Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Primary education

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

Flip

1 2 ··· 7 8 9 ··· 12 13

Original poster

Can someone PLEASE tell me how many high frequency words there are??????

323 replies

propercheesed · 03/05/2012 22:12

DS is currently KS1 at school, I have requested a copy of any high frequency words he should be learning(along side his reading) but surprise surprise access denied!!. Anyone would think I wanted to help my son .

I have googled and googled and I keep getting different answers, please could any teachers or up to speed parents tell me where to find the answer?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

learnandsay · 09/05/2012 19:53

In reality people learn to read in a number of different ways. Even if people are taught to break words down into sounds they are still supposed to know, apparently, that the word blow is pronounced bl-o-w and not ever pronounced blaaw, which is a phonetic possibility. So, effectively they still have to learn some words by sight, (even if phonics adherents won't admit it.)

mrz · 09/05/2012 20:15

Since the word is b l ow (ow is a common representation of the sound) and blaaw isn't a plausible choice not sure what you mean learnand say

mrz · 09/05/2012 20:21

Why teach any by sight math the child can learn them to automaticity while learning the skills to tackle any word they encounter without being confused by mixed methods.

Houseworkprocrastinator · 09/05/2012 20:34

Sorry to jump in here but... I have found that at the age of 32 I don't actually need to sound any words out (well maybe a few :) ) and some of the words I read I am sure I have come across after the age of 8.
I have also found that my daughter who is five is now not sounding words out that she sees quite a lot. Not just talking about the tricky words but things like "jump" or the name "Ben" that seems to be in a lot of books.
So they sound them out and then eventually learn them by sight and don't need to.
So my question is... Would it not be easer for the child if you say "that word is said" and they learn the word rather than "in this word the ai doesn't make ay sound it makes the e sound."
and don't they have to recognise the word in the first place in order to remember that it is a different sound so how does that work?
Phonics is good for working new words out, yes but I really don't think it can be exclusively used and it is easer for the child sometimes to just learn a word rather than a load of complicated rules.

mathanxiety · 09/05/2012 20:35

OW is what you say when you stump your toe though? (course you could say OH 'fiddlesticks').
B-l-o-w could easily be bl(ow) as in 'ouch' and not blow as in 'OH my goodness'

Then there is 'bow' (could go either way and be perfectly correct), 'growl', 'grown', 'avow', 'arrow', 'elbow', 'endow' 'flown', 'gown' ..

Are you saying that a multiplicity of rules and exceptions is not confusing?

Feenie · 09/05/2012 20:50

Feenie, why not just use the sight reading method?

Because it fails one in five children, and I need all of the children to learn to read.

I have also found that my daughter who is five is now not sounding words out that she sees quite a lot.
Words don't need to be sounded out when you can already read them! It's a strategy to decode unfamiliar words, not familiar ones. They work them out using phonics and to the point where they reach automacity - that doesn't mean they have learnt them by sight.

So my question is... Would it not be easer for the child if you say "that word is said" and they learn the word rather than "in this word the ai doesn't make ay sound it makes the e sound."
Not for some children - for a good 20% it is confusing. And you have no way of knowing which children are likely to be confused, until it is too late and they see themselves as struggling, which affects confidence hugely. Why taker the risk? The rules which seem complicated to you really aren't to these children. You really need to see a phonics lesson taught well to see how it isn't at all an issue for them - it is surprising if you've never seen it done.

Feenie · 09/05/2012 20:52

Mathanxiety, all of those words you mentioned only contain two sounds - children don't find that confusing. They just try both alternatives, with confidence. Takes two seconds.

Feenie · 09/05/2012 20:53

Taker the risk? No idea where that came from.

mathanxiety · 09/05/2012 20:55

But how do they know which one is right? How about words they may not have heard and have no instinct about? Are you suggesting they guess based on context or based on previous knowledge of the word?

mathanxiety · 09/05/2012 20:58

crow
crowd
microwave
towel
towpath
know
knowledge

SocietyClowns · 09/05/2012 21:12

Just out of curiosity, not trying to get another fight started... I learnt English as a second language from the age of 11. I was most certainly not taught synthetic or any other phonics, nor the multiple rules regarding all the 44 (or whatever) sounds, combined in 144 (or whatever) different ways in the English language.
So how come I can read, speak and spell English perfectly well?????

Feenie · 09/05/2012 21:16

Because 4 out of 5 children can - to a point.

SocietyClowns · 09/05/2012 21:27

But how do I do it? Haven't been taught the rules at all, so I must be able to do it by... gasp... whole word recognition . So either I am incredibly bright to have memorised enough words to write for a living, or else....?

Feenie · 09/05/2012 21:29

Or else you are one of the lucky 80%. Lucky you! And sod the other 20%.

Houseworkprocrastinator · 09/05/2012 21:31

Feenie
Don't schools still teach times tables by rote rather than making a child work out each one? The children understand the logic behind multiplication and what it means but it doesn't do any harm to know them off by heart too.
(wish I had learned my 8 times table better)
Surely this can be the same for reading. They can learn the phonics and to sound out etc but I can't see the harm in learning by sight say 100 words that appear all the time.

