio-economic-precious-pfb point of your own. I freely admit to being MC. And my DCs are MC too. So shoot me, and my DCs too.

Teaching disadvantaged children to decode does not carry any advantage beyond about the age of 8 or 9. It is a waste of time unless they have simultaneously amassed a huge vocabulary on a par with that of their advantaged peers. They cannot possibly develop the vocabulary of their peers purely by reading the early years and elementary years reading material that accompanies the process of learning to read.

Reading to disadvantaged children and exposing them by that means to a wide vocabulary provides a far better foundation, and faster, than teaching them to read and hoping they will eventually learn more words themselves through reading. It takes years to learn to read (yes, even with SP). It takes years and lots of encouragement from home and the surrounding culture to read the kind of books that provide the enriched vocabulary that disadvantaged children need.

Feenie, I taught tying of shoelaces and knitting to my DCs using games, songs, actions, etc., but that still didn't make what I was doing 'teaching phonics'.

Mrz, sorry, but what does this question refer to? 'mathanxiety you admit yourself you don't work with 4 and 5 year olds so how are you so sure it isn't true?'

I am not among those who argue the existence of dyslexia and wasn't referring to any of that group.

"Feenie, I taught tying of shoelaces and knitting to my DCs using games, songs, actions, etc., but that still didn't make what I was doing 'teaching phonics'."

No idea what you are talking about. You aren't a teacher, and you don't teach phonics. I am, so are my colleagues, and we teach it every single day using those techniques. But obviously, it's pure fantasy.

Once again, mathanxiety, you miss the point.

Why is is fine for your middle class ofspring to learn to read in the cradle but not for the children of the disadvantaged?

Teaching disadvantaged children to decode does not carry any advantage beyond about the age of 8 or 9. It is a waste of time unless they have simultaneously amassed a huge vocabulary on a par with that of their advantaged peers. ..says Mathanxiety.

This actually beggars belief! Is it also a waste of time teaching ESL to decode because neither have they amassed a huge vocabulary?
I think Mathanxiety you have got a bit carried away.

It's a staggering opinion, certainly. You ought to work in management or government/LEA advising, Mathanxiety - seeing disadvantaged children as percentages, talking about teaching them to read as not having any 'adavantage' - to whom, I wonder? It's clear you already don't see them as individuals like teachers do.

No it's not pure fantasy. Your definition of phonics is just ridiculously broad, that's all. Phonics instruction involves at its core showing children letters and making the sounds associated with them, with the songs, actions, etc., there because they are associated with the explicit phonics instructions, for instance in Jolly Phonics. It is not all songs and actions and rhymes, with no point to the songs, no aim to the rhymes and the whole business unrelated to the letter-sound correspondence. I used the analogy of teaching the tying of shoelaces and knitting using songs, actions, etc., to illustrate that not everything that involves songs, etc., can be classified as phonics teaching and to make the point that it is the explicit teaching of letter-sound correspondence that makes something phonics, not the songs and the actions. (Note to self -- Spell things out in future and avoid analogy and comparisons. Saves time in the long run.)

And again at the inability of seemingly educated and intelligent people to read research and understand the difference between decoding and reading for comprehension, and the difference language and vocabulary knowledge makes to the latter, which is after all the whole point of learning to read in the first place.

'Teaching disadvantaged children to decode does not carry any advantage beyond about the age of 8 or 9. It is a waste of time unless they have simultaneously amassed a huge vocabulary on a par with that of their advantaged peers.'
This is the truth whether you want to hear it or not. After 8 or 9 it is those with a large vocabulary who plough ahead with higher level reading skills into the different subjects they begin to encounter, and with the higher level of reading skills (comprehension, fluency) that school demands beyond age 8/9 because they are not trying to fight on two fronts when it comes to reading (decoding of words that may be completely unfamiliar as well as trying to gauge meaning, in the case of the disadvantaged).

I brought the research on the question of the importance of language and vocabulary to your attention and I make this point because I do, in fact, care about disadvantaged children (despite the crime of being MC) and I am aware of the long term educational outcome for most of them, and that picture ain't pretty. It may make individual teachers feel they are getting somewhere when they send them on their way to Y2 or Y3 able to decode, but ultimately it won't get the children where the teachers or they themselves want to be unless they can make incredible gains in vocabulary and keep up that pace of progress alongside those who have had a massive headstart on them.

