'Using picture clues and context are great for developing comprehension'

[Sleeperandthespindle]

This is the response I got to asking for decodable books from school for 4 year old in reception who is guessing from pictures when presented with Biff and Chip.

I don't agree. I can ignore the books sent home and give him others, I know, but he is clearly being taught to 'guess' in school.

The school are unlikely to change their mind, I realise, but older DC (in the same school) is struggling very greatly with literacy and the general approach seems unhelpful.

There's a big difference between picture books which have pictures to enhance the story and reading schemes where the pictures are designed exclusively to help children guess.

Banning all picture books is crazy talk, and what Michael Rosen pretends is happening.

"Children understand instinctively quantities" absolutely untrue I can introduce you to children who have absolutely no concept of the oneness of one or the twoness of two or that the nine in 97 represents a different value to the 9 in nineteen.

Feenie I'm going to leave this thread because instead of healthy discussion you seem intent on having an argument and deliberately misunderstanding my comments.

I appreciate the importance of phonics. My concern is producing a whole army of little robots who are decoding texts beautifully without understanding what they're reading. Our Y1 staff are far from 'shitty'.

Why on earth do you feel the need to reply so aggressively to people who don't agree with you? You can passionately believe in something without being so overtly hostile and rude!

"Even now I am not sure how much emphasis is put on spelling" Phonics has a strong emphasis on spelling ... pictures don't help

Mrz and feenie, would be really interested to know your background/field you work in.
Research is fascinating, informative and important. However, it is ALWAYS to be read with a critical eye. Validity, sampling strategy, motivation of the researcher, size of sample, how the research is funded etc etc.
The danger with research is reading a few studies and taking their findings as gospel.
Real life experience in classrooms of hundreds of different learners, for me, is a far more reliable indicator of the succesfulnsss of a strategy. Their progress academically and in their self esteem is telling of 'the best way' to teach 'that child'.
Children are humans. One approach does not suit all.
An absolute fact is, bashing away at phonics, for a child who clearly has a phonological defecite, is soul destroying!
Just focussing on one strategy to learn is simply not giving them the tools to progress.
No one here has ever said phonics aren't important. I'm so glad teaching has moved on from the days when it was simply flash cards and parrot fashion. However. It is dangerous to move away completely from one method.
I am also not saying you 'stop' teaching phonics to a child who has a defecite in this area. Of course they need support to develop their ability in this area. However, they also need a multisensory approach to reading that gives them every chance of success.
For what it's worth, strategies aimed at dyslexic learners are always with a multisensory approach. Dyslexic teaching is good, sound teaching that can support all learners struggling in any area of literacy learning.
Read write inc., Jolly Phonics, Nessy et al (many mainstream and specialist schemes aimed at schools) use a mixture of phonics AND sight knowledge as well as other aural, and kinaesthetic strategies.
Reading a few pieces of (interesting) research and deciding to take that as gospel and discount years of experience, teaching and other research is the same as reading something in the Sun and believing it is true.

Scarlett read the research ...contrary to what people like M Risen claim Phonics actually improves understanding. If you can't accurately read the words then comprehension will be severely compromised.

mrz I have read the research and believe it or not, I'm not stupid, I do understand that if children can't read the words, then they won't understand the text!

Mrz, most likely you asked the worng question ;)
Of course they don't know that the 9 in 19 is different from the 9 in 97, but they will have within the the concept of "nineteen-ness" and "ninetyseven-ness", but they will find it difficult to follow 19 and 97 (that will come later).
It has been shown that even children of less than 12 months can understand quantities (you can find the research easily enough). The key is to move away from numbers and start from quantities. (Difficult to explain it without pictures).

Kesstrel, thanks. Will look that up now ;)

Scarlett

Reading comprehension scores, as measured at the end of Key Stage 1, have risen from their previous plateau, particularly among SEN children, since the introduction of phonics.

Number of children achieving the expected level of reading comprehension at the end of Year 2:

2007-2009 – 84% (this is the pre-phonics plateau)
2010-2011 – 85% (2010 tested the first cohort taught via phonics)
2012 - 87%
2013 - 89%
2014 - 90%:

Note that this gradual rise began in 2010 with the cohort who were in reception for the academic year 2007-08, that is, the first year that phonics teaching was introduced.

