Yet another reading question?

[ihearttc]

Just wondered if anyone could help?

DS started reception in september and is doing well with his reading...his school don't seem to do ORT but he is on blue level books if that helps at all. He is quite confident with his reading and knows all his JP sounds but is having difficultly with separating the sounds in words if that makes any sense? For example in the word "Fetch" he would sound out F E T C H rather than F E T CH...its like he can't see them when they are in with other letters.

They've got these lists of words to learn and he is on the one from last that they apparently have to learn by the end of reception and it seems like he just looks at a word and remembers it but can't seem to do the mecanics of sounding all the bits of longer words out...if that makes any sense at all?

Am not worried about it as I know he'll get it eventually and he's happy and doing well at how he is doing it but just wondered if there are some children that just can't learn to read that way. I spoke to his teacher before christmas about it and she said to just keep covering up bits of the word and get it to do it that way which I have been doing but its getting to a point now where he is flying along reading something and then just gets totally stuck and guesses the word rather than even try to sound it out...but then if the word is on the next page he'll remember it and he'll know that word after that.

Any thoughts if anyone can make any sense of that at all? I would speak to his teacher again but she is off sick after having an op for 3 months and they've got a supply teacher in who is lovely but doesn't often teach reception so wanted to pick your brains first!

witchwithallthetrimmings

I think the Dr Seuss approach is called "onset and rhyme" i.e. starting sound and then rhyming part. The only problem with this approach is that it isn't really teaching kids to listen for the sounds that make up a word. They are just learning a "mini" word via look and say!

So with top, shop, stop it encourages them to learn "op" as a word. Rather than o and p. This makes many many more sounds for them to learn than just the 44 in phonics.

Still my kids love Dr Seuss! They can still read them phonically! In fact with a lot of the reading books I get sent home that are look and say I just get them to read the decodable words and give them the rest. That turns most books in decodable ones!

thegrammarpolice

The vowel digraphs as they call them are really hard. Lots of practice with lots of different books is the ideal. One of the problems is that there aren't enough books around. Again games really help too. There are worksheets around too. Just a case of little by little.

I actually am putting together a project to make a set of electronic phonic readers on the internet. It is called the StoryBoardProject.
I am going to ask people to donate illustrations (that is the expensive part of creating books). If anyone want to help out my first post on the topic is here:
www.lisatweedie.wordpress.com

Lisa

Lisa

For those who want to read more the reading reform foundation has loads of good stuff and a forum where you can ask questions.

I also really like Susan Godslands website:
www.aowm73.dsl.pipex.com/dyslexics/main_method_3.htm

This is her take on the limit thing:
"Decodable books avoid children developing the bad habit of sight word guessing. This can be difficult to change when they get older and the brain less ?plastic?. Those with good visual memories will develop this habit quickly and easily through the use of predictable, repetitive text. Eventually their memory for sight words will reach its limit and if they haven?t, in the meantime, been taught or deduced the complete alphabet code for themselves they will struggle to read advanced texts with novel words and no illustrations."

There is a bit more on this here:
phonicbooks.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/should-beginner-readers-use-only-decodable-books/ #more-50

Thanks Lisa. We have made some progress with the vowel digraphs now in that we were looking at some words like made and tide and he could do them but that was when I'd pointed out that they were magic e words. So the next step is going to be for him to spot them when he's reading a book and realise what he's got to do.

Interesting article here on the benefits of combinining the synthetic and analytic approaches for small children.

Lisata - would be really interested in your thoughts on this.

Hi ZephirineDrouhin

This is getting close to the edge of my knowledge!

I think from reading the websites I gave above they seem to say that the evidence for analytical phonics (onset and rime) is just not there. Kids just don't use these strategies to help them read. However I can't actually see how playing with words can be bad either. Would have thought it helps with spelling perhaps?

Someone above mentioned that kids use whole word reading and phonics when they read. Yes of course they have to use whole word reading to learn the tricky words. It is just that you really don't need make them learn the decodable words .... just give them the code and they can decode. That makes the set that they have to learn as whole words vastly smaller. Makes sense I think!

Lisa

Thanks very much Lisa. This stuff is all new to me so it's very interesting to talk to people with experience in this. Intuitively, the combined approach that Kathy Hall refers to in that article makes much more sense to me, given that English includes such a huge number of very commonplace words that simply do not fit the rules. I found her comments about pattern recognition very convincing too.

On a more practical note - a great way to help kids who have problems hearing sounds is to use a phonic phone (a simple plastic tube which goes from your mouth to your ear!). I've blogged about them here phonicbooks.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/top-tip-phonic-phones/. You can make them!

Michael Rosen has some interesting thoughts about synthetic phonics.

I have only read the first post btw, so sorry if following is repetitive in any way!

This is very normal. Just looked back through my son's reading diary and he didn't recognise di-/tri-graphs IN words when he first started reading either. It was approx this far into reception when he got through it, too. He was on pink c/red a at the time, but his teacher moved them through the bands very slowly in reception!

To help him get over this I printed or wrote out words for him to read and then added a 'helper' card next to it. e.g. wrote out fetch and then had a card with 'ch' next to it, so he knew to look for that sound. That really seemed to help him and a few weeks of doing that set him off again.

In response to the OP, ihearttc,your DS sounds like he's at exactly the right level for this stage in Reception.

Since all the fuss about synthetic phonics the 'searchlights model of reading' seems to have been bypassed, but I think it still has some useful ideas. It basically held that children use a set of strategies to read, phonics being just one of them. The focus on phonics now is (I think) because it was felt that phonics was the most effective way of bringing all children's reading levels on.

The searchlights model
A ?Word Recognition Searchlight? ? for words that are recognised by sight (e.g. my, sea, tree) (this sounds like the bit your son is strongest at).

A ?Phonics Searchlight? - for hypotheses/guesses at the possible sounds for: the one-, two-, three- and four-letter spelling choices of written English (e.g. for the ?g?, ?ge?, ?dge? and ?eigh? in giant, cage, bridge and eight, respectively); other sequences of letters, such as consonant blends (e.g. the two sounds at the start of bridge, brick and brown); and syllables (e.g. village, cabbage, cottage).

A ?Context Searchlight? - for hypotheses/guesses based on the words, phrases, sentences and stories acquired from essential speaking and listening activities ? including the ?pretend reading? of sentences, paragraphs and pages in favourite books (e.g. On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and??.., he got up at six o?clock.).

A ?Grammar Searchlight? ? for hypotheses/guesses, which may be implicit or explicit, about how words combine in a well-formed sentence (e.g. ?he six o?clock got up at?, if used above, would be ?ungrammatical?).

Presuming by blue you mean that your DS's school book bands, then he is at a level 1c/b. If you look at the learning opportunities you will see that it describes much more than phonetic decoding.

Band 4 ? Blue ? Level 1 (C/B)

Learning opportunities

• Move through text attending to meaning, print and sentence structure flexibly
• Self-correct more rapidly on-the-run
• Re-read to enhance phrasing and clarify precise meaning
• Solve new words using print information along with attention to meaning
• Use analogy with known vocabulary to solve new words
• Manage a greater variety of text genre
• Discuss content of the text in a manner which indicates precise understanding

Finally, you might also find that digraphs etc are covered in class by the end of the year and at the beginning of Year 1.

I hope this information-heavy response was useful!

The "fuss" about synthetic phonics is because it works. There are now numerous studies that show it.

As I understand it there is little or no evidence behind the "searchlight" model. We also have a problem in the UK with many kids not learning to read. It seems likely that use of this model may have exacerbated this problem.

We want to teach our kids good strategies for reading and spelling - guessing just isn't a good strategy. We have the tools to give them great strategies. Why not teach them?

It doesn't have to be boring. In fact decodable texts quickly have much richer text than "whole word" texts - because the whole point is that you want to discourage guessing so the texts are not repetitive. As soon as you get beyond cvc words and onto digraphs the number of decodable words ramps up extremely quickly.

Ideally whilst reading the books there should also be a rich discussion of the pictures and context. All sorts of word games should be encouraged. And most importantly children should be read to at every opportunity so that they develop an extended vocabluary and learn to love books.

I really don't understand what so many educators seem to have against structure. Used properly a progressive structure builds confidence. I have used both sorts of readers with kids. I'm absolutley convinced which ones built confidence. If you are a sceptic - try some truly decodable readers with a few kids.

Reading wars are not issue here. What is important is that we give everybody the best chance possible to learn to read.

According to a recent review of the research conducted for the DfES, it seems that the research has not yet been done in assessing the relative advantages of synthetic and analytic phonics.

From the review:

"The effect of synthetic and analytic phonics:

The weight of evidence on this question was weak (only three randomized controlled trials were found). No statistically significant difference in effectiveness was found between synthetic phonics instruction and analytic phonics instruction."

I am guessing that while some children respond well to a very structured synthetic approach, others would benefit from a more flexible approach encompassing a range of strategies as Omicron describes.

I really know nothing about analytic phonics and I am not really interested in another whole battle between academics. I am interested in practical strategies that help kids learn to read. I have three basic maxims for reading (I am still learning about spellin)

• Teach them to read with a structured and progressive phonics system.

• Play games with them using any sort of method you want. The more they play with words the more they will learn about our complex english language.

• Absolutely DO NOT encourage them to guess it doesn't help them with spelling or reading.

This third point is why i got heated about the search light method above - "using context/picures" encourages guessing. Anyone listening to their child read should not be doing this! This is how kids start on the path to failing reading. Most of the poor readers my mum used to get at her unit (she was head of the Bloomfield learning centre in London) were guessers. She taught every single one of them to read using synthetic phonics (hundreds of kids over many years). They were all capable of it they had just been given the wrong strategies i.e. whole word reading and guessing.

Lisa

One more maxim

• build their confidence - use praise in everything. Remember to go at their pace.

Many readers get a block because they loose confidence sometimes because they are unthinkingly told to try harder when they are trying as hard as they can!

Lisa

ZephirineDrouhin, Professor Diane McGuinness, a cognitive scientist trained in statistical analysis, closely examined the research review -see www.aowm73.dsl.pipex.com/dyslexics/comment.pdf

As a matter of fact, evidence of the superiority of synthetic phonics was already available in the early 1980s; back then, Prof. Jeanne Chall noted that, ''The current research also suggests that some advantage may accrue to direct as compared to indirect phonics. It would seem that many of the characteristics of direct phonics, such as teaching letter-sounds directly, separating the letter-sounds from the words, giving practice in blending the sounds, and so forth are more effective than the less direct procedures used in current analytic phonics programmes'' (Chall. Learning to Read: the great debate.1983 p43)

any buffs who are seriously interested in this subject, may be interested in watching a video that Michael Rosen made for Teachers' TV
www.ttrb.ac.uk/viewArticle2.aspx?contentId=13385
Rosen interviews academics who are both for and against the use of synthetic phonics. Rosen, himself, is not keen on synthetic phonics and prefers the whole word approach. In my opinion, not all of his arguments hold water and he often fires at the wrong target, but he does score a number of direct hits. One of the academics that he interviews is Dr. Dominic Wyse of Cambridge University, who is also not keen on synthetic phonics
www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/L/lost_for_words/phonics_10.html

Thanks maverick and claig. Interesting -obviously still lots of disagreement about it.

Michael Rosen isn't a reading teacher. I am. I can teach anyone to read, dyslexic or not, quickly and easily using synthetic phonics.

Dominic Wyse is one of many educational academics who remain vehemently opposed to synthetic phonics. It challenges their vested interests and academic authority. Although they concede that teaching reading using synthetic phonics 'can be extremely effective' in transparent languages, in their opinion, there is still (!) 'not enough evidence' that the 'discrete', (synthetic) phonics method is more effective for teaching reading in English than the 'contextualised', (analytic) phonics method that, due to their progressive ideology, they prefer.

The academics cherry-picked two, particular publications from the whole range of evidence that the Rose Review team considered, to back their argument. They singled out the American National Reading Panel (NRP) report and the Torgerson et al. research review (Wyse/Goswami p693) because both of these publications concluded that there was no strong evidence, 'that any one form of systematic phonics is more effective than another'.

As I wrote in a previous message, Professor Diane McGuinness, a cognitive scientist trained in statistical analysis, closely examined these publications and found them to have major weaknesses which nullified that particular conclusion-see www.aowm73.dsl.pipex.com/dyslexics/comment.pdf for her Torgerson et al. analysis and her book, 'Early Reading Instruction' Chapter 4, for a comprehensive analysis of the NRP report.

As part of their mission to overturn the new synthetic phonics initiative, the same educational academics attempted to subvert the Clackmannanshire empirical research study because this study, unlike the Torgerson et al.review and NRP report, concluded that, 'synthetic phonics was a more effective approach to teaching reading, spelling and phonemic awareness than analytic phonics' (Johnson and Watson, 2004 p351). This excellent, peer-reviewed study played a large part in persuading the DCSF to introduce synthetic phonics as the primary method to teach reading. The academics disseminated myths and misinformation about the Clackmannanshire research -see the RRF newsletter article, 'Fact and Fiction about the Clackmannanshire study', which also includes comment on the Torgerson et al review: www.rrf.org.uk/newsletter.php?n_ID=170 The RRF website is unavilable at the moment -we hope to have it back on line in a short time.

HTH

Susan

There is certainly a lot of contradictory information about. Very depressing if educational academics are, as you say, disseminating myths and misinformation, and DfES reports are simply wrong. Difficult to know who to believe.

ZephirineDrouhin

I think you have to back the people who have been at the front line on this one. If you have taught hundreds of kids with lots of different problems how to read with a method then you have earned your credentials!

I was an academic myself (psychology and then human computer interacton) and one the problems with academia is that you can get yourself into ivory tower mode. People with academic research into a theory also have a vested interest in that theory and it can become extremely personal! It is one of the reasons I chose to go and work in industry in a more pragmatic environement.

I actually went and had a long discussion with my mum last night about the analytical phonics article. The article made her very cross. She just feels that these arguments have been going on for so long the people that suffer in the end are the kids and poor teachers who are pulled this way and that! Wars really are not good for anyone. We need an ecumenical approach (and by that I don't mean any method goes!).

She emailed me a response which I will post shortly.

Lisa

Here is Wendy's response to the article you posted Zeph

"One barely needs to teach the children who have good visual memory and can teach themselves the phonic code. These are analytical readers. I had one of those as a daughter. (Me - Lisa)

There are jails full of young people who are non readers, because they were not given the skills to break words up into syllables and sounds. Children who can read analytically benefit from having the code explained to them, especially for spelling. The others make steady progress with phonics, and slowly gain automaticity with reading.

Children who are taught analytically, but do not have good visual memory resort to guessing. That is fine with lovely books full of explicit illustrations, but what happens when they are faced with a page full of text with minimal illustration? Guessing does not help, and they give up.

I am a SpLD teacher, and have helped countless children through phonics.

Some children with good visual memory make good progress with reading until they are 7. Then you get the year three dip. Why? Because those children have not worked out the phonic code, and their visual memory can only remember so many words. Their self esteem becomes very poor, and they stop trying. If they had had the phonic code explained to them from the beginning, they would be reading.

The research with onset and rime (analytical phonics) is academic research, not classroom research. If you want some good classroom phonics research, look up the following website www.sounds-write.co.uk. You can also read teachers comments. "

Hope that helps
Lisa

i found the starfall website very useful for blending - they teach the 'ch' sound with a 'choo choo' train image and voiceover. my dd loved using the computer and clicking and dragging the 'ch' image to make words. Worth a go.

"Children who are taught analytically, but do not have good visual memory resort to guessing. That is fine with lovely books full of explicit illustrations, but what happens when they are faced with a page full of text with minimal illustration? Guessing does not help, and they give up"

This happened to DH back in the days of "look and Say" He did not learn to read until he was 10 and finally sent to a remedial class, where he was taught phonics.

This has had an affect on his entire life. Thankfully he is an intelligent man and went on to do most of his education once he left school and is now a professional engineer, but he still bares the scars of being taught "look and say"

Thanks bruffin

Sadly "look and say" came back!!! And the result is a generation of teachers who haven't learnt how to teach phonics. And millions of reluctant readers ... which I guess is why people like my Mum start to feel frustrated!

In the past Politicians, Academics and Educators don't seem to have mixed very well in producing a practical set of guidelines for teachers.

Even this time round I have heard it said that letters and sounds was rushed out. There has been little money allocated for training teachers and no money for replacing reading books with decodable ones. A lot of the schools buying books from my mums company are funded by the parents teachers associations! www.phonicbooks.com

There is a lot of misinformation about how synthetic phonics should be taught - as though it has to be boring. The best way to teach phonics is through loads of games and postive reinforcement. The way i have seen mum teach it - it certainly is not boring. Kids should have real books as part of their life - we need to read them to them. Just don't make kids run before they can walk. Letting kids sound out a few words as you read is a fine way to get them excited about reading. Just don't scare them by making them do things they aren't ready for and don't encourage them to GUESS!