Again with the snide 'middle class' remark? It is of course desirable for all children to read. In order to do so well and continue to progress they need a foundation of language and vocabulary, initially because phonemic awareness is a vital precursor to learning to read. And following that in order to make the skill of reading a springboard to greater educational progress once learned, they need to continue with their acquisition of vocabulary -- this is not possible to do by reading at the level of most beginner readers. They need continued relentless oral exposure to a wide and rich vocabulary. To make productive reading for all a reality it might be necessary to make efforts to drastically improve the environment of disadvantaged children from the cradle, where language goes. To level the playing field in an absurd way, we could perhaps gag those parents who can provide a good language foundation for their children, and keep them from providing it...

The gains attributable to phonics instruction evaporate by age 8 or 9. (I have provided links in earlier posts to many studies that have shown this. I'll go back through the thread and dig them out again when I have a bit more time.)

And yes, it is not helpful to teach ESL children to decode without also or beforehand teaching a wide vocabulary, preferably teaching conversational English. The phonemic awareness thing is important after all. Decoding first is putting the cart before the horse. I learned Russian by speaking first and then progressing to decoding the unfamiliar Cyrillic script and eventually reading with a fair degree of fluency and comprehension that is still 'improving'. Learning spoken Russian and vocabulary before I stumbled through the decoding stages was essential. Having taught Irish as a second language, I can attest to the importance of oral language learning and building up of vocabulary before written/ reading. If you don't establish the correct sounds of a language first, you won't decode properly.

You can't count the value of being able to read, or possibly know what advantages and/or pleasures it opnens up for a child. It won't be in the figures of the research you are so obsessed with.

If you are exasperated as to what I do, or don't do/understand with regard to phonics teaching (even though I actually live and breathe it, every single day), then that goes ten fold for me when faced with your blithe, cold assertion that "teaching disadvantaged children to decode does not carry any advantage beyond about the age of 8 or 9. It is a waste of time".

You cannot measure that particular advantage, or possibly understand what it could mean for that individual child you comtemptuously sweep away with genereralisations.

Mathanxiety: I'll address your points shortly but at this moment in time I would like to know what programme you use when teaching literacy to adults?

mathanxiety - the arguments you use are those that support the French école maternelle, which lasts for three years, from 3 to 6, and that is primarily focused on socialisation skills and the acquisition of oral fluency in French by exposing children to a rich language environment. French école maternelle is quite successful at ironing out the differences between children and ensuring they all have a good, broad and deep oral language base by the time they are taught to read. French children learn to read very quickly when they are taught in the first year of primary (aged 6).

Mrz, sorry, but what does this question refer to? 'mathanxiety you admit yourself you don't work with 4 and 5 year olds so how are you so sure it isn't true?'

it refers to this statement

^mathanxiety Fri 04-Mar-11 19:23:37

Feenie, you can tell me til you're blue in the face, but it is not true.

and the fact you hold researchers so dear when you want to score points but fail to accept that researchers can have very different opinions and that perhaps those of us who work day in and day out might just might have an insight in what children in our care are actually doing each and every day.
Mrz, I have never taught a dyslexic child to read, though DD3 does exhibit atypical verbal processing; since she learned to read without any systematic efforts on my part I can't claim to have taught her. Some of the adults I have taught to read in the programme I am involved in are highly likely to be dyslexic. (Some are just victims of exceptionally horrible childhoods and disruption of schooling.) If your point is that someone who hasn't ever taught a dyslexic child to read doesn't know what she is talking about, then I suspect a lot of researchers would fall into that category.

And yes, it is not helpful to teach ESL children to decode without also or beforehand teaching a wide vocabulary, preferably teaching conversational English.

Actually that goes totally against the guidance from EMTAS ...interesting

From reading your posts mathanxiety you seem to believe that phonics is delivered in a language vacuum rather than as part of a language rich experience do you honestly think that developing and expanding vocabulary and comprehension of both spoken and written language isn't part of every child's day in reception?

