Is phonics the best way to teach kids to read? Nick Gibb and Michael Rosen debate

[ElenMumsnetBloggers]

Last month all year one children in England had to take a phonics screening check, and phonics is being rolled out across the country as the way to teach children to read. But is this too prescriptive? We asked children's author Michael Rosen and Education Minister Nick Gibb to debate phonics. Read their debate about phonics as a tool for children to learn to read here and have your say. Do you agree with Nick Gibb or Michael Rosen? Is phonics the most effective way to teach children to read? Should we use several ways of teaching reading, or concentrate on phonics? Join the debate.

I don't think context helps a child (or adult) to read words but it helps to make sense of what we read ... context tells us whether the word is read or read, bow or bow, live or live.

Or bear or beer

I feel the use of context is something that complete beginner readers should not be doing, but as pupils progress, they have to, not as an alternative to phonics, but to decide which of several phonically alternatives is the the actual word

Using context to determine the pronunciation or meaning of an ambiguous word is a completely different thing from using context to work out what an unknown word 'says'. Of course you have to use context in determining whether 'present' is intended to mean 'I am here', 'a gift', or, 'giving', but when SPers say "Do not use context for word identification" they are not referrring to identifying meaning. They are referring to the initial identification of an unknown letter string.

That anyone should think any differently is either a deliberate misrepresentation of SP, a la Michael Rosen, or ignorance.

The odd thing about a lot of the debaters of this topic is that, although they are quick to tell you that all children are different and learn differently (implying carefully crafted individualised instruction is needed for each) they are completely oblivious to the huge differences that seemingly unimportant little details (which most loftily dismiss when they are mentioned) can make to teaching reading or to the understanding of teaching reading.

Once upon a time there were three little pigs.

How did you do that? It could have been anything?

The 'once upon a time' bit was easy but I gave up on the rest because it was too much bother to work it out. Just as my 'struggling readers' have done for 6 years at primary school. That 20% that few people in the debate are really concerned about.

Using context to determine the pronunciation or meaning of an ambiguous word is a completely different thing from using context to work out what an unknown word 'says'. Of course you have to use context in determining whether 'present' is intended to mean 'I am here', 'a gift', or, 'giving', but when SPers say "Do not use context for word identification" they are not referrring to identifying meaning. They are referring to the initial identification of an unknown letter string.

No I wasn't talking about identifying meaning. I was using it in the context of identifying what the word actually is. Given the nature of English spelling, a lot of words could be read phonically correctly to get an actual word and it still be the wrong word. Do your pupils never do this, maizie? I mean after you have been teaching them phonics for a while. The use of context would be an aid to self-correction.

Also the Cambridge example suggested to me that context did actually speed up the identification of unknown words, so may be useful for children who have the basics of phonics to be able to access words with correspondences they have not yet been taught, or those that are so unusual that they are not likely to be taught.

I posted this earlier on a "phonics test" thread, but thought it fits into this discussion as well...

The child that is reading "Storm" for "Strom" may well be the child that gets into difficulties later on. As a reading volunteer, I come across Y6 children who are "good" readers, reading long novels for pleasure, but make annoying mistakes when reading aloud .

For example:
"concerned" for "condescending",
"influence" for "inflorescence"
"interesting" for "intersecting"

Sometimes they are getting the majority of the story, but missing some of the detail; when it comes to reading for science or maths, they will be getting very confused.

The more I read of the "great mumsnet phonics debate", the keener I am on phonics right from the start, even for the children who can already read.

I still do it, Cecily. I can't tell you how many times I have read the word "misled" as the past participle of the verb "to misle"

No I wasn't talking about identifying meaning. I was using it in the context of identifying what the word actually is.

So from context you could work out (I'll give the initial letter clue too) CecilyP?

Once upon a time there was a little b who lived all alone in an old house.

Did you look at the link to the Durham University research (based on the concept of the Cambridge text) I provided which showed how jumbling letters slows you down?

Given the nature of English spelling, a lot of words could be read phonically correctly to get an actual word and it still be the wrong word.

Can you give me an example?

I can't, off the top of my head, think of any words which this might apply to. All I can think of are those 'ambiguous' words, where, of course, context will tell you which pronunciation, or stress, is needed.

I do find that children who are not secure with their phonics will persist in using the wrong stress, or the wrong pronunciation of a grapheme even though it is clear that the word they have produced will not make sense in the context. These children don't need 'context' to supply the word as they will make exactly the same mistake next time they encounter the it. They need to extend their phonic knowledge to be able to try alternative pronunciations of a grapheme and to learn to do this as a matter of course.

TBH I refuse to teach children a second class strategy...

I'm sorry, CecilyP but re-reading your post that I have just replied to I don't think you are understanding at all what I am saying.

Choccyp1g's post clearly shows the very real danger of teaching 'other ;strategies's faulty reading becomes more evident as children get older. The 6y old reading War and Peace (which is a very good, though very long, read)Harry Potter on guessing and context strategies isn't guaranteed to be a 'good' reader when they get older.

Teaching reading isn't really rocket science but the end result is often a product of what has been taught. If guessing and context has been taught you'll get a reader who guesses and depends on context. Which is not how skilled readers read.

^So from context you could work out (I'll give the initial letter clue too) CecilyP?

Once upon a time there was a little b who lived all alone in an old house.^

No obviously not. But say I was new to reading, I wouldn't read, once upon a time there were three bears' as 'once upon a time there were three beers' even if I had only been taught 'ear' as the 'eer' sound and hadn't yet covered 'ear 'pronounced 'air'.

Did you look at the link to the Durham University research (based on the concept of the Cambridge text) I provided which showed how jumbling letters slows you down?