SocietyClowns · 09/05/2012 21:32

feenie didn't mean that, just genuinely wondering how I managed to learn to read English without everything my dd is going through at the moment.

Feenie · 09/05/2012 21:33

but I can't see the harm in learning by sight say 100 words that appear all the time.

Again - lucky you! I have seen it. Time, and time, and time again.

jo164 · 09/05/2012 21:40

I have been dipping in and out of this discussion as I have a daughter in reception who has been learning to read this year. She has been taught to read using phonics - but she has also learned an awful lot of words by sight - because she can, and finds it easy. I know that other children in the class have not had any sight words at all. This to me says that the teacher has a very clear handle on which children need to stick with the pure phonics and which can handle a mix of the two approaches. Surely differentiation is the way forwards with teaching children to read - just as with any other subject?
But I do agree that children need a good grasp of phonics otherwise they will struggle to read any new words without assistance.

Feenie · 09/05/2012 21:47

How do you know she has learnt words by sight, out of interest?

The problem with using the mix of the two approaches is that you can't predict which children are going to be confused until it is too late. By then, children can be thoroughly demoralised, don't see themselves as readers, and you have an awful lot of confusion to unpick before you can put them back on the straight and narrow - and an awfully long way to go before you can put their reading esteem back to where it was. Why not just use a method that works for all the children? (I only know of three who genuinely could not learn using phonics - and left us in Y6 to go on to a special school).

jo164 · 09/05/2012 22:01

Fair point! I would have thought that she learnt them by sight as she seems to recognise words that I don't think she could phonetically break down - however I am not 100% sure. She has had 'lists' to learn - but when we have looked at them she can usually tell me what they are anyway, even if they are new, which thinking about it suggests she is in fact using phonetic decoding! Perhaps her teacher was confident that she could decode words before sending the 'lists' home.
I am a teacher - but not primary and so this has interested me to see everyones opinions on it. I agree with you though, if you are going to teach 1 method it has to suit as many as possible - ridiculous not to.

Houseworkprocrastinator · 09/05/2012 22:07

Feenie - I can only go by my own experiance obviously and like joe164 it is interesting me because I have a reception age daughter. She learned the "tricky" words by sight. How do I know this? They were sent home 10 at a time in a word box and I taught them to her. I am a qualified teacher but at FE level (and not an English teacher) so have not had experiance of teaching to read.
I am now in the situation that my child is reading at a y1 level so when new things arise I am teaching her myself. E.g that the e at the end of the word changes the vowel sounds, and she can now recognise the words thought and laugh purely because she has seen them so often, (I wouldn't have a clue how you explain that in phonics). So she isn't actually learning to read in school as her level has passed the lessons they teach in the class room.
So for MY child the combination of the two methods has worked well. And if just using phonics she Might not have done so well.

I would like to think, jo164 has said that the teachers are able to work with the children as individuals and recognise the way in which they learn best in all areas not just reading.

Feenie · 09/05/2012 22:18

So for MY child the combination of the two methods has worked well. And if just using phonics she Might not have done so well.

Again - lucky your child. How lovely for you. With 20 years experience I can tell you that phonics - taught properly - would certainly not have failed her.

My ds didn't fare so well. He is also in Y1, at a school which teaches a mixture of sight words and little phonics, and I was naive enough, even knowing what I know, to leave the school to it. I believed that if I sent him to another school then I had to trust them. (I damn well wouldn't have had I known that they were not teaching a daily phonics session and were on Phase 3 - Reception level in April Y1 ).

But he is one of those 20% who fail to read using those methods, so forgive me if your 'we're alright jack' posts irritate me. I didn't find out until he downed tools completely - demoralised, confused and upset. I stepped in, found out what was what, and taught him phonics himself. He has moved 4 book bands in 5 months - it is taking much longer to pick his self-esteem off the floor though.

I would like to think, jo164 has said that the teachers are able to work with the children as individuals and recognise the way in which they learn best in all areas not just reading.

But you can't recognise if a child will be confused by a mixture of methods - until it's too late. It's a big gamble to hope that your child won't be one of those one in five. One that I wish I hadn't taken.

jo164 · 09/05/2012 22:26

So the bottom line is that the children who are capable of learning sight words would have also learnt to read using pure phonics - just maybe not at such a fast pace? The phonics method is sound, and reaches the majority of children, therefore it reliably teaches more children to read in the long run.
I think being teachers makes us want to encourage our own children on as quickly as possible, and we obviously read and help our children out at home. A lot of children may not get that help and so learning sight words may be a pointless task to set anyway. Teaching the children to decode enables them to become independent readers.
I think sometimes when our own children can do something, it is easy to lose sight of those who can't.

SocietyClowns · 09/05/2012 22:26

Feenie - your last post clarified things a bit for me. Will keep a close eye on dd who is being taught very much mixed methods... In fact, have yet to come across a reception class (within my circle of friends) where phonics only are taught. They all have had lists of words sent home to learn by heart...

Feenie · 09/05/2012 22:31

Keep that close eye on them, SocietyClowns!

The pace of phonics teaching is actually very fast, jo164 - apart from my son's school.

Houseworkprocrastinator the rule you describe(split diagraph) is taught in Y1.

Flip

1 2 ··· 7 8 9 ··· 12 13