And yes, it is not helpful to teach ESL children to decode without also or beforehand teaching a wide vocabulary, preferably teaching conversational English.

Mathanxiety: the reading programme that I am involved with has at its centre the decoding of highly structured stories (beginning with stories using only 5 sounds and 5 letters). Chinese, Japanese, Arabic,Dutch, Spanish children have all been successful in learning to read in English with the programme - and of course, as Mrz notes, it is not delivered in a language vacuum - far from it. The stories encourage expanding vocabulary, engagement with the animal characters etc.

It is quite extraordinary that you believe that phonics is delivered in a language vacuum.

Children from highly articulate backgrounds surrounded by books can still struggle when learning to read if taught by mixed methods. In the 1980s dyslexia was called the middle-class obsession as so many children needed private reading tuition to sort out their difficulties. So what has been the problem with these language-rich children? It would be interesting to have your opinion.

Quality interactions with other children, adults, objects, and places

A language-rich environment that encourages play, exploration, conversations, and collaboration between adults and children, and between children and children

A balance between adult-initiated and child-initiated activities

Play and hands-on experiences indoors and outdoors

Adults who observe, empathise, listen, and talk to children.

Connections and progression in learning as children move from one setting to another.

Supportive relationships between parents and settings. To achieve this, you need adults who respect children as young learn

An example of one early years curriculum

Play underpins the delivery of all the CURRICULUM. Children must have opportunities to play indoors and outdoors.

Play underpins all development and learning for young children. Most children play spontaneously, although some may need adult support, and it is through play that they develop intellectually, creatively, physically, socially and emotionally.

The CURRICULUM requires providers to ensure a balance of child-initiated and adult-led play-based
activities.

work in partnership with parents ? sharing information and involving them in their child?s
continuous learning and development.

and another

Educational provision for young children should be holistic with the child at the heart of any planned curriculum. It is about practitioners understanding,
inspiring and challenging children?s potential for learning. Practitioner involvement in children?s play is of vital importance particularly when interactions involve open questioning, shared and sustained thinking.

There must be a balance between structured learning through child-initiated activities and those directed by practitioners.

For children, play can be (and often is) a very serious business. It needs concentrated attention. It is about children learning through perseverance,
attention to detail, and concentration ? characteristics usually associated with work. Play is not only crucial to the way children become self-aware
and the way in which they learn the rules of social behaviour; it is also fundamental to intellectual development.

and another

many similarities ????

Mrz -- that all sounds perfectly lovely. What distinguishes it from an école maternelle do you think?

Allchildrenreading -- Where did I say that phonics is delivered in a language vacuum? I do not, and you should not rely on Mrz's misinterpretation of what I have said. Children who can hear have learned vocabulary and have picked up language, sometimes more than one language, and have internalised the rules of the language(s) they speak, from birth. However, some children have picked up far more vocabulary and have had much more exposure to standard English than others. Trying to fill the gap in Reception is not sufficient as a way to provide the sort of foundation the advantaged children have received.

Phonics as a means of teaching reading to comprehension level couldn't possibly be successful in a language vacuum. Decoding can happen in a language vacuum though -- but it will get you nowhere, as I found out when wondering how hard it might be to learn Russian and dabbling in a dictionary and using a pronunciation guide. Yes I could decode after becoming familiar with letter-sound correspondence. I could read a sentence. I hadn't the foggiest idea what I was reading but I was technically reading a Russian sentence. Comprehension can't happen in a language vacuum, and it can't happen where there is a language deficiency, except slowly and painfully. This is why teaching reading with the ultimate aims of achieving fluency and comprehension, without a firm and ever-expanding foundation of language and vocabulary is difficult. Teaching decoding without paying attention to the language and vocabulary development of the children first is too often sending them up a blind alley. Trying to make up deficits in this area in Reception is not a realistic ideal.

