Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Primary education

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

Phonics/learning by sight.. Think my child is doing both

54 replies

Layl77 · 20/10/2013 14:46

Just reading the thread about learning sight words and it getting quite heated and I'm now worried my ds has learned half blending and knows half by sight. Wondering if this sounds like a problem?
He reads a bit now (just started reception) this started about 4 months ago I noticed him reading words like the, and, fairy,said etc which were common in books and asking me what everything says so I would tell him. Was also learning phonics in nursery so started blending. They don't have books yet from school which is fine but he can read simple books we have at home with the odd word I have to help with. Don't really want to go and ask teacher as they're all still pretty new and he's enjoying himself regardless so it's just something we do at home.

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
mrz · 23/10/2013 18:34

I agree with maizieD they need to be taught the skills to blend through the word left to right but they also need to be taught the concept that in English one spelling can represent different sounds and of course I would teach the code knowledge (sound represented by spelling)

through I would teach as an unusual way to spell the sound /oo/

can be the spelling for /or/ in brought & nought
can also be the spelling for /oe/ in though & dough
can also be the spelling for /ou/ in bough & drought

once they have been taught the different sounds that can be represented by the same spelling I would provide opportunities to read and sort words by the sound they represent

and I would have teach that is the spelling for in rough & tough (and that is the spelling for f)

and I would ensure they had lots of exposure to all the words in a variety of contexts for spelling

mrz · 23/10/2013 18:35

and I would have teach that is the spelling for /u/ in rough & tough (and that is the spelling for /f/)

maizieD · 23/10/2013 21:16

can also be the spelling for /oe/ in though & dough
can also be the spelling for /ou/ in bough & drought

Did you mean to put 't's on those, mrz?

That's another thing my lot do, add a /t/ when there isn't one in the word!Angry

WidowWadman · 23/10/2013 21:25

I guess it's time to link to this one

mrz · 24/10/2013 06:39

no maizieD I didn't, sorry tried to reply quickly on the way out last night not sure where the came from! ... (I also thought I had put cough in with rough and tough ... which is why I logged on this morning)

mrz · 24/10/2013 06:41

WidowWadman no one is saying that English isn't complex just that words are phonetic if you know/have been taught /worked out the way sounds are represented in writing.

WidowWadman · 24/10/2013 21:40

mrz - if English spelling was phonetic, how come that English native speakers from, e.g. the US or Canada frequently struggle with the pronunciation of place names such as "Worcester", "Leicestershire" etc?
You're the first person I've ever come across to claim English is phonetic, and I've done linguistics at uni!

mrz · 25/10/2013 06:40

For names and place names you often need to look at origins and dialects but they are still phonetic in that spoken sounds are represented by written symbols (however the letter commonly represents the sound /s/ as in both those examples).
The difficulty with English is not that it isn't phonetic but that it doesn't have a straightforward (transparent) code of one letter/symbol representing one sound. In English sounds can have more than one spelling and one spelling can represent more than one sound. Complex but phonetic.

WidowWadman · 25/10/2013 06:52

mrz - do you have any sources to back that up or is it just your opinion, because, as I said previously, it contradicts everything I've learnt at uni ( where I spent many a not so- happy-- hour doing phonetic transcriptions, as in from traditional spelling into a phonetic one).

Mashabell · 25/10/2013 07:41

Many English letters and letter strings have more than one pronunciation (e.g. a – man, many, apron; ai -paid, said, plait). Children invariably learn words with the main sound for graphemes (man, can, ran.... paid, laid, afraid) far more easily than the ones with variant sounds - than tricky words like 'was, said, one'.

For children who are able to do so, learning them by sight is far more economical than by sounding out. Being able to read all common words by sight is the aim of all reading instruction anyway. Phonics is only a stage towards it. It's excellent for teaching the main sounds of graphemes, but less and less useful after that.

mrz · 25/10/2013 07:46

No it isn't just my opinion WW it's what I was taught in those long years studying linguistic at uni.

Opaque Writing Systems. The English writing system is an opaque writing system, which means that there is no one-on-one system for representing sounds. There are over 40 sounds in the English language and there are only 26 letters of the alphabet. As a result, some letters are used to represent more than one sound. In addition, some sounds are represented by several spelling combinations. The English writing system is one of the most opaque writing systems; it is influenced by many languages (Anglo-Saxon, French, Latin, Greek, and Danish), all of which were able to retain their unique writing systems.

pittstate.edu/college/education/centers-programs/secret-codes.dot

Will add more when I have time

WidowWadman · 25/10/2013 10:24

mrz - opaque does not equal phonetic. Opaque actually means pretty much the opposite to phonetic. Confused Even if you know that a group of letters can represent a variety of sounds, you cannot necessarily deduct which sound is the correct one in an unknown word,and that's true for native speakers as much as for non-native speakers.

Oh, and a few links

linguisticslearner.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/english-is-not-phonetic-language.html

literallycommunication.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/english-non-phonetic-language.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonemic_orthography

I've also checked a couple of reference books (Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language and Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, both by David Crystal) and can't find anything to say that English is a phonetic language.

Mashabell · 25/10/2013 10:49

WidowWadman
It is not the English language which is opaque or unphonetic but its spelling system. As a language, English is exceptionally simple.

A decade ago Seymour et al compared the writing systems of 13 European languages and decided that English spelling was the most opaque, with Finnish the most transparent.

If English spelling was phonetic, or even just substantially more phonetic than it is, no teachers or parents would disagree about how best to teach children to read and write.

Learning to read and write English is exceptionally difficult, because 4,000+ common English words contain some unredictable letters (blue, shoe, flew...) and because at least 2,000 contain letters with variable sounds (only, once, other...). This makes teaching children to read and write much harder too and generates endless uncertainty and much hot air.
Masha Bell

WidowWadman · 25/10/2013 11:39

well, yes, I meant spelling system, obviously.

4Fags · 25/10/2013 11:56

Dear OP,

My son's school was particularly poor at teaching phonics, and his rate of learning to read (at home, with me) was far faster than the phonics lessons. He was a free reader by Year 1, while the teacher was still ploughing through basic sounds like 'ou'. It doesn't seem to have had any ill effect. He is a child with a good memory who seems to learn by swallowing words whole. It's true that he is less good at sounding out new words (like place names) than his more studious, phonics-loving older sister. But far more important to me is that he is a keen and avid reader. Also, he's little: he'll get into the habit of decoding everything when he sees the need... just as I (one of the Peter and Jane generation) did.

Phonics is just a method for learning to read. It hasn't any great value above that. In some cases, I'd say it has negative value (phonics lessons have screwed up his spelling big time). I really wouldn't stress. If he is enjoying books, that's the most important thing.

educatinginyorkshire · 25/10/2013 12:06

I wouldn't worry, different children approach it in different ways.

DS1 is in Y1 and a fluent free reader. He did it your son's way, phonics and learning by sight - he just remembered words after the first time he'd decoded them and recognised them after that. Many words he didn't seem to actively decode - just 'grasped' them straight away.

DS2 is in R, and is doing it totally by phonics - decodes each word each time he meets it. He's very good at blending and working out words, but is quite slow to recognise them again. He's making fab progress (he's only just 4 so very young in the class) and is managing to read very simple books. It's interesting watching him do it, as it makes me see how clever the phonics system is (missed some of that with DS1 as he seemed to jump stages).

They both had the same teacher and TA, so same teaching methods. Children are all different and learn in different ways - a good teacher/parent will help support the best style for the child.

mrz · 25/10/2013 17:22

If we are talking about written language rather than spoken WW then the fact that English has an opaque code is entirely relevant as it shows that written words are representations of spoken words and aren't random symbols. Or are you suggesting that written symbols don't represent the sounds in spoken words?
How can a language be non-phonetic? All words are comprised of sounds and sounds are represented by spellings. Letters are used to represent sounds in phonology, spelling, and phonics instruction (a letter is a printed or written character that represents a speech sound).

"Phonics is a method for teaching reading and writing the English language by developing learners' phonemic awareness—the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate phonemes—in order to teach the correspondence between these sounds and the spelling patterns (graphemes) that represent them."

beckclasswiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/SpellRead+Lexicon.pdf

Mashabell · 25/10/2013 19:36

How can a language be non-phonetic?
A language can't, but spelling systems can (e.g. Chinese or ancient Egyptian). Strictly speaking 'phonetic' means one symbol per sound, as used in IPA (international phonetic alphabet).

When people talk about a spelling system being 'phonetic', they generally mean 'regular', 'predictable', 'consistent', or 'transparent', i.e. 'rule-governed' in some way. English is partially so.

Most consonant spellings have few unpredictable alternatives. 'Sh' has just 12 exceptions: sure, chef, champagne.... Some are completely regular (b, d, h), although sometimes used decoratively (debt, hour).
Vowel spellings, by contrast, are far less predictable, but there are fewer of them per word.

mrz · 26/10/2013 11:16

What people "generally" mean and what is correct isn't always the same as you know masha

"Most consonant spellings have few unpredictable alternatives. 'Sh' has just 12 exceptions: sure, chef, champagne.... Some are completely regular (b, d, h)"

interesting masha ... exceptions or alternatives ? and have you forgotten that /d/ can be written and /h/ can be spelt (and of course double consonants ) ...

fionasmart · 26/10/2013 12:43

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

maizieD · 26/10/2013 13:31

Please note: High Frequency Words (HFWs) are NOT the same as 'tricky words'.

HFWs are just that, words which occur with the highest frequency in written English.

'Tricky words' are words which contain an unusual spelling of a sound. They may include a few HFWs. On the whole there is nothing 'tricky' about HFWs.

It is really important to understand that they are different otherwise misconceptions about phonics and English orthography just get perpetuated.

Feenie · 26/10/2013 13:37

Fiona, that link explains diagraphs and trigraphs, not tricky words or high frequency words.

You appear to have joined simply to spam your website - you have to pay MN to advertise.

maizieD · 26/10/2013 15:20

Hmm. Someone claiming to help parents with understanding school really ought to know the difference between HFWs & 'tricky' words. I wonder what else she gets confused about on her website?

Mashabell · 26/10/2013 16:45

Maizie is right.
High Frequency Words (HFWs) are NOT the same as 'tricky words'.

And some words are tricky to spell but easy to read, e.g. main lane.
Others have regular spellings, but are tricky to read: gave, have.
Some are both: friend, fiend.

Someone had asked for the 300 most HF words on another thread.
I'll paste them in again, divided into phonically simple and tricky for reading.

187 / 300 are regular for reading and can all be used for teaching basic decoding (but quite a few, such as 'they' unpredictable for spelling):
a, am, an, and, as, at, back, bad, can, cat, dad, gran, grandad, had, has, hat, man, rabbit, ran, sat, than, that, that’s,
came, gave, made, make, place, take, same, name, baby,
away, day, may, play, say, way,
car, dark, garden, hard, park,

bed, best, better, eggs, end, fell, get, help, let, let’s, next, red, tell, them, then, very, well, went, yes, her,
been, feet, green, keep, need, queen, see, sleep, three, tree, trees,
even, here, these,

big, children, did, didn’t, different, fish, him, his, if, in, is, it, it’s, its, king, little, miss, still, thing, things, think, this, will, wind, wish, with,
birds, first, girl,
inside, like, liked, time, I, I’ve, cried, night, right, by, fly, my,

box, dog, fox, from, got, hot, long, lots, no, not, of, off, on, so, stop, stopped, top, floppy, across, along,
cold, old, told,
go, going, home, over, clothes,
or, for, horse, morning,
found, house, mouse, our, out, round, around, shouted, about, boy,

but, duck, fun, just, much, mum, must, run, sun, under, up, us, jumped, suddenly, use,
their, they, new, again, air, because, began, boat, window.

Tricky for reading
In the first 100 most HF words, 40 are not entirely decodable:
the - he, be, we, me, she,
was, want, all, call, said,
of, to, one, come, do, down, into, look, now,
only, other, some, two,
could, you, your,
when, what, where, which, who, why,
there, were,
right, are, have, before, more.

In next 200, 60 are clearly tricky:
another, any, many, saw, water, small, laughed,
bear, great, head, ready, each, eat, sea, tea, please,

ever, never, every, eyes,
find, friends, giant, I’ll, I’m, key, live, river,
people, pulled, put, thought, through, were, work, would,
coming, everyone, gone,
most, mother, oh, once,
grow, how, know, snow, town, window,
book, food, good, room, school, soon, too, took, door,
Mr Mrs

Another 13 are slightly so (partly depending on accent):
after, asked, can’t, fast, last, plants
animals, dragon, magic,
clothes, cold, old, told

Masha Bell

maizieD · 26/10/2013 17:23

Oh No!

Swipe left for the next trending thread