Yes I did. I agree that the last sentence was really quite hard, but I said upthread that I didn't think Cambridge example changed the words as much as they implied they did.

^Given the nature of English spelling, a lot of words could be read phonically correctly to get an actual word and it still be the wrong word.

Can you give me an example?^

Great - pronounced greet
Bread - pronounced breed
Bear - pronounced beer

The last one courtesy of a thread on AIBI. I am sure there would be loads more, if we put our minds to it.

I do find that children who are not secure with their phonics will persist in using the wrong stress, or the wrong pronunciation of a grapheme even though it is clear that the word they have produced will not make sense in the context. These children don't need 'context' to supply the word as they will make exactly the same mistake next time they encounter the it.

This sounds as if they are not very good at using context.

They need to extend their phonic knowledge to be able to try alternative pronunciations of a grapheme and to learn to do this as a matter of course.

But if they are happy with their first attempt, even if it doesn't make sense, is there any guarantee that they will try something else. Again maizie, I am not recommending context as an alternative to phonics, or even an alternative to taking care, but simply as an adjunct for when still not sure.

No obviously not. But say I was new to reading, I wouldn't read, once upon a time there were three bears' as 'once upon a time there were three beers' even if I had only been taught 'ear' as the 'eer' sound and hadn't yet covered 'ear 'pronounced 'air'.

O b*gger. I'd just typed a long reply and then deleted it by accident

Firstly, if the school was teaching phonics properly they would not give the child books to read which contain phonic 'knowledge' which hasn't yet been taught! That's what decodable reading schemes are for; pracice and consolidation of what has been learned so far. (Though it it clear that this is not the case in many schools which claim that they teach phonics but send home the old ORT books).

Of course, a child could well encounter this situation in their out of school reading. In which case the person reading with them needs to say something like "In this word the 'ear' spells and /air/ sound. You haven't learned about this yet at school, but you will." Then ask the child to sound out and blend the word with the /air/ instead of /eer/. This sort of incidental teaching might be enough for the child to remember in future that 'ear' can spell 2 sounds and to try both when the word isn't immediately apparent. Even more so if they have already been introduced to 'alternative' sounds for discrete graphemes. Even if they don't remember this has helped to advance their understanding of how the English alphabetic code works and the identification of new words is still firmly related to sounding out and blending.

If the child is directed to guess the word from a picture or context they have not advanced their learning one tiny bit. Or, they have 'learned' that phonic knowledge is unreliable and that guessing does just as well. They may even start to be discouraged at this point because the letters didn't do the job they have been taught that they do and nobody seems to be able to explain why.

Double bgger! practice*

I do find that children who are not secure with their phonics will persist in using the wrong stress, or the wrong pronunciation of a grapheme even though it is clear that the word they have produced will not make sense in the context. These children don't need 'context' to supply the word as they will make exactly the same mistake next time they encounter the it.

This sounds as if they are not very good at using context.

Well, by the time they get to me their reading is so b8ggered up that they don't even expect what they read to make sense. So context is a complete non runner.

But if they are happy with their first attempt, even if it doesn't make sense, is there any guarantee that they will try something else. Again maizie, I am not recommending context as an alternative to phonics, or even an alternative to taking care, but simply as an adjunct for when still not sure

Properly taught children are used to what they read making sense and they are used to trying alternative pronunciations. They are much more unlikely to be satisfied with their first attempt if it doesn't make sense. This is what good phonics instruction is aiming for.

Not 'Give up and guess if you're not sure' and not 'Any old word will do as long as you say something'...

But if they are happy with their first attempt, even if it doesn't make sense,

then they haven't been taught correctly and if they are young learners they aren't being supported in their learning.

Children should be taught to read for meaning not to guess from context.

Once upon a time there were three little pigs.

How did you do that? It could have been anything?

What else would you suggest?

It was the Head of an infant school giving a talk to new parents. That part of it was about reading and the row of asterisks was to show that they come into school and reading looks incomprehensible to most. Because of that it had to be something that would instantly make sense to us as soon as we were told. Stories for young children traditionally start with 'once upon a time' and after that you need the rest of a well known story-it would really have to be 'there were' or 'there was' which leaves only 3 words.
As it was everyone could go 'oh yes-I can see that' BUT if she had said 'Lucy told a nice story when mummy soaked peas' we would all have said 'well, how could we possibly know that'! (as you can see I struggled to write a decent sentence without spending long on it!)

I don't think that there are any other answers-unless you spend far too long thinking about it! Not that everyone can immediately say -'oh yes, so it is'.

If you are aware it is the opening of a traditional tale it is fairly easy to work out in much the same way as you would solve a crossword puzzle but working on the clue of story telling it could actually be anything

Ooh Ooh, I got 'Once upon a time' when I read that it was the headteacher giving a talk on reading to new parents and I think it was the context that helped me that time and the expectation that it would be a traditional story. I got quite excited too which shows what a dull life I lead these days.

The specific sight words would obviously be the High frequency words and not any random sight words. These make up a large percentage of the likely words a child will meet on a page in a reading book.

Well it could be anything-but from the Head's point of view she needed an illustration where we all went 'ah yes' and no one could have quibbled by coming up with an alternative in a few seconds.

Perhaps if she'd put up
'xx xxx xxx xxxx xx xxxxx, xx xxx xxx xxxxx xx xxxxx'

Or
'xx xx x xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxx x xxxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxxxx xx x xxxx xxxxxxx, xxxx xx xx xxxx xx x xxxx'

You might have found it a bit more difficult. Two very well known opening sentences. Adult literature.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune,must be in want of a wife.

Do I get a prize. (smile) I think I am right-the commas helped.

It took a little longer than 'the three little pigs'- I didn't time it but under 5 mins.