Sight reading as a strategy in EYFS/KS1 - mrz?

[Guilianna]

What would you say to a SLT convinced that 'sight reading' is as effective a strategy as phonics, and who advocates teaching mixed methods?

Yes CecilyP the evidence does suggest that phonics won't work for 1 or 2% of children, those with the most severe developmental needs

and that it is less effective when taught as part of a mixed method approach ...

mrz

I thought I was answering your questing by explaining how the sounds are represented in the words but perhaps that isn't what you want to hear?

Where, exactly, have I asked you to help me by explaining how the sounds are represented in words? I have explicitly stated that encoding is not an issue, indeed I have even given examples of how sounds are represented in my accent for particular words.

To reiterate my explicit questions:

Is there a term for vowels representing 2 sounds (such as in ruin and recipient), given that most children are taught that two vowels represent one sound?

Are there any rules or indicators to know when it happens (i.e. when two vowels next to each other represent two rather than one sound)?

And the implicit one:

Is there any additional guidance on teaching the complex code that does not involve me having to work it out for myself as I go along so that I can teach my DD in a systematic and logical way? The guidance and reading books available for the simple code are plentiful and comprehensive. Then it all stops, and now I have to refer to Wikipedia, the Lexicon or add to the Phonics International chart myself.

Yes they are regular spellings for the sounds they represent ... if your daughter and children in Y1 haven't been taught them yet that is perhaps an issue for the school and yourself diamondage.

And exactly how many other words use "ci" to represent the sound /ch/? Your view that the problem is my definition of regular reminds me of the sentiments from the Lexicon of English Spellings, to which you linked:

We propose that any spelling is regular if it appears in more than just one word. Spellings that occur in only one word we will refer to as being unique, and those that occur in no more than two or three words as being unusual. But if a word that contains a unique spelling occurs with high frequency within normal speech (therefore also appearing with high frequency in written texts) we would also regard that as a regular spelling. However, we only know of one such example of a word frequently encountered in both speech and text that contains a unique spelling of a sound: that word is of, within which the single-letter represents the sound 'v'. The word of occurs so frequently in spoken and written English that it is not possible to do other than consider this unique spelling of 'v' to be regular.

So their proposal is that because a word with a unique spelling appears frequently, its unique spelling is now regular (i.e. usual or normal)? Many of the sounds spelling correspondences referred to in this document are rare (i.e. not occurring very often), which I think would mean 20 words or less (not including compound words), in fact even that is quiet generous when you compare it to how many words have common spelling correspondences.

I think the problem is that most phonics programmes only cover the simple code. Phonics books cover some alternative spellings but by no means all. In fact perhaps it is the lack of materials that means that many schools only cover simple phonics and then just move onto spelling rules, which may or may not follow a phonics based approach. However the spellings work doesn't help decoding the complex code if reading is far in advance of writing/spellings.

debbiehep

So often the arguments around phonics seem to suggest that children are left entirely to their own devices to apply phonics knowledge and skills - phonics detractors pick holes (or try to) in the role of phonics by being awkward about particular words (for example, within this actual thread!) - but it is entirely relevant that a teacher is on hand to do some teaching and to support learners as required.

This debate all started because I couldn't understand mrz stating that good phonic knowledge enables a child to decode any word. I am not a phonics detractor, as I have frequently stated. Just a mum trying her best to always teach via phonics because DD's schools use mixed methods. I am also not trying to pick holes by being awkward about particular words. In any case surely it is the words that are awkward because they do not follow regular phonics patterns, not the detractors because they point them out. In fact detractors propose the validity of other methods, I just want to understand how to teach phonics well.

There is a massive difference between the view that by using the phonics code a person can decode any word from text alone and the idea that you can decode the majority of words using phonics and text, but than still leaves many words that require extra help, be that from a teacher / parent on behalf of a child, or for adults, looking the word up or asking someone who knows the pronunciation of the word already.

I can live with an imperfect system (i.e. a code that is not transparent), what I can't live with is thinking that I'm doing it wrong and that DD, by now, should be able to decode any word she comes across independently because she's passed the phonics test, reads fluently and to a very high standard but still struggles when she meets words with rare spellings or spellings where there are too many options for her to choose from.

But mrz, hiccupgirl was talking about children who have auditory discrimination problems. Not necessarily severe development problems at all!

childrens-health.lovetoknow.com/medical-tests-diagnostics/auditory-discrimination-test

Even if you believe that only applies to 1 - 2% of children - it's still valid to talk about. Those 1 - 2% of children are taught by someone, are somebody's children. Seeing as more than 100 people have probably read this thread, chances are this problem effects people who are reading this thread.

Is there a term for vowels representing 2 sounds (such as in ruin and recipient), given that most children are taught that two vowels represent one sound?

They have also been taught that one vowel (a-e-i- o-u ) represents one or more sounds and that if one doesn't work to try the alternatives and that sounds can be spelt with one, two , three or even four letters.

Are there any rules or indicators to know when it happens (i.e. when two vowels next to each other represent two rather than one sound)?

There aren't any rules in English just probabilities - English is complex no one suggests otherwise - which is why teaching needs to include understanding of the concepts.

Is there any additional guidance on teaching the complex code that does not involve me having to work it out for myself as I go along so that I can teach my DD in a systematic and logical way?

There isn't a single piece of guidance as this will depend on the programme being followed - so that is a question for your child's teacher. I use Sounds~Write which provides a clear systematic structure for introducing sounds and the alternative spellings for each sound as well as focusing on the spellings which can represent more than one sound

And exactly how many other words use "ci" to represent the sound /ch/?

since the /ch/ represented by ci is in your accent you are best placed to answer that question - try saying the word and identifying the sounds you can hear in your accent and match to the spellings or saying words with that spelling and listening to see if you pronounce it as /ch/ or /sh/ or something different - personally I would pronounce ancient as /sh/

I think the problem is that most phonics programmes only cover the simple code.* I don't know any programmes that only cover the simple code but I do know many schools who stop teaching the code at the end of reception of after one spelling for each sound has been taught - this is poor teacher knowledge

Children with auditory processing difficulties can and do learn with a phonics only approach if taught well and I think that is the key factor

I didn't say auditory processing problems. I said auditory discrimination problems. Which is different.

I said auditory discrimination problems. Which is different. yes it is ... sorry, accepted interventions for auditory discrimination problems would include phonics

Children don't have problems with auditory discrimination either - but only if they're taught well. Through the medium of well-scaffolded processes, such as word-building, young (YR) children can be taught to discriminate sounds in simple CVC words.
At St George's C of E school in Wandsworth, where over fifty percent of children are on free school meals, 100 per cent of children in Y1 passed the phonics screening check. This is a clear indication that children can be taught these skills and at an early age.
What Debbie, mrz and I are suggesting is that where schools use high quality phonics programmes and they are done with a high degree of fidelity for half an hour every day, children learn to read.

What happens if you have a child who can sound out the individual's letters of the word cat but when blending the sounds together says the word can. This is despite regular phonics teaching where all other children in the class are not having the same difficulties.

Are there any rules or indicators to know when it happens (i.e. when two vowels next to each other represent two rather than one sound)?

There are specific combinations of vowels which spell one sound. If the two vowels together are not one of those combinations than each is sounded separately, thus 'oi' = /oy/ whereas 'io' would be /ie/ /oe/ (iodine) or, maybe, /ee/ /oe/ (Rio) (or even /ee/ /o/ 'idiot'). When children are learning the 'legal' combinations they should be taught that in 'illegal' combinations the vowels are sounded separately. Of course, suffixes have to be accounted for, too; 'doing' is not 'doyng, nor is 'going' 'goyng', but this is not a very common problem (though people who don't like phonics tend to talk it up as one...)

This is one of the strengths of phonics as children learn to be very discriminating about the tiny differences in letter order which distinguish one word from another. It's the poorly, mixed methods, taught children who confuse words like 'diary/dairy' & 'trial/trail'

orangepudding

If I had a child who did that I would use a 'progressive blending' technique which cuts out the need for the child to recall each of the sounds s/he has decoded in the correct order.

So, child would sound out the word as per normal, then go back and blend the first two sounds only until secure with that combination; then move to the next sound (which doesn't have to be 'remembered' as it is there, written on page and can be 'read' again) and add that the the chunk which is already secure. This can be done all through any single syllable word.

mrz - you need to do more than just phonics to have an impact on auditory discrimination problems.

SoundsWrite - people most certainly can have auditory discrimination problems. A very common example is Japanese people who can't hear the difference between 'r' and 'l'. But the same thing can happen to kids who's first language is English.

I'm very surprised that with all your experience you've never encountered this. But I certainly have.

I wouldn't think either FSM or EAL would make you prone to auditory discrimination problems.

100% of children in one school does not at all suggest that all kids can be taught this way. That is what, 30 kids? I can well believe that none of 30 kids had auditory discrimination problems. Does not for a second mean that it doesn't exist, or that you won't encounter problems with a larger sample size.

It's really dreadful the way you experts make everyone feel bad who's children or pupils can't learn with phonics. Make it feel like it's a teaching problem, when it may well not be.

Not really BucksKid - children are taught to listen closely to the sounds and to pay attention to the point of articulation as any SaLT would tell you.

That's not what my SaLT has told me.

For the record I'm NOT an expert I'm a parent who is also a teacher and a SENCO.

It's what the many SaLT I've worked with over the years have recommended

The only way to ascertain if a phonics only approach is any more effective than mixed methods would be to establish if this absorbs less teaching time. In the famous Clackmananshire study, children in the SP group received far more teaching, especially if they were showing signs of falling behind.

With English spelling being what it is, time devoted to teaching is what makes the big difference after initial phonics. It comes down to meeting the words which are tricky in some way, like 'any, many, once, other, only', often enough for them to become firmly fixed in pupils minds so they know how pronounce them without hesitation.

Nobody doubts the value of some phonics - of teaching the main sounds of the 81 main English spellings, i.e. the first one on the list below - although phonics fanatics claim that such teachers exist. After that it's a matter of sufficient recurring exposure of words with tricky bits in them, i.e. graphemes with more than one pronunciation.

The following table shows the English spelling system and its irregularities for the 44 English sounds.
(The figures in brackets show how many of the 7,000 most used English words which I have analysed use that spelling - and how many spell it differently.)

1. a: cat – plait, meringue (466 – 3)
2. a-e: plate – wait, weight, straight, great, table dahlia, fete (338 – 69)

-ain: rain – lane, vein, reign, champagne (39 – 19) -ay: play – they, weigh,ballet,cafe, matinee (35 – 20)

1. air: care – hair, bear, aerial, their, there, questionnaire (31-are – 27 other)
2. ar: car – are + (Southern Engl. bath) (138 – 1)
3. au: sauce – caught, bought,always, tall, crawl (44 au – 76 other)

-aw: saw – (0)- but in UK 11-aw + 40 awe, or, four, sore, war

1. b: bed (0)
2. ca/o/u: cat, cot, cut – character, kangaroo, queue (1022 – 33)

cr/cl: crab/ clot – chrome, chlorine (192 – 10) -c: lilac –stomach, anorak (89 – 9) -ck: neck –cheque, rec (62 – 6) k: kite/ kept – chemistry (124 – 7) -k: seek –unique (36 – 5) -sk: risk –disc, mosque (86 – 10) qu: quick – acquire, choir (78 – 4) x: fix – accept, except, exhibit (98 – 15)

1. ch: chest – cello (155 – 1)

-tch: clutch – much (24 – 7) 9 d: dad – add, blonde (1,010 – 3)

10. e: end– head, any, said, Wednesday, friend, leisure,
    leopard, bury (301 – 67)

11. er: her – turn, bird, learn, word, journey (70er – 124)

12. ee: eat– eel, even, ceiling, field, police,people,
    me, key,ski, debris, quay (152ea – 304)
    --y: jolly– trolley, movie, corgi (475 – 39)

13. f: fish– photo, stuff, rough (580 - 44)

14. g: garden– ghastly, guard (171– 28)

15. h: house– who (237 – 4)

16. i: ink– mystery, pretty, sieve, women, busy, build (421 – 53)

17. i-e: bite – might, style, mild, kind, eider, height, climb
    island indict sign (278 – 76)
    -y: my – high,pie, rye, buy, I, eye (17 – 14)

18. j: jam/ jog/ jug (0)
    jelly, jig – gentle, ginger (18 – 20)
    -ge: gorge (0)
    -dg: fidget– digit (29 – 11)

19. l: last– llama (1,945 – 1)
    20: m: mum– dumb, autumn (1,128 – 19)

20. n: nose– knot, gone, gnome, mnemonic (2,312 – 34)

21. -ng: ring (0)

22. o: on– cough, sausage, gone(357 – 5)
    want – wont (19 – 1); quarrel– quod (10 -1)

23. o-e: mole – bowl, roll, soul; old – mould
    boast, most, goes, mauve (171 – 100)
    -o: no –toe, dough, sew, cocoa, pharaoh, oh, depot (106 – 59)

24. oi: oil– oyster (29 –1)
    -oy: toy –buoy (12 – 1)

25. oo (long): food– rude, shrewd, move, group, fruit, truth, tomb,
    blue, do, shoe,through, manoeuvre (94 – 108)

