TO not get Phonics

[BIgBagofJelly]

I'm mainly curious as opposed to concerned, my DD is summer born reception and brings home ORT level 2 books so I'm assuming she's within the normal range and I'm not really worried. What I don't get though is the school make a huge dealt of phonics (and I understand there's a lot of evidence to back this up) but the Oxford Reading Tree books she brings home seem to have so many words that she can't "decode" either because they're irregular or because she hasn't learned that particular rule yet. (E.g. the E on the end of a word in "Like" "Snake" etc). Am I meant to be explaining that to her or should she just read the entire word and learn it?

I can understand building up a catalogue of "High frequency words" but it doesn't even seem like the same word is consolidated so isn't she bound to forget them anyway?

AS I said I'm not really worried she seems neither particularly advanced nor particularly behind but I was curious about what I should be doing with these words and the reading books in general. Should I read each one once? Read it a few times?

DressingGownDays - by your own admission you haven't taught phonics properly. How could you know that it doesn't work with certain children?

Are you a self-proclaimed dyslexia specialist?
I would be very surprised if teachers studying for a diploma or masters in SPLD are being directed to use mixed methods.

As you see explicate systematic phonics instruction is recommended for APD too

Thanks for the detailed advice, think ill buy that jolly phonics textbook (for me as much as DD lol). I guess being able to read isn't enough to teach someone else, think I might try to find some reading books with more phonics based approach as DD seems to like it, songbirds sound great!

Learning to love books, and learning to decode text aren't mutually exclusive!

Otherwise no-one would have loved books before about the 1960s, which is plainly rubbish.

But yes, there are some DC who struggle with phonics. About 5% and they do need skilled, tailored intervention.

Though that's way fewer than the 20% or so who struggle with other methods or mixed methods.

Reading is an intellectual exercise. As such, various strategies are used. Whole word recognition, phonics, syntax, that is the likelihood that one word follows another, knowledge of book language from having lots of stories told and shared, If reading is entirely dependent on "sounding out" then the process becomes laboured and the inadequacies of short term memory provide the likelihood that by the time certain words are worked out the meaning of sentences is lost. Early reading should be aimed at allowing a child to believe he can read. Otherwise all he will learn is that it is "too hard".

The Jolly Phonics handbook is great for beginners (one sound one spelling stage) but it isn't really detailed enough once children progress to the alternative spellings for the sounds.

Researchers using technology to monitor readers eye movements conclude that good readers don't process words as wholes but letter by letter. ". Fluent readers do perceive each and every letter of print. Thus, we can distinguish casual from causal, grill from girl, and primeval from prime evil.'' www.readingrockets.org/article/28755"

Other research shows that good readers do not rely on context for reading as it's an ineffective strategy.

DressingGownDays - by your own admission you haven't taught phonics properly. How could you know that it doesn't work with certain children?

Are you a self-proclaimed dyslexia specialist?
I would be very surprised if teachers studying for a diploma or masters in SPLD are being directed to use mixed methods.

This^^ In spades.

http://www.ldonline.org/spearswerling/TheUseofContextCuesinReading

mrz. There are lots of different theories for reading. There is lots of research with different findings. The dual route cascade model suggests that there are 2 routes for reading - lexical and non-lexical. Beginner readers rely predominantly on non-lexical (decoding using phonics) and as they become skilled readers use non-lexical route (sight recognition) but revert to non-lexical route for new and unfamiliar words. Dyslexia training emphasises the importance of phonics as a primary strategy, but will still use things like precision probes to encourage accuracy and fluency of high frequency words i.e. visually recognising the difference between "me" and "my" or between "the", "they" and "them". This is important because accuracy and fluency are vital for good comprehension.

However, without a doubt phonics is the most effective method of learning to read for 95% of children and beginner readers should be given decodable readers as opposed to books which rely on the old look and say methods.

"visually recognising the difference between "me" and "my" or between "the", "they" and "them" as in phonics teaching a child to decode through the word left to right paying attention to the spellings (graphemes)?

I'm a fan of Scarborough's reading rope myself

In my dyslexia training we learned that some children learn visually, and really struggle learning through sound.

I'm sorry Dressing but the longer ago you trained the more likely you are to have been told things that are completely unevidenced, like 'visual learners'. When phonics came back into favour 10 years ago I expected the dyslexia folks to embrace it with joy, but, for whatever reason, they seemed to want to hang on to their own ways. I was 'trained' on a programme for dyslexia way back in the early 2000s and, now that I know more about modern phonics teaching and the psychology of learning, I can see that there were a number of Whole Word practices incorporated in the programme and some very timewasting strategies (like learning 'blends' and syllabification). Plus the myth that some children had such a phonological deficit that they couldn't 'do' phonics. Which is really quite nonsensical in most cases. Even deaf children can be taught to read with phonics by way of substituting lip reading the phonemes instead of hearing them.

I was surprised that you thought mrz's explanation of the split vowel digraph too complicated for children. It's very simple and logical. Children seem to like simplicity and logic..

Obviously but lots of children with reading difficulties will not do this accurately and consistently. If they are laboriously decoding every word, they have fewer working memory resources left for comprehension (which is the purpose of reading).

I am talking about older children with established reading difficulties not children who are beginning to learn to read. I do not disagree that systematic synthetic phonics is vital for most children who are learning to read. Poor phonics teaching is often at the root of children's reading difficulties. I am also pointing out that there is much evidenced based research that disagrees with the model of reading you cite in your earlier post

Funnily enough, 3penguins post kind of gives the lie to this 'visual learners' thing...surely 'visual learners' wouldn't have any problem at all in distinguishing 'me' from 'my'?

I am talking about older children with established reading difficulties not children who are beginning to learn to read.

I used phonics with KS3 'struggling readers' for 10 years. They responded very well as what had seemed for 6 years like a mysterious and difficult process became very clear to them.

Over the last few years, research has been increasingly advising that schools should move away from synthetic phonics as the sole means of reading instruction, as studies have been showing it's not the best method for the majority of children after all.

For instance, some new research looks at whether girls and boys have different optimal methods of reading instruction, given the wide gender gap in reading performance (i.e., girls tending to outperform boys in reading assessments).

They compared 3 methods of reading instruction in a randomised trial of reception classes - non-phonically decodable text with mixed methods teaching, phonically decodable text with mixed methods teaching, and a ‘business as usual’ control condition of synthetic phonics and decodable text.

Both girls and boys did best with mixed methods and non-decodable texts, but boys benefited most (closing much of the gender gap in reading):
The research provides statistically significant evidence suggesting that boys learn more easily using a mix of whole-word and synthetic phonics approaches. In addition, the evidence indicates that boys learn to read more easily using the natural-style language of ‘real’ books including vocabulary which goes beyond their assumed decoding ability. At post-test, boys using the nonphonically decodable text with mixed methods (Inter- vention A) were 8 months ahead in reading comprehension^ compared to boys using a wholly synthetic phonics approach.^

They concluded:
synthetic phonics clearly has a place in the classroom but this should not be the sole approach to teaching reading to all children and boys in particular. Instead a more balanced approach should be taken whereby children are taught additional strategies including the use of whole-word and more visual techniques. Perhaps more importantly, the instructional texts young children are given to read should reflect the more natural language of ‘real’ books.

Horses for courses...

If they are "laboriously" decoding every word I'd seriously question the quality of teaching they have received. The ultimate aim of phonics is for decoding to become automatic ....taking milliseconds as is the case with expert readers.

I have never said I agree with visual learners theory - I think theories of different learning styles have been debunked. The model I mention about suggest that when you first encounter and read the word "cat", a reader decodes it as "c-a-t" using the non-lexical route, however over time it goes into long term memory and is visually recognised and read as "cat" so uses the lexical route. Problems with visually similar words is one I often encounter with older readers with literacy difficulties (including dyslexia) and is due to not reading from left to right through the word often as a result of poor teaching. Phonics instruction will form the basis of any intervention, but as mentioned previously precision probes will also be used.

Phonics schemes like Read Write Inc also have things like speed words (I think that's what they are called in the scheme) which are also designed to encourage fluent and accurate reading of high frequency words.

3penguins
My ds has working memory problems and i suspect so does dh, phonics was the saviour of both of them.
Dh was 10 before he was introduced to phonics. He couldnt read until then. He still has problems ie couldnt tell that 5 was round the wrong way round the other day, ofyen writes numbers down in wrong order, but reading is now not a problem.
My ds also didnt get get word cards but got phonics. Again reading is not a problem, spelling is (although can spell out loud ,just doesnt get to paper correctly) and again brings wrong number forward in maths etc.

"Phonics schemes like Read Write Inc also have things like speed words (I think that's what they are called in the scheme) which are also designed to encourage fluent and accurate reading of high frequency words."
Which aren't meant to be taught as wholes but through decoding

My apologies they are called red words (I was confusing them with the speed sounds)

"In the Read, Write, Inc. scheme ‘red words’ are used to help the children recognise the fact that there are words that are tricky to read because you can not sound them out in the normal way. With your child, look for the parts of each word that they can sound out normally and then identify the parts that are tricky! Your child needs to be able to read these words on sight."

I am not a particular fan of Read Write Inc but it is one of the government recommended phonic schemes

bruffin I have stated on several occasions that good phonics teaching should be the basis of learning to read and the basis of any good reading intervention.

Interesting article unique -"thanks for the link

"red words’ are used to help the children recognise the fact that there are words that are tricky to read because you can not sound them out in the normal way" I'm afraid that is untrue red words are basically high frequency words that are useful before the spellings for one or more sounds are formally taught. They are meant to be taught as you would any other word with the teacher providing the missing knowledge so that the child can decode through the word. Because they are common words the child will meet them often so automaticity is usually achieved quite quickly.