Many children need phonics instruction in order to learn to read (again, not necessarily at age 4). Phonics instruction will be successful as a means of teaching most children to read (again, not necessarily at age 4). I have nothing against phonics. I am pretty sure I have not argued for mixed methods either. The whole point of language enrichment is to allow children to progress beyond the stage of decoding and even beyond the fluency that phonics gives. Children in a language-rich environment use their vocab and language foundation to carry them into the upper elementary and secondary stages. Those who are disadvantaged in the area of language and vocab fall behind once they hit material in school that demands the higher comprehension skills that only a strong language foundation brings. This strong foundation cannot be built by the reading done by students. It must have its basis in oral language from birth on.

All I have said on this thread wrt phonics is WHY IS PHONICS TAUGHT AT AGE 4 IN THE UK? (apart from Wales).

And on to a question from earlier: The two primary methods I was trained to use in adult literacy are Orton-Gillingham (developed in the 1920s or 30s) and Wilson (an offshoot of O-G). Both are multi-sensory, involving visual, auditory, kinesthetic and tactile elements in order to try to reach the clients no matter what their learning style(s) may be, and also in order to try to figure that out and continue with the most appropriate approach, and hopefully cover more ground, and faster. O-G isn't scripted so it can be adapted for individual needs, making it nice for one on one instruction.

O-G uses phonetic word cards for phonemic awareness, and phonetic drill cards that are presented in sequential order; first cvc order words are used, and then single words and detached syllables to exemplify the patterns and generalisations found in English spelling. It is an approach that attempts to speedily foster recognition of patterns using syllables as well as phonemes.

Manipulatives (chequers for example) can be used to map spellings by showing consonants (black pieces) and vowels (white pieces) where they should fall in a word before attempting to write a dictated word. Writing in sand, tracing letters in the air, using manipulatives with different textures like sandpaper letters, felt letters, etc., can also be used. A sound journal is kept by the student.

With Wilson, students move from a strong phonological focus to more of an orthographical focus; again, syllables are encountered in sequence and are divided according to how rules apply to the structure of the words being studied. Word structure and orthographic patterns and the syllable-sound correspondence are the avenues to reading with this method, with tapping out of syllables used to heighten awareness of the sounds and syllables as well as the tactile, kinesthetic, visual and oral approaches. There is constant review of previous lessons alongside the progress. Writing and spelling are tackled alongside decoding. Sight words are directly taught. Syllable cards are used and manipulated almost as building blocks of words. When text is used, syllables can be marked as an aid to accuracy, and phrases can be marked as an aid to fluency. This kind of marking can also help with comprehension. Comprehension is also encouraged by questions related to the passages read. There's a lot of firing on all cylinders involved. Progress and difficulties are tracked meticulously and problems tackled by the teacher as soon as they crop up.

Doncaster EMCAS pdf here -- with an excellent pierogi recipe (though make sure you drain the cottage cheese a bit if you try it). All of the policies supported in Doncaster at any rate suggest that EMCAS takes seriously the development of language as a basis for learning, while acknowledging the significant problems faced by students attempting to master subject areas and English at the same time.

This review of US studies (no groaning please) indicates that teaching ESL children to read (again, cohorts are aged 5 and up) in their first language simultaneously with teaching of reading in English, using phonics (specifically DI Distar and Success For All methods according to the study) achieves the best results. The language patterns from the first language that students are aware of enhance the learning of English and the approach to reading (phonemic awareness) in the first language complements the approach in the second language. When students have internalised the rules of one language it becomes easier to recognise rules in another. When students learn the phonetic approach in one language they are able to apply the same kind of approach to another. A major predictor of future success in reading English among bilingual students in the US is the size of the vocabulary in the first language at an early age.

mathanxiety would it surprise you to know one of those is the Irish (Eire) early years curriculum?

The école maternelle is much more structured than the three examples I posted

Physical activities to keep the child in good health, increase his motor skills and allow him to become aware of his body in the spatial environment.

Scientific and technical activities to allow the child to state and solve a problem by exploring, discovering and making.

Communication, writing and oral exercises, which aim to develop mastery of language.

Artistic and aesthetic activities to develop the child's sensitivity, listening and observation and familiarise him with a great variety of art forms and materials

I'm afraid you are mistaken the Welsh Foundation Phase Curriculum includes phonics www.teachers.tv/videos/language-and-literacy-development phonics lesson in a Welsh reception class (around 10 mins into the programme)