26. oo (short): good– would, put, woman, courier (15 -21)

27. or: order– board, court; wart, quart– worn, quorn (188 – 16)
    -ore:more – soar, door, four, war, swore,abhor (23– 17)

    • (14 –aw/awe in UK)

28. ou: out– town (74 – 24);
    -ow: now – plough (11 – 4)

29. p: pin (0)

30. r: rug– rhubarb, write (1,670 – 27)

31. s: sun – centre,scene (138 – 49)
    -ce: face – case; fancy– fantasy (153 – 65)

32. sh: shop – chute, sure, moustache, liquorice (166 – 30)
    -tion: ignition– mission, pension, suspicion,fashion (216 – 81)

33. t: tap, pet – pterodactyl, two, debt (1,398 – 4)
    --te: delicate – democrat (52 – 3)

34. th (sharp): this (0)

35. th (soft): thing (0)

36. u: up– front, some, couple, blood (308 – 68)

37. u-e: cute – you,newt, neutral, suit, beauty, Tuesday, nuclear (137 – 21)
    -ue: cue –few, view,menu (20– 22)

38. v: van (0)
    -ve: have –spiv (116– 3) [80 with surplus –e]
    -v-: river– chivvy (73 – 7) – v/vv after short vowel

39. w: window– which (216 – 31)

40. y: yak– use (31 – 11)

41. z: zip– xylophone (16 – 1)
    -se: rose –froze (85– 33)
    wise– size (UK 31 – 3, US 11 – 22)

42. zh: -si-/-su-: vision, measure – azure (20 – 3)

43. Unstressed, unclear vowel sound (or schwa),
    occurring mainly in 8 endings and 2 prefixes:
    -able: loveable– credible(33 – 17)
    -ccle: bundle (2 consonants + -le for -l) (0)
    -al: vertical– novel, anvil, petrol (200+ – 32)
    -ary: ordinary– machinery, inventory, century,carpentry(37 – 55)
    -en: fasten– abandon, truncheon, orphan, goblin, certain (73 – 132)
    -ence: absence– balance (33 – 26)
    -ent: absent – pleasant (176 – 58)
    -er: father –author, armour, nectar, centre, injure,quota (UK 340, US 346 – 135/129)
    butcher – picture (42 –ure)
    de-: decide – divide (57 – 29)
    in-: indulge – endure (73 – 30)

Consonant doubling rule for showing short, stressed vowels
merry (regular) – very(missing) – serrated(surplus)
(503 - 601 - 219)

Mashabell If I got a vote on spelling reform I would vote yes, it's happened before, it's happened in other countries and goodness knows I'm not wedded to the complexity of the English phonics code, BUT I'm afraid I don't find your approach to grouping spellings and sounds logical or helpful at all. Even though the Lexicon misses some spellings out on the lists, the groupings make much more sense to me.

mrz

Thank you for answering my questions.

DD's teachers are of little use thus far, it's jolly phonics for the simple code then onto spellings, with no phonics teaching for reading at all now, so teachers will just say a word without explaining the unknown spelling/sound correspondence if an unknown, rare, or complex code spelling comes up in reading.

I have known more about the complex (and sometimes simple) code than all the teachers DD has had so far, which I've known by the erroneous materials they've provided and their insistence on mixed methods being good.

I feel far more relaxed now because I can revert to my previous expectations for DD (no longer thinking something is wrong because she can't sound out all new words independently).

She needed help with douvet, with me explaining it's a French word and so "et" represents /ay/ just as it does in ballet.

She also needed help with Nairobi and Masai, it was quite handy having these two words as at least the spelling pattern was a consistent "ai" for /igh/.

I very much like the exercise you describe where you ask your pupils to write words with as many different spellings for X sound as they can - I think this will be a useful activity for DD to do ... as and when we get the time!

Thanks again

IMHO matched funding should have been ear marked for training teachers about phonics rather than allowing schools to purchase puppets and games.
Most teachers aren't trained to teach phonics and are much less informed than parents unfortunately.

