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.

In the interests of completeness,
6. Read the word a couple more times and refer to it regularly throughout the day so that by the end of the day the children can read the word straight away without sounding out.

Does sound a bit like sight words to me.

It's not a sight word, catkind. It's a sightword-no-it-isn't-yes-it-is-no-it-isn't-yes-it-is-no-it-isn't-well-it's-not-even-a-word-yes-it-is-no-it-isn't-word.

OK.

jaffacakesallround: I don't agree though that you should wait for a child to ask questions as a way of extending their knowledge, or wait for topics to come up at school- learning extends far beyond the classroom and imo parents shouldn't be passive but can actively extend a child's learning.
I was referring to my approach to grammar with a (specific) 4 yr old, not my philosophy of life!

Though having said that I think most of what we do at home is child led, it seems to work best for us. Nice thing about sending your children to school rather than home-edding is that you can let them follow their own interests at home in the knowledge that school will ensure any gaps get filled. Topics come up in all sorts of ways - everyday situations, visits, friends, family, library books...

the whole purpose of phonics is to reach automaticity - the point the child doesn't need to sound out the words
However the process to get to this point is very different to memorising whole words by sight.

Letters & Sounds is very optimistic as research shows that even after 36 repetitions most children will be able to recall the word.

The argument that phonics teaches the non-memorisation of irregular words doesn't make sense. The child either memorises the word or she doesn't.

You could argue (and some people do) that the method of memorisation means it's not being memorised, it's just being remembered. But, why would any sane person argue something which can't be true by definition?

What's the difference between memorising and remembering?

Apparently looking at the word 36 times and remembering it is completely different from memorising it.

Some children can memorise whole words more easily than acquiring phonics skills in the beginning. It can take a while for the "penny to drop" re letter/ sound relationship for some children. Also common words which are phonetically complex are sometimes easier learned as a whole word early on. A mixture of approaches is a good way to start. Not all children pick up phonics quickly and their reading confidence is boosted by having a few sight words under their belt. Making sentences with sight words also helps left to right orientation and helps consolidate word order/ spacing importance for writing. The shift over the last decade towards the direct teaching of phonics is fantastic and was long overdue, but other strategies shouldn't be discounted. I used anything that worked when I was teaching! Please don't go back to the days of the methodology police.........................if it works and children enjoy doing it, what's "wrong" about it?

The fact that it fails one in five children perhaps?

.if it works and children enjoy doing it, what's "wrong" about it?

The big problem is with children who get very muddled with mixed methods (i.e some learning words as 'wholes' and some phonics). They get confused as to what they have to do with an unfamiliar word, should they 'know' it, or should they sound out and blend it? Many end up guessing; which is very easy but not at all desirable!

The HFWs in Letters & Sounds, and all good phonics programmes, are very few (because most of the 'old' HFW list words were perfectly easy to decode) and they are taught through the sounding and blending route with the unusual grapheme pointed out. It works perfectly well and eliminates a possible source of confusion.

Try something like Kim's game - objects on a tray - look at them and try to memorise as many as you can before the tray is covered.

How many do you think you can recall?

Memorising sight words is the same - there is a limit. You have to hold the information in your short term working memory and the word doesn't enter long term memory (we know this from research).

I learned this week that children with Auditory Processing Disorder do badly with phonics (I have it, and struggled hopelessly learning languages in other alphabets). I know it's tricky for children with hearing impairment too.

But that's a pretty small group.

there is a limit

who cares, even if it's true? We're not competing as to who can recite the whole dictionary.

But the advice given on the APDUK website by the APD specialist, Dilys Traherne, says that, amonst other things, children with APD should be trained to discriminate individual speech sounds (phonemes) if at all possible. I know it's more difficult for them, but she clearly thinks it's do-able.

Small group or not, we have to try our utmost to help them to learn to read.

Auditory Processing Disorder/phonics. At first glance is does seem rather cruel, aquaphobia and swimming pools come to mind.

Well yes, clearly. And if they get their dx in time (ha ha, I got mine at 31 and DM, 60, ticks all the boxes too) they can get the extra support early.

DS1, who also ticks APD boxes, has learned to read by phonics but is very obviously a whole-word reader/pattern-matcher. His decoding is painful but he reads very well now that he has a bank of patterns to match.

Still, phonics is the toolbox we must teach to give everyone a chance. So at the end of their first compulsory year of it we do need to check that they have at least the basic tools, or if they're in the 5% (

Clearly was to maizie. I am rolling my eyes at the comparison with aquaphobia.

Unfortunately you just have to read phonic check threads on sites like TES to see that many teachers were surprised why their "good" readers didn't have a strategy for reading unknown words.

I think you mean a good strategy for reading random non-words.

I get that the difference with regular words is that they can read it as many times phonically as they need to until they have it memorised, and fall back on the phonics if they forget.

But with the tricky words that doesn't work does it? They're back to the sort of mixed methods I was taught to read with aren't they? Learn the basic phonics, if they don't work and you don't recognise the word guess something from the consonants and the context. Unless you're actually teaching them new correspondences for those words, but then why are those correspondences not in that phase?

Sorry lots of ?'s but I don't want to imply I know any answers here cos I do recognise that I don't.

No CG I mean reading words they don't know.

All words are regular words catkind and phonics works for them all.

At first children are taught as you say "basic phonics" but then the next layer of knowledge is added - the alternative ways sounds can be spelt and the alternative sounds represented by one spelling (this is what makes some common High Frequency Words difficult at first). Which is why "tricky" words aren't taught as wholes sight words.

CG,

Many tests, in all areas of life, test skills directly, rather than in the precise context that they will be used in.

So a driving test doesn't actually test my ability to get from a to b. It tests my ability to navigate a specific course aound a restricted number of streets, including a number of artificial 'test' manoevresd. Equally, my First Aid training did not inviolve rushing around to find people with real injuries, nor did my lifesaving course involve a test in which peopkle were actually driving in front of me.

Equally, the phonics test tests a child's ability to decode phonically-regular 'words'. Including 'alien' words is a way of discriminating between those children who use phonics, and tyhose who learn words as 'wholes', because it vastly increases the number of phonically-regular options available without having to use words of increasing length [so no child can 'learn' all the words possible for the test].

So yes, it is an 'artificial' test - but it is designed like that so that it can test a specific skill directly. A year later, in tyear 2, the reading test / teachwer assessment is, rightly, much broader - but having a good strategy to decode unknow words is a great starting point.

Is there some recording of the number of genuine words failed on previous tests being discussed by shocked and surprised teachers?

Yes, teacher, I completely agree. And as a decoding test I can't think of many ways, which really make a difference, of changing it for the better. But since it's not a test of how children tackle unknown words I don't know how its results can be used to collect such information.