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.

Actually it doesn't slow down reading at all in practice proudmama

And just because some people's dcs seem to be able learn 'sight words' by the Look & Say method doesn't mean to say that all children can do it. I spent the last decade working with a few of the 120,000 children a year who left primary school with a L3 or below in English. They were all someone's dc who couldn't learn that way. The examples I quoted were taken from test results at the start of Y7. Y7! and they couldn't read simple words accurately.

Learning these words through the phonic route does not 'slow down' their reading progress, in fact, it probably speeds it up because they learn them faster.

I'd argue there's also nothing difficult about teaching an example first and the rule that it's part of when you come to that in your progress through phonics. In maths I wouldn't teach a rule/concept with only one example, because that just adds a level of complication. They can still use their phonics to see the begins with "th" and use that as a hint for remembering the whole word.

If anything I'd say it makes things easier to teach the example first because then when you introduce the rule/concept they can say - schwa-e (thanks for the terminologie maizie!) - oh yes, that's just e like in the.

I was indeed having a bit of a blank moment about other uses of it, trying to think of ones at the ends of words. I don't think it's come up anywhere in the first few levels of reading books except "the" though. "er" is the closest but that's taught as a digraph.

I'm picking on "the" as an example because it's a word that comes in very useful very early on. Much more useful than knowing at that stage that e sometimes says e and sometimes says uh, which I'd think that at the stage where the basic phonics are still bedding in could be counterproductive.

Not convinced by the efficiency argument. I think the efficiency comes in when you use the same sound in lots of different ways. "Ow" for example is taught as a single digraph - would that then be more efficient if taught as two separate sounds blended a-w? I assume it's taught as a unit as it occurs very commonly as a unit. Well, so does "the".

catkind no one only teaches one example

prh47bridge Tue 08-Apr-14 15:54:28

Why have such a black and white argument?

Because it really is black and white. There is one method of teaching (synthetic phonics) which, if used exclusively, succeeds for almost all children. As soon as you add any other method of teaching the success rate drops.

it's seems clear that both instruction of phonics and sight words lead to better reading progress.

All the available research says that it doesn't. Phonics on its own leads to better progress.

^^This - very well put.

Maizie, your examples of mixing up words are interesting. I assumed that when they start reading at sight (automaticity I think mrz called it) they are reading by looking at the shape of the word, so mistakes like that would naturally occur even if they learned with phonics.

That's the stage DS is at at the moment, and he often makes that sort of error. So we say, no, look at the letters, what comes first etc and then he gets it right. It's the same with words he reads phonically and words I don't know if he's read phonically though. Both in terms of making the errors and being able to correct them when we get him to slow down and look properly at the letters.

They did in theory learn with phonics but I don't know if it was done "correctly" as per the way you people are saying they should approach tricky words, hence my saying words I don't know if he's read phonically. Do you think making that sort of error means they've done it wrong, or is that just if it doesn't correct itself as he gets older?

catkind the sound at the end of the word the is called a schwa and is the most common vowel sound in English. You will find it in words like children and chicken and open and genre

I assumed that when they start reading at sight (automaticity I think mrz called it) they are reading by looking at the shape of the word, so mistakes like that would naturally occur even if they learned with phonics.

No, that tends to be the result of whole word learning because children aren't taught to look all though the word and decode each grapheme. The practice of decoding and blending all through the word sets up quite different nueural pathways in the brain. Some work on brain imaging and reading carried out on 'dyslexic' subjects found that reading activates a different part (different side, even) of the brain from the activation patterns of 'normal' readers. After remediation with phonics the dyslexic's brain activations became the same as 'normal' readers. I suspect that the initial activation patterns have given rise to the 'differently wired brain' that it is claimed that dyslexics have. Personally I think it's the result of faulty teaching... much of this research was done in the US where Look & Say is the prevailing teaching method.

The interesting thing about my examples is that those words were all on the 'High Frequency Word' lists of words which, under the old National Literacy Strategy (1998 - 2006), were taught by most teachers as 'Look & Say' in Reception & Y1. As it is very clear from 'talking' to lots of parents on here, teachers are still trying to teach them by Look & Say, despite very clear instructions to the contrary in the Letters & Sounds guidance which was supposed to have been observed since 2007.