I play sound bingo with my class you might like to try it

grid with various alternative spellings for sound we are learning in each box

I say a word containing the sound and they have to write it in the correct box - small reward for line of correct spellings and completed boards

masha's lists aren't accurate just masha's own unique system of mixing sounds and syllables and suffixes etc

To BuckKid
I have experienced the problem but the answer is all in the teaching. Try this:literacyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/linguistic-phonics-practical-example.html
100% of chn in a school in a very deprived area is a v. good pointer. I could give you more examples but I suspect it wouldn't make any difference.
Sorry you feel 'experts' make you feel dreadful. We're trying to help. But we're experts because we do this stuff all the time and we're very, very good at what we do. That isn't to say we don't make mistakes or that we think we're perfect. We don't! But, you know, you're right! It's nearly in every case about the teaching. And we're good at the teaching.
To orangepudding:
If the word on paper/whiteboard is 'cat' and the child says 'can', this is what I'd do:
Point to the letter and say "If this word was 'can', this (pointing to the ) would be /n/. Is this /n/?"
If the child says yes, say, "This is /t/. Say /t/ here (making sure to say the sound very precisely). Now say the sounds and listen for the word."
On the other hand, if the child says, "No!. It's /t/."
You say, 'That's right!. Now, say the sounds and listen/read the word."
After that, draw three lines on a whiteboard and ask the child to write the word, one spelling on each line, and to say the sounds as they do. When they've done that, you get them to say the sounds and read the word.
Try it! It works!
Also for children like this, if you're teaching a whole class, ask four or five more able children to model saying the sounds individually and to say the word. Then ask children who are more hesitant to repeat, making sure you are pointing to each sound-spelling correspondence as they do this.

Guilianna you might like to direct to www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10901099/Children-taught-to-read-using-phonics-two-years-ahead-by-age-seven.html

Diamondage

My list above shows the main spellings for the 44 English sounds and also all the variants used for them. Because the MN operating system makes it impossible to highlight individuals letters in words, it is difficult to make them really clear on here.

Below u can see just the main spellings illustrated with just one word for each.

1. a: cat

1. a-e: plate

-ain: rain -ay: play

1. air: care - the /air/ sound has no dominant spelling

1. ar: car

1. au: sauce

-aw: saw

1. b: bed

1. ca/o/u: cat, cot, cut

cr/cl: crab/ clot -c: lilac -ck: neck k: kite/ kept -k: seek -sk: risk qu: quick x: fix

1. ch: chest

-tch: clutch 9 d: dad

10. e: end

11. er: her

12. ee: eat - the /ee/ sound has no dominant spelling
    --y: jolly

13. f: fish

14. g: garden

15. h: house

16. i: ink

17. i-e: bite
    -y: my

18. j: jam
    
    -ge: gorge
    -dg: fidget

19. l: last
    20: m: mum

20. n: nose

21. -ng: ring

22. o: on
    want
    quarrel

23. o-e: mole
    
    -o: no

24. oi: oil
    -oy: toy

25. oo (long): food

26. oo (short): good

27. or: order
    -ore:more

28. ou: out
    -ow: now

29. p: pin (0)

30. r: rug

31. s: sun
    -ce: face

32. sh: shop
    -tion: ignition

33. t: tap, pet
    --te: delicate

34. th (sharp): this

35. th (soft): thing

36. u: up

37. u-e: cute
    -ue: cue

38. v: van
    -ve: have
    -v-: river– no doubling after short vowels

39. w: window

40. y: yak

41. z: zip
    -se: rose

42. zh: -si-/-su-: vision, measure

43. Unstressed, unclear variously spelt vowel sound (or schwa),
    occurring mainly in 8 endings and 2 prefixes:
    -able: loveable
    -ccle: bundle
    -al: vertical
    -ary: ordinary
    -en: fasten
    -ence: absence
    -ent: absent
    -er: father

de-: decide
in-: indulge
-------

• consonant doubling for showing short, stressed vowels which is used completely unpredictably merry (regular) – very(missing) – serrated(surplus) (503 - 601 - 219)

Masha Bell

PS
Diamondage
I favour spelling reform because i find it awful and pointless that English-speaking children have to spend much longer on learning to read and write than in all other European languages, but i hav no illusions about reform coming about any time soon. - Most people prefer to put up with the roughly 20% rate of functional illiteracy which affects all English-speaking countries rather than suffer the temporary inconvenience of reform.

Apart from encouraging people to give some thought to making English spelling more learner-friendly, another aim of mine has been to improve understanding of why English literacy acquisition is exceptionally slow and difficult and why overall literacy standards have so far shown no real improvement, despite repeated vast increases in expenditure and changes to teaching methods, and also why it has been difficult to reach agreement on the best way of teaching reading and writing. - It's difficult to reach agreement on the best way of teaching something which makes no logical sense.

Many people have thanked me for the work i have done in this field, but some have thought it a waste of time, especially those who think they have finally discovered a fool-proof way of teaching reading and writing.