Number of children with SEN achieving the expected level of reading comprehension at the end of Year 2 (figures are not available for before 2011):

2011 - 52%
2012 - 55%
2013 - 58%
2014 - 60%:

This was achieved despite the fact that the independent research into the effect of the phonics check showed that only one third of primary schools were serious about teaching phonics effectively at the start of this decade, while another third were actively hostile. I wonder what the figure would have been if all schools had been prepared to use the mandated phonics approach correctly?

Admittedly I've only read the first page but how can you teach reading only using phonics? Knight and night are pronounced the same but now and know are not. At some point you have to teach whole words. DS can now explain the different phonic sounds and chatty letters etc. However when he was learning to read at 2/3 he was learning simple phonics and some whole words so that he could actually read interesting things and feel like he was achieving something. He was reading fluently at 4 as in able to pick up any book and read it, YA and adult included. I don't agree with using guessing though, at some point the books stop having pictures and non fiction books the pictures don't necessarily give clues as to the content of the sentences.

'Scarlett read the research ...contrary to what people like M Risen claim Phonics actually improves understanding. If you can't accurately read the words then comprehension will be severely compromised.'
Mrz...exactly what we've been trying to explain to you!
Taking your above point, 'if children can't accurately read the words then comprehension will be severely compromised' how is a purely phonological approach going to help the children who prefer a visual approach and have a defecite when it comes to being able to use 'phonics' to decide words?!
This is where using other cues such as context, meaning, sight knowledge, pictures, memory of spelling patterns (or guessing as I suppose many here would call it) come in to support the child's ability to use phonics to read.
There are many very intelligent children (and adults) out there who are being failed by a short sighted, one dimensional approach to reading. Leaving them frustrated, bereft of confidence and well behind academically when the key to helping them to progress and using their strengths to succeed is ignored. Sad.

It is nonsensical to claim that because children decode well, they are robots with no comprehension skills. I maintain that the problem lies with the teaching of comprehension skills (or lack of) and would urge you/your SMT to carry out a thorough investigation to find out what is going on. The Y1 curriculum is very clear on the teaching of comprehension - I teach Y2 and our Y1s don't come through like this.

I'm all for a discussion, but I'm more concerned about children's reading skills than pussy footing around teachers' feelings. The fact is, by your own admission, your Y1 children are lacking in comprehension skills and that needs sorting ASAP. Taking offence/being defensive isn't going to help them.

Kesstrel- what method was used to measure the children's abilities to produce these figures? Has it been taken into account that schools have been under constant pressure to improve on results every year? How many children are included in these figures?
A rather uniform rise of 2-3% every year raises questions of how these figures have been compiled, results measured etc

There are many very intelligent children (and adults) out there who are being failed by a short sighted, one dimensional approach to reading.

Any study shows the exact opposite of this. Comprehension should of course be taught alongside ANY decoding strategy, and not using the guessing cues you describe.

There are many very intelligent children (and adults) out there who are being failed by a short sighted, one dimensional approach to reading. Leaving them frustrated, bereft of confidence and well behind academically when the key to helping them to progress and using their strengths to succeed is ignored. Sad.

So you know a number of schools where phonics is taught exclusively where this happens? That's just rubbish.

For the benefit of Faithless12 and Northernlassie1974 I will say again. Study after study has found that the success rate using phonics alone is at least 95%+ with many studies finding 99%+ success. Using mixed methods, even if that includes phonics, the success rate falls to 80%. Think what those numbers mean in a typical infant class of 30 pupils. These children who "prefer a visual approach" or have a phonic "deficit" either don't exist or are so few that there is absolutely no justification for introducing mixed methods on the off chance that a pupil might benefit. The number of pupils disadvantaged by a mixed methods approach far outweighs the numbers who might benefit.