Brain research and eye movement research shows very clearly that even skilled readers process words all through, from L to R (or R to L if you're reading Hebrew ) but it takes such an infinitessemal (sp?) amount of time that you are just not aware you're doing it. Stanislas Dehaene's 'Reading in the Brain' is a very good book on the subject of how words are processed in the brain. (Long and a bit technical, but readable) It has lots of fascinating stuff in it..

catkind automaticity is achieved as a result of decoding the words (however many times it takes) not from memorising whole words by shape or otherwise.

despite very clear instructions to the contrary

No matter how clear the instructions are, you can't expect people to do something which is in fact impossible to do.

for example, I just read with my 7 year old. She can decode the word 'competition' but has just read 'who' as how. That worries me.

She should have been taught 'who' by sight. It should have been reviewed with her several times between reception and now near the end of Year 2.

No she's doing that wonderful phonics screening check thing that people keep shouting about - "good" readers making the word into one they know by swapping the letters around.

Exactly. if you teach a child - as good phonics teachers do - that words are read by starting at the beginning, and decoding right through to the end, then that is what a child will do.

If you do the 'mixed' thing and say 'well, sometimes you decode through the word, and sometimes we expect you just to know the word because we taught it to you as a list of random words, so if you don't know it you just guess', then a child will make the sort of mistake that you describe....

Which is why mixed methods don't work for 20% of children, whereas synthetic phonics, well taught, fails fewer than 5%.

I'd be interested to see if the number of children who do that, is actually greater than the 20% who don't reach level 4 at the end of KS2. I suspect that it is and that a number of children at the lower end of level 4 or higher might make the same mistake, read on, realise what they'd read didn't make sense and then go back and correct it by looking at the letters there rather than the word they though was there.

As long as the sentence is turned into nonsense by the substitution and not into a sentence that actually does make sense but isn't what's written, all they will end up doing is slowing their reading speed down. Not to much of an issue reading books outside of school. Potentially a big issue further on in their education when taking exams.

When reading words in a sentence they often substitute with words that fit the sentence but change the meaning.

Miscue analysis was/is often used to identify substritutions

^so if you don't know it you just guess'

That's the problem bit.

Learning irregular words as wholes is fine and in certain cases it is the only option. Phonics is fine too (where it actually does work.) The guessing thing is an abomination and has nothing to do with reading (by definition. It isn't reading, is it.) Guessing is exactly what it says it is.

It always works CG if you know the code

Well, yes, no doubt. Somebody pointed me to the new curriculum the other day and it was talking about the necessity of making new bits of code for individual words. What crap!

Of course if you have enough code it will cover everything (by definition.) But what sort of impractical bullshit is that? A new bit of code for one word, like

eye or two

boils down to remembering the word!

She can decode the word 'competition' but has just read 'who' as how. That worries me.

You're the one who (or is it 'how') is defending 'Look & Say' as a teaching method, not us.

As I recall, you did a lot of 'sight word' teaching with her before she went to school. As ye sow, so shall ye reap...

She can decode the word 'competition' but has just read 'who' as how. That worries me.

I think it's quite amusing; poetic justice...

I don't know what you've been reading CG but it isn't the new curriculum

I used to do quite a lot of miscue analysis when I was in the US, but I pretty much only worked with K/1st grade. We had to do it several times a year on each child to assess reading levels for report cards. But it was more a case of at what level of the scheme do they read at a 90% accuracy and what mistakes are they making?

What I suppose I'm wondering, is in terms of a more UK type of assessment at what sort of NC level does not being able to read what's on the page accurately and quickly start to hinder attainment. I suppose it depends on quite a lot of factors. But I'm not totally convinced that to get a level 4 on a SATS reading paper you need to be able to read every word on the page.

From level 1 upwards

But I'm not totally convinced that to get a level 4 on a SATS reading paper you need to be able to read every word on the page.

I'm absolutely sure that you don't. As long as you get the gist and you've taken in all the question answering drills that you've been doing in Y6 you can wing your way through it. But that's not really reading, is it?

I really think that tolerance of word substitution and getting the gist is insulting to authors who do actually work quite hard to structure their sentences and choose their words for maximum effect. I'd be tempted to just write an outline of the plot and say 'Here you are, just make it all up as you go along; why should I put in any effort if you're not going to bother to properly read what I've written'.

What amazes me is that there are lots of authors making anti noises about phonics instruction. I don't think they have a clue about what happens to their carefully crafted works of art once they are in the hands of a 'get the gist' reader.

I actually find it quite gobsmackingly astonishing that any supposedly intelligent person thinks that reading is just a guessing game and it doesn't matter if you don't actually read what is there on the page.

I only didn't pick up a number if very poor L4 readers in my job because we didn't have the time for them. There were 2 of us working full time on reading intervention as it was. L4s would have needed another FT person...