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!

Perhaps you can link to the evidence Micksy

What statement would you like me to provide citations for, Mrz?

I've been reading
Brain mechanisms for reading words and pseudowords: an integrated approach by P G Simos 2002.
which was the one which used pseudo homophones.

Also
Word superiority, pseudo word superiority and learning to read, a comparison of dyslexic and normal readers
By Granger, true, bastion et al 2003

news.stanford.edu/news/2015/may/reading-brain-phonics-052815.html

I suggest that you try Stanislas Dehaene, neuroscientist. Wrote 'Reading in the Brain'. He has a talk of the same name on YouTube. Worth watching.
WRT comparisons with 'dyslexics' be careful. It is a highly contentious term (among reading researchers) which is applied with very wide range of fuzzy criteria.

Yes, that backs up exactly what I've been reading. One (of several theories) is the dual process model of reading, that we have two different mechanisms at play, one for words which can be pronounced using phonics, and one for words with low text to sound frequency, otherwise known as exceptions. Every reader,even those taught well with pure phonics, uses both of these regions. It's in the first paper I cited above.

I posted the link earlier

Just noting about that article. They basically generated a whole new written language to test their hypothesis. There's an implication that the language they created was regular. I wonder how the findings would be altered for a quasi regular language?

I've very unclear what you actually mean by low text to sound frequency ...

I'm not wonderful at coming up with examples on the spot, but it's basically the letters or groups which usually sound one way but are occasionally pronounced another, or simply rare matchings like those within yacht and colonel.

Then I'm not sure why you are distinguishing them from words which can be pronounced with phonics because they clearly can be.

I'm not personally distinguishing them. I'm providing academic citations of papers that day they are handled by different areas of the brain.
One of my main bones with your stance on phonics is your insistence that because you teach tricky words using phonics (a very convoluted process for certain words in the English language) students learn them using phonics. The dual process model, which seems pretty robust, indicates that we use one part of our brain for reading regular words and regular pseudo words and another for exception words. All of us.
Now, I would imagine that there are words that some people will consider regular and some exceptions, depending on how they have been taught. It also seems that the regular part is the most powerful of the two by a long stretch, but it seems everyone uses the other part for certain known words. Everyone, however they have been taught, good readers as well as bad. Everyone.
Exception words exist as a provable neuro physical phenomenon.

I can only access the abstract
www.researchgate.net/publication/11520621_Brain_mechanisms_for_reading_words_and_pseudowords_an_integrated_approach
Which seems to be saying that known "real" words activate the MTGp (area if brain associated with meaning) whereas pseudo words have a reduced activation (because there is no associated meaning).
I'm not at all sure about the pseudo homophones conclusion perhaps they need to look at the brains of early years teachers who deal effortlessly with phonically plausible spellings daily to see if there is a difference.

Mrz, the full text specifically talks about using exception words. The definition and examples are given in it. I didn't simply invent them. Why are your arguments based on my having misread something that you yourself have not read? Is it not possible to engage with me over the concepts as presented without trying to argue that I am mistaken in every reading of evidence I bring forward?
You are perpetually dismissive of other people's opinions. Take your comment towards Masha that pseudo homophones are merely typos, or that to me that they were never used in research with phonics. You were absolutely wrong on both counts.
Can you not simply accept that there are not straight forward answers to any of these questions, and that the science of reading acquisition is still formative with lots of highly regarded thinkers disagreeing over very basic principles.
Supporting synthetic phonics is the correct line to take as an early years educator, but you have crossed far beyond this into unevidenced zealotry. Closing your mind to new ideas, even and especially those which run counter to your own beliefs, can only detract from your personal understanding of the topic.

Modeling reading - the dual route approach
Max Coulthart 2008
Reading theorists have reached unanimity concerning the existence in the human reading system of two separate procedures for reading aloud - that is, dual routes from print to speech. One of these processing routes is usable only when the stimulus to be read is a real word: it cannot read nonwords. The other route can read all nonwords and regular words. There is still some dispute concerning how well it reads irregular words.

Am I not allowed to disagree with your no doubt accurate summary of the article based on knowledge and experience.
I can pronounce the word yacht and the word of I suspect you can too (both words contain unique representations of the final sound) so to say that it is somehow different from the word boat or if seems a strange distinction.

I'm aware you haven't made it up and have never suggested such a thing.

You can, but it's a bit like my disagreeing with Stephen Hawking based on my extensive experience of gravity.

The difference being that I do have extensive experience of teaching children to read and your quoted researchers have very different backgrounds.

Fortunately current research such as reported the Stanislas Dehaene link are combining science and education in order to move from theory to reality.

And before you say it I'm not suggesting I'm an expert or I know more about their subject ... But sometimes theory conflicts with practice.

Dehaene seems particularly reluctant to weigh in on the dual route / connectionist disputes. His work is primarily related to the functions of the fusiform gurus. Interesting material, but of an entirely different granularity.
I would absolutely deny that theory conflicts with practice, since the entire point of a model is to explain reality and it's success is judged on its ability to do so. Suggesting that you know more than the experts is precisely what you are doing.

Gyrus not gurus.

We've blindly followed theories before and ignored warnings from teachers ... and look where that took us.

www.spelfabet.com.au/2013/04/the-reading-rope/

Mrz, I am not the one blindly following theories here.