I'm sorry.
Once again, you are quoting 'studies'
I am speaking from 15 years of experience of teaching hundreds of children with unique abilities and disabilities as everyone is different. There is no scheme, piece of research or strategy that can support them all. Individualised, multisensory approach works. The progress from autumn to summer cannot be argued with. Actual progress too, not 'measured' progress using a standardised tool that agrees with some and not with others. Children beaming with confidence to pick up a book and have a try when their experience prior that has been that reading is a depressing and awful experience for them. Usually because they have been taught the same way as the masses (phonological approach) which does not support their strengths.
I think I'm going to leave this here, it's interesting (although I have to admit unnerving) to read so many different views. It's clear many are not willing to look beyond a few pieces of research to maybe challenge their views.

I am pleased that the authority I work in embraces the mixed methods approach and is actively encouraging schools and teachers to have a sophisticated toolkit of knowledge to support all of the learners in our schools. Yes, the message is teach phonics, BUT, also use other ways of teaching the children a lifelong skill.
Peace out

Kesstrel- what method was used to measure the children's abilities to produce these figures? Has it been taken into account that schools have been under constant pressure to improve on results every year? How many children are included in these figures? A rather uniform rise of 2-3% every year raises questions of how these figures have been compiled, results measured etc

Sorry, I should have made clear that the results are from Key Stage 1 SATS. So the figures include ALL the children in the country in Year 2.

The pressure on results from these SATS is unlikely to be to artifically inflate them; if anything it's the other way around, because schools have a strong incentive to show a high degree of progress between Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 SATS.

I don't know why you describe the increases as 'uniform' - they are not. However, they are what you would expect in a situation where a new method of teaching is introduced and schools and teachers gradually become better at using it, and more accepting that it works.

Surely a phonic 'deficit' (or is defecite a specialist word?) is so rare that if you come across such a child, you then change your approach for that child?

Why maintain a mixed approach across all children for the potential benefit of one rare case?

There is no scheme, piece of research or strategy that can support them all.

But there is. It's really sad that after 15 years' teaching you haven't discovered this. It is possible to teach every child to read. I don't believe you know any children who have been taught phonics exclusively to decode, btw, because everything you describe is mixed methods. You're describing children who have been failed by mixed methods being taught more mixed methods. Now that's depressing

Faithless, to answer your earlier question, when learning phonics, children are explicitly taught the different pronunciations of phonemes/digraphs/trigraphs. So they would learn that n and kn both make the sound "n". They would also learn that ow can be pronounced ow as in cow but also ow as in low. These are the strategies they use to decode the words now and know rather than learning the whole word.

So going back to what I said before, re the Biff/Floppy books, was I right that it introduces phonics and is reasonably sound way of teaching a child to read, if you take them in order, according to current research?

In relation to there being no sight words, in fact it isn't as simple as that from what people are saying - eg there are the two distinct decodable sounds of ch in chips and christ, but some memory and sight recognition is needed to remember which one to use when?

And although phonics is an excellent way to teach children to read, having children develop other parts of their brain such as memory and reading visual cues such as pictures is not going to hurt and in some cases will help. And that guessing is going to be a part of learning language but it isn't promoted as a good method of learning?

Have I got any of that right?

I am not a teacher, btw, I am a sahm with young dc learning to read. Though, having said that, before dc for more than a decade I was a corporate lawyer, used to draft and negotiate long complex contracts which had to be (and were) enforceable in a court of law requiring reasonable sophisticated knowledge of language plus relevant areas of law, and I learned to read many moons ago without phonics, as did most of my excellent colleagues. The more I know about phonics the more interesting I find it, but I am not convinced that is anything do or die about it.

I was only involved in education for two terms, plus having a child, but I've always understood that Biff/Floppy/ORT books were developed as 'look and say' resources which is why they are a PITA when you are trying to support your child's phonic skills.

Regarding chips and Christ, my understanding is the child sounds out the different possible ways of using them and then uses their memory / spoken language knowledge to identify which is right. Nothing to do with 'sight words'.

Of course, it's obvious that children's spoken language is advanced beyond their reading ability. They learn to talk well before learning to read, and have a whole vocabulary of spoken words memorised. Once the word is sounded out / spoken, they can then decide which option is a 'real' word based on their spoken language knowledge.

Also just an interested parent, not a teacher.

Floppy's Phonics used the character of the dog from Biff and Chip but a phonics approach.