Yr 1 reading/phonics

[RunsWithScissors]

Hello,

DD (5.5) seems to be doing pretty well. Nearer the top end of reading in her class (on orange band, I know not stunning based on MN standards ;-) but she's moved up leaps and bounds from the beginning of the year.

The phonics test is this week, and her teacher caught me yesterday to say she doesn't think she'll pass it. I know it's for the school to see how she's doing, etc. she's moved her into a different phonics group to help her out.

I'd noticed she doesn't tend to sound things out much, I think she remembers words/word recognition?

I didn't learn phonics growing up, but can't recall the learning process of reading that I went through. I've always loved reading, as does DD.

So, my questions are:

Is the lack of ability/knowledge going to make it harder for her? She seems to be progressing really well with her reading, and has wonderful comprehension of what she reads. Very expressive when she reads a book for the first time, so I know she is understanding it. I'm just wondering if a better grasp of phonics would make it easier for her, or do some children naturally read in a different way?

Secondly, although her spelling is also progressing really well I do notice that some misspelled words reflect her speech (which we are having assessed) eg. 'Wiv' for 'with'. Her hearing test was fine last year, she has a great vocabulary and can explain things really well.

I am a bit confused tjough, as she seems to use sounding out to spell. Is this not a similar skill to reading by sounding out?

I know the school will do a great job to support her, and we are thrilled with her progress this year. I just want to ensure we are doing what we can to support her, and that we aren't missing out on things that might make it easier for her/be a more natural fit for her style of learning.

Thanks if you've read this far!

Scarborough's reading rope is not a model of word recognition, from what I gather, and Hollis does not claim it to be. Its described instead as a metaphor for the reading process. In Hollis' own words, she says, "I drew it originally for talks with parents and I think it works especially well for that purpose."

On the topic of the dual route cascade model, she has the following to say:

The hypothesis that word recognition is accomplished by the application of two different mental operations that are carried out simultaneously: (1) decoding (4.16 above) of a spelling into a corresponding phonological code, by which the identity and meaning of the word are then accessed in the mental lexicon; and (2) direct access to the lexicon from spellings (a process that, more informally, is often termed sight recognition, sight reading, or orthographic coding). It has usually been presumed that the phonological route is slower, is relied on most heavily by beginning readers who have not yet built up a large sight vocabulary, and can often be bypassed by skilled readers, except when they encounter unfamiliar words. However, this account of the reading process is currently in debate, because strong empirical challenges to these ideas have been presented, and alternative models, some based on connectionist networks, have been put forth. For a discussion, see Lukatela and Turvey (2000) and Harm and Seidenberg (1999).

So, her description of the current models is of a debate largely between DRC and connectionism. She isn't necessarily a fan of the DRC model, but I doubt she would join you in being quite so dismissive. I haven't been able to find her explicitly weighing in on either of the big two models, but I do notice that she cites and is cited by Seidenberg with some regularity, so I would assume that she is more inclined towards the connectionist approach.

Correct! It's a model for skilled reading which is what interests me and is relevant to the OP

I present you with a quote from the diagram's author that its a simplification, a metaphor, not a true explanation, and you still choose it as your preferred "current model"? Even when the author herself supports exactly my own interpretation of the current state of research on the topic, quoting the very same people I have quoted to you? And you think these quotes support your position?
I came into this thread almost completely uninformed on the topic and have enormously enjoyed reviewing several source texts on the subject. Your incredibly obtuse questioning has none the less prompted me to look in different directions and gain a much greater understanding of the field. For this I thank you. However, your wilful misreading of everything I say, your blinkered view of the ideas put before you and your refusal to engage with me rather than view me as an impediment to the opening, practically archaeological origins of this thread, mean that I will no longer engage with you on this particular occasion. I'll leave you to your imaginary readers (and Maizie ).

I didn't say preferred "current" method Micksy ... I'm waiting for you to come up with something new and interesting.

I really need to step away, but this is just such a perfect example of your obtuseness. Current does not usually mean new. I did ask you to define what you meant by current, since it seemed obvious to me we were not using it in the same way, but you ignored my question.

From the Oxford dictionary:

Definition of current in English:

adjective

1Belonging to the present time; happening or being used or done now:
‘keep abreast of current events’

‘I started my current job in 2001’

And "new" in this context means something I'm not familiar with rather than just repeating the same thing

Micksy - just to reiterate that I have found this debate (loosely applying the term) really interesting, and I have appreciated the time and effort you have put into researching the topic. I am actually a cognitive psychologist, but reading is a long way from my area of interest (on a professional level), and I have full respect for the time (and intelligence) you have applied to researching it and trying to discuss this. As a parent, the simple observation (which you have backed up with interesting academic reference) that LEARNING to read and the best methods for TEACHING reading are absolutely NOT the same thing has been a bit of a revelation (it feels ludicrous to say such a thing given how blindingly obvious it should be). However, my understanding of phonics and teaching reading (and to be honest, how people LEARN to read) has pretty much come from reading debates on Mumsnet. From my point of view, this one has gone down as by far the most useful and intelligently put. So, thank you.

Wow, thanks Itshouldntmatter. I guess the imaginary audience wasn't so imaginary! This topic has completely captured my interest these past couple of days and been well worth the occasional frustration. I'm glad its been of interest to you, too

The dual route theory of reading aloud was first described in the 1970s , so really isn't anything new. It is a very influential model outlining word recognition in skilled readers created by Coltheart (1978). Known as the dual route model of skilled reading, it is extensively cited account of word reading in skilled readers. As described this model posits that there are two ways in which a word can be read.
A word may be read via a direct (visual/orthographic/lexical) route where whole written words are directly mapped to spoken representations. This may or may not involve knowing the meaning of the word. It's a model used to explain how words are read by proficient readers. Words are processed as wholes by the direct route, and all familiar words are read via this route as it is quicker and more efficient. In phonics we would call this automaticity.
Exception and pseudo words are read by an indirect route which requires the reader to apply phoneme/grapheme knowledge to sound out words and read the word aloud.
Examples of exception words include give and mind ... which would cause a raised eyebrow from any phonics teacher.

As the model is based on the bahaviour of proficient readers I fail to see it's relenance to this thread or how reading in learnt.

With phonics the aim is for readers to achieve automaticity - the reader recognises it automatically without consciously needing to say the sounds aloud. However when the reader meets unfamiliar words they will use phoneme/grapheme knowledge to read the word (this can be a silent process).
I suppose you could describe this as an alternative dual route model.