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.

I don't know how anyone who thinks that Mr and Mrs are 'words' thinks they are in a position to advise on phonics or the teaching of reading at all.

Maybe it's because their minds are so expansive that they've grasped the concept of there being more than one type word.

Don't worry, other people can wrestle with the concept for a few years. There's no hurry.

There isn't more than one "type" of word within natural language.

And the reason you can't have a test based on "look and say" is that it would depend on a child having encountered the word before. So children would have to learn an approved syllabus of words. This would be like the Chinese classroom, where children bark endlessly at the characters of the written language as they too have to learn by the rote methods of look and see.

To have this argument do we have to divide English into

natural English

and

unnatural English

If you ish to do that you can. I intended the normal definition.

A normal definition of what? unnatural English

No, the normal definition of natural and artificial languages.

I see, and where are those definitions kept?

Try google - there are lots of pages about it. Or text books.

I don't want to go wading about in google. It's your argument. You tell me.

I think it's nonsensical. But if you want to pursue that line of reasoning, please be my guest.

As I said above, I'm perfectly happy for you to use an invented definition if you want to.

You asked if there was a need to divide English into 'natural' and 'unnatural' and I have said there isn't. If you want to create such a divide and define it, you are free to do so.

I don't want to. We're only talking about one language, namely English and if you want to look a word up, you use a dictionary. Mr. and Mrs. are in my dictionary.

Yes, they are. I agree they are normal (short form) words of the natural language and they can be decoded.

Mr. and Mrs. can be decoded? OK

How's that, then?

I don't generally contribute to such threads because the stupidity of views held by people like collumngollum make me despair.

I hereby applaud mrz and maisieD for continuing to patiently point out the obvious

Did you miss the point that Mr and Mrs are abbreviations of decodable words?

Agree with Humphrey. Collum just comes on to argue for the sake of it. As my Nanna would say, she would argue with a fly walking up the wall.

also applauds Feenie, I forgot to mention you!

honestly, I know someone like collumngollum in RL. They said they don't believe in phonics. I feel that is as stupid a statement as saying 'I don't believe in counting'.

I would agree!

I had a conversation with our intervention manager once about Reading Recovery failing the very children it's supposed to help and she said ' but don't you think the bottom 20% will just always struggle?'

How would you invent a test of sight words? Any word could be a 'sight word' ie a word that some children have learned to recognise by sight. It's not as if there'll be a common core of such words.

My older son (who learned to read by what is bizarrely called 'mixed methods') could when he was 5 recognise without decoding words like 'diplodocus' and 'emergency' because he was interested in dinosaurs and rescue vehicles. But he couldn't decode 'fetch' because no one had taught him the underlying phonic rules. So his wasn't a very useful sort of 'reading'.

Humphrey, dear, you say the sweetest things!

Has it ever occurred to you that being an abbreviation is not grounds for not being a word?

If you'd care to look in your dictionary you'll find Mr. under the letter m. (I don't think we've got space to go into instructions on using a dictionary.)

Why not test phonic knowledge (if it must be done) simply with the most common English graphemes.
Out of the 205 used for spelling English, quite a few are easy to read. -ance / -ence endings, for example, don't need special attention for reading, although tricky to spell.

Perhaps Maizie or Mrz can tell us which of the following does the Yr 1 phonics check test for?
And is just one pronunciation enough for the likes of a (and, any, apron)?

a, -able, a-e, ai, air, al, all, ar, are, -ary, -ate, au, augh, aw, -ay,

b, ca/o/ut, cc, ce/ci, ch, -cial, -ck, -cy,

d, -dge,

e, -e, ea, ear, ee, e-e, ei, eigh, eir, er, -er, ere, -et, eu, ew, -ey,

f, ga/go/gu, ge-/gi-, -ge, gh, gn, gua, -gue, h,

i, -i, -ible, -ic, ie, i-e, -ie, igh, -ign, -ind, -ine, ir, is, -ite,

j, k, kn, l, -le, m, mn, n, ng,

o, -o, oa, oar, o-e, -oe, oi, ol, oo, -oor, or, -ore, ou, ough, -ought, oul, our, -our, ow, oy,

p, ph, qu, qua, r, -re, rh,

s, sc, -scious, -se, sh, -sion, -ssion, -sure, -sy,
t, -tch, th, -tion, -tious, -ture,

u, -u, ue, u-e, -ue, ui, ur, -ure, -ury,

v, -ve, w, wa, wh, wo, wor, wr,

x, y-, -y, --y, y-e, z

It tests the sounds up to and including phase 5 of Letters and Sounds, Masha

Phase 5 resources

I cared to look in a dictionary and the word Mr. is indeed there. Together with the word mister.

Mr.

[mis-ter]

plural Messrs. [mes-erz]

1. mister: a title of respect prefixed to a man's name or position: Mr. Lawson; Mr. President.

Would it not also to be beneficial to test knowledge of sight words.

In my current Year 2 class, we do test knowledge of high frequency words, many of which are phonic. We do not teach or test what you call 'sight words' unless they form part of the HFW.

As children get older, they will learn more. For example 'ie' pronounced as 'ee' is not taught at Phase 5 but my group have learned it because it came up during a phonic lesson (child tried to write smartie).