Dual Route reading model

Moderators: Debbie Hepplewhite, maizie, Lesley Drake, Susan Godsland

User avatar
maizie
Administrator
Posts: 3121
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: N.E England

Post by maizie » Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:45 pm

My only problem is with those - and nobody has yet admitted that they do exist - who a) claim that children must be taught exclusively by synthetic phonics, for example, and by absolutely no other method
Well, you have a problem with all of us here, then, Hugo. Everyone on here who teaches reading, whether it is the initial teaching of children, remediating children with problems, or working with adults, uses only synthetic phonics and nothing else, because there is no need for any other method to be used.

A great many have used 'other methods' and found them ineffective.

I can only say that the results speak for themselves.


and who b) seem to have government's ear (or was that just Ruth Kelly's ear?).
We wish.... :roll: You've been reading anti-phon propoganda.

JIM CURRAN
Posts: 3123
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:18 am

Subject

Post by JIM CURRAN » Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:52 pm

"Well, you have a problem with all of us here, then, Hugo. Everyone on here who teaches reading, whether it is the initial teaching of children, remediating children with problems, or working with adults, uses only synthetic phonics and nothing else, because there is no need for any other method to be used."

Spot on Maizie.

Hugo
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:42 pm

dual route reading theory

Post by Hugo » Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:28 pm

In which case there is no point in my presence as this is not a real debate.
www.hugokerr.info

User avatar
Debbie Hepplewhite
Administrator
Posts: 3648
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Post by Debbie Hepplewhite » Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:28 pm

this is not a real debate
It's a real discussion forum - a rare one at that.

No-one on here denies that it is possible to teach reading, or to learn to read, from various methods - we are maintaining on the evidence of the research on reading - and on the depth and breadth of our teaching experience - that there is very much a 'better', more effective way.

Furthermore, the approach that we go to some lengths to promote is so important because it does no damage - in great contrast to all those other 'approaches' which can do untold damage.

But actually this 'damage' is very much 'told' - we describe it all the time because we witness it all the time.

The problem is, however, that there are so many other people who clearly don't want to open their minds to the extent of this damage - and many people don't even want to admit that learners ARE damaged at all by various reading instruction methods.

It is very interesting reading the views of a spread of people who are clearly interested and concerned about the processes of reading and spelling - but what is so worrying is that no matter how much we report the results of the various teaching methods and the damage we see, this can be passed over as if it is ONLY a matter of debate, discussion or research.

How we teach reading is a matter of life chances - it is life-damaging for many when reading and spelling are not taught well.

FEtutor
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: London

Re: dual route reading theory

Post by FEtutor » Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:58 am

Hugo wrote:In which case there is no point in my presence as this is not a real debate.
What a shame. I was going to ask how you teach meta-affect. Like Susan I can trade: I've written up my relaxation routine. Still think you would really enjoy an SP training.

Hugo
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:42 pm

dual route reading theory

Post by Hugo » Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:54 am

I was going to ask how you teach meta-affect

You can email me privately if you like 'FEtutor'. What I do is not very scientific, but that I do it at all might be interesting.
www.hugokerr.info

chew8
Posts: 4152
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Post by chew8 » Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:27 am

Hugo writes ‘My only problem is with those - and nobody has yet admitted that they do exist - who a) claim that children must be taught exclusively by synthetic phonics, for example, and by absolutely no other method and who b) seem to have government's ear (or was that just Ruth Kelly's ear?)’.

Did you get the private message I sent you on 6 October, Hugo? In that, I tried to make the point I believed strongly in a phonics-only start for children as a way of securing both halves of what I don’t mind calling the ‘dual route’, if the two halves of this route are understood as the ability of proficient readers (a) to read most words quickly and automatically and (b) to sound out (again quickly and automatically) when they come to unfamiliar words.

I think you and I agree that we want adults to be able to be good at both (a) and (b). My impression is that you also largely agree that the emphasis for beginners needs to be on sounding out, because virtually all written words are unfamiliar for them. It seems unlikely, therefore, that your objection is to a phonics-only approach in the very early stages when you say that your ‘only problem is with those...who (a) claim that children must be taught exclusively by synthetic phonics’.

So is it the case that your problem is with people who say that all reading, at all stages, should involve overt sounding out (i.e. ’synthesising’ or ‘building up’ word-pronunciations by saying sounds for the letters and blending them)? But are there any such people? I’m not one – I’m all in favour of getting children reading fluently as soon as this can be achieved without detriment to their ability to sound out when necessary (i.e. when words are unfamiliar in their written form). I’m not aware of any RRFer who would disagree.

The government has listened to the people who recommend a phonics-only start for beginners, but its own programme, ‘Letters and Sounds’, covers only the first three years of school. Moreover, it states that the emphasis should start to be on fluency by the third year. It also makes this statement at the end of the ‘Summary’ section for each of Phases 2-5 (Reception and Year 1): ‘It must always be remembered that phonics is the step up to word recognition. Automatic reading of all words – decodable and tricky – is the ultimate goal’.

So I don’t see myself, or the RRF, or the government as falling into the category of people who claim that all reading at all stages, childhood to adulthood, should involve overt sounding out.

Jenny C.

Judy
Posts: 1184
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:57 pm

Post by Judy » Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:01 pm

I was going to ask how you teach meta-affect
Hugo, this would certainly interest me, and maybe others reading this message board too. Wouldn't it, perhaps, be worth giving us all the benefit of this information, on a separate thread?

Hugo
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:42 pm

dual route reading theory

Post by Hugo » Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:51 pm

Jenny, I did not get your private message. Several people recently have reported a silence after sending me messages which I never saw. I have no idea why this might occur, nor what, if anything, can be done about it!

I think you and I agree about loads of all this stuff. I accept what you say about very early literacy (but I think the way you teach decoding is also teaching letter awareness and you aim at early fluency which will be stretching into the visual recognition area). Three years seems to me to be a long time to wait and I am sure your pupils get a long way towards fluency before then, don't they?

I shall muster my thought about meta-affect.
www.hugokerr.info

chew8
Posts: 4152
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Post by chew8 » Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:54 pm

Hi Hugo -

I sent the private message to hugo@hugokerr.info.

Yes, of course the way synthetic phonics teaches decoding also teaches letter awareness, but saying this really amounts to a tautology: at the heart of s.p. is teaching the correspondences between letters and sounds, and teaching children to read words from the start by saying sounds for the letters from left to right and blending (synthesising) the sounds. You can't have s.p. without letters.

With many children, we don't have to wait 3 years for fluency to start developing - they take off long before this. 'Letters and Sounds' expects the majority to start becoming fluent in the third year, at the latest.

In the private e-mail I sent you, I again mentioned the boy who was a non-reader in Sept. 2007, at the age of 7+, and who had a heavy phonics input from the special needs teacher and me from then on. I stopped having daily sessions with him at the end of last November, but still carried on seeing him once a week when his rather poor attendance permitted this, as did also the special needs teacher. Now he is reading quite a lot of words fairly automatically and he goes instantly into sounding-out mode, without prompting, when he comes to words that he can't read automatically. So it has taken this boy a year to get from non-reading to the beginnings of fluency. He is still behind where he should be, but he has got a lot further in the past year than he did in the previous 3 years.

Jenny C.

kenm
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Berkshire

Post by kenm » Mon Oct 20, 2008 4:13 pm

Cartwheel helpfully drew our attention to a review of US education of primary teachers here. I recommend the footnote on page 29 to Hugo's attention.
"... the innovator has as enemies all those who have done well under the old regime, and only lukewarm allies among those who may do well under the new." Niccolo Macchiavelli, "The Prince", Chapter 6

kenm
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Berkshire

Re:

Post by kenm » Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:00 pm

kenm wrote: ISTR reading here about a young woman who acquired a reading vocabulary of 10000 words by pure visual recognition and found that that inhibited her from post-graduate work in philosophy, so she transferred to mathematics, but she was uncommonly talented.
I have been searching on this forum and one or two others for the original report, but without success. Does anyone remember it? It might not have been posted on this site, but another possibility is that posts from RRF's early years have been erased. Has that happened?
"... the innovator has as enemies all those who have done well under the old regime, and only lukewarm allies among those who may do well under the new." Niccolo Macchiavelli, "The Prince", Chapter 6

User avatar
Debbie Hepplewhite
Administrator
Posts: 3648
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Dual Route reading model

Post by Debbie Hepplewhite » Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:57 pm

Hi Ken,

I cannot recall but perhaps Susan G, Maggie D or Jim may recall?

kenm
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Berkshire

Re: Dual Route reading model

Post by kenm » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:58 pm

After over eight years, I want to revive the original subject of this thread, because it has recently come up on DDOLL (the Australian mailing list concerned with dyslexia) to which several of us belong, and I have had some further thoughts about it.

One of the forms of the dual-route model, which was described on DDOLL, is that the non-lexical route can identify only regular words, where regular words are defined as those which have no irregular correspondences, and the regular correspondence for each grapheme is the one that occurs most often in the language. In this model, the non-lexical route continues to be used for regular words and the lexical route for all others. Debbie responded to a description along these lines with the following, which she has kinly gidven me permission to quote. Quotes of the post to which she was responding have been replaced by dots, since repeating them here would breach DDOLL rules.

> ....
> Please bear in mind the situation regarding the official definition of ‘irregular’ words in the literature – and the difference that is made when alphabetic code knowledge is taught comprehensively such that elements of the code are not taught as if they are ‘irregular’ but just ‘alternative spellings’ or ‘alternative pronunciations’. In this scenario, I cannot agree with the statement above in red.
>
> I would say that the official definition [according to what I’ve gleaned from ....] would lead to a huge number of ‘irregular’ words which are, in reality, readily decodable by applying alphabetic code knowledge.
>
> For example, let’s take the grapheme ‘ea’. If I’ve understood [....] the official definition of ‘irregular’ correctly, any words including ‘ea’ as code for the sound /e/ as in ‘head’, would be classified as ‘irregular’.
>
> There are many words, however, which are very common and in children’s spoken language. They may well be able to decode by applying alphabetic code knowledge (having been taught, or by sub-conscious deduction – or even self-taught deduction) words such as ‘head’, ‘bread’, ‘dead’, ‘feather’, ‘weather’, ‘steady’, ‘ready’, ‘instead’ and so on.
>
> [I apologise if I’ve misunderstood ....’s statement but this is what I’ve understood by it.]
>
> In effect, the notion of ‘disobeying the GPC rules’ is different from the way the alphabetic code can be taught via the ‘alternatives’ route – and plenty of decoding practice which makes children enormously able and flexible in their reading.

I agree with this view. I think fluent readers identify irregular and regular correspondences (making no such distinction between them) in parallel and rapidly, after which their brains link the sounds and access the lexicon. In my view, the lexicon is not purely orthographic, as the original dual route model has it, but is the one developed to relate sound, meaning and grammar of spoken language, elaborated in readers by the addition of written information, possibly just spellings. These may be needed to choose among the possible pronunciations that happen to be real words in the lexicon. Thus the fluent reader uses the lexical route for all familiar words, using sound as the key; the non-lexical one is invoked only for unfamiliar ones.

I therefore consider the categorisation of correspondences and words as "regular" or "irregular" unhelpful. I have heard many reports here of the satisfaction that a child just starting to learn by SP gets when s/he sounds out a written word and recognizes it in her/his spoken vocabulary. At that stage s/he has no idea whether the correspondences are regular or irregular, and is unlikely ever to learn of these categories. Disambiguation remains a complicated problem to be solved, because spelling, meaning and syntax are all possible contributors to it.
"... the innovator has as enemies all those who have done well under the old regime, and only lukewarm allies among those who may do well under the new." Niccolo Macchiavelli, "The Prince", Chapter 6

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests