Phonics testing. Why not sight words as well?

[proudmama72]

Just that really. There's was extra effort put into phonics data collection. Would it not also to be beneficial to test knowledge of sight words. They seemed to impact my kids reading development.

Phonics is important, but just wondering why all the extra resources and emphasis solely on phonics.

LOL. I think that might be as close as we're going to get to agreement.
Still interested in that research when you are back with laptop.

We've come a long way from the original (OP) question haven't we! Seems to me that reading common words at sight is according to everyone a thing to be desired, however they get there, so something that could be tested. But not as important as phonics. And the less testing at Yr 1 the better really I'd think.

catkind, you sound like a smart cookie. If I was you I'd take the lead from my son and not worry about theoretical issues unless they were driving me crazy.

As a Y1 teacher I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree catkind ... too many children have been failed and continue to be failed by poor teaching methods. The phonics check identifies those children who are at risk so IMHO can only help.

That was supposed to be an argument against testing sight words not against testing phonics! Go on, can't we agree on something?

We can probably both agree that it's important children learn to read.

Preferably before the age of 16

The Plantagenets achieved a lot, and they couldn't read.

Seems to me that reading common words at sight is according to everyone a thing to be desired

Seems to me that I wasted my time trrying to explain about 'sight words'. Reading all words (apart from unfamiliar ones) 'at sight' is what we are aiming for. It's just that 'at sight' doesn't actually mean what it is commonly taken to mean. There is no special category of words which can be designated 'sight words'. That people think that there is is a result of mistaken ideas about how to teach reading and subsequent confounding of two concepts.

I don't know how to say it any clearer maizieD

High Frequency Words are NOT sight words

Tricky words are NOT sight words

Words a child can read automatically are NOT sight words

Sight words are words that young children are encouraged to memorize as a whole by sight, so that they can automatically recognize these words in print without having to use any strategies to decode.

Are we having a disagreement here, mrz?

I don't think it was you that maizie was trying to convince, mrz. But congratulations on grasping her concept, anyway.

I'm not disagreeing with you maizieD just having one last try to define sight words for catkind

just having one last try to define sight words for catkind

I wish the term had never been 'invented'. It causes so much confusion, when people can't understand that it's perfectly 'normal' for skilled readers to see words as 'wholes' but it's not right to teach them as 'wholes'.

P.S mrz. Glad we're not falling out

You're really determined to have a disagreement with me aren't you? I thought we'd agreed there was a difference between learning words by sight and reading words at sight. I said reading common words at sight. Automatically if the word sight gives you conniptions. After you've learned to decode them if you prefer it that way.

No catkind just trying clear up any confusion

Sight words are very different thing.

'It causes so much confusion, when people can't understand that it's perfectly 'normal' for skilled readers to see words as 'wholes' but it's not right to teach them as 'wholes'.' That's interesting MaizieD. The handbook for a gov. approved phonic programme does advocate teaching some words (e.g. was, one) as wholes - 'We have spread them out over the initial code, and suggest that they are taught as whole words when they arise at text level in the pupil's normal reading material.'

The handbook for a gov. approved phonic programme does advocate teaching some words (e.g. was, one) as wholes - 'We have spread them out over the initial code, and suggest that they are taught as whole words when they arise at text level in the pupil's normal reading material.'

Never

Which programme is that?

I seem to recall zebedeee making this claim before

Not quite Zebedee's quote, but from the Read Write Inc parent handbook:
"In Read Write Inc Phonics these are called "Red Words". They are words which can't be read by sound-blending. They have to be learned by sight."
Though iirc in the individual books the red words are still given with a split into phonemes.

The sections on HFW in these self-assessments make interesting reading:
www.gov.uk/choose-a-phonics-programme

I cannot imagine what Ruth was thinking when she let that go through in the parent handbook. Mind you, she said it, too, on the Oxford Owls site. When asked why she said it was just to simplify the concept.

All it does is muddy the waters. [off in search of a brick wall]

(But that is not how 'red words' were described or advised to be taught in my RWI Fresh Start teacher's manual)

Of course phonics is important but reading is an intellectual exercise which uses various strategies. Meaning - contextual cues - that is which word is likely to follow another-recognition of familiar words -familiarity with book language -knowledge of content. All of these are needed to enable the reader to engage in reading which flows. It is too easy to bog a child down with "sounding out" as he struggles to retain sounds in his short term memory in order to decipher words. As an educationist named Frank Smith once said "there is a danger that what you teach the child is that reading is difficult". Also, beware of expecting young children to be able to use phonics, some will, some won't. Some hear the end sound of a word and not the beginning, some are just not mature enough to deal with the complexity. However, teaching the sounds that letters make is a much easier initial step and provides recognition when looking at text. That knowledge is there when they reach the appropriate stage for their use. Love of books, sharing books, fun,encouragement and strategies which enable access to the written word, devoid of criticism and pressure plus a gradual use of the phonics when ready.

FRANK SMITH!

Frank Smith wasn't an 'educationist'. As far as I am aware he never taught anyone. He started life as a journalist and then did a degree in psycholinguistics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Smith_%28psycholinguist%29

His writings were and, unfortunately still are, highly influential. He was, apparently, highly charismatic and very convincing. He purveyed snake oil.

I have read (I possess it) one of his seminal works 'Understanding Reading'. It is abysmal. What little research evidence he cites is dubious or misinterpreted. Most of it he seems to have made up as he goes along. He ends his book by asserting that good readers can lift the meaning off a page without actually identifying any of the words written on it. I am not making this up.

He is clearly a charlatan and is responsible for the reading failure of millions of people since his 'theories' have been given credence since the 1970s.