Re: Feedback on Phonic Check
Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:23 pm
Toots - perhaps you'd take a few minutes to look at Thomas Jones website - I've just started new topic.
RRF message board
I too would like to know what Toots means by "sight words''?Toots, what do you mean by "sight word"?
This is the Whole Language philosophy of beginning reading.I would worry that my child wasn't reading correctly if there was no use of context going on. Phonics only gets you so far, because many GPCs can represent more than one sound. When a child chooses the right sound from a choice it is going to be by using context. And if the word is not in her vocabulary she may still not pronounce it correctly but at least be able to learn its meaning from the context.
Quote below from Society for Quality Education,Whole Language Definition from LDA Glossary
Largely based on the work of Ken Goodman, Whole Language is a professional movement and theoretical perspective that embodies a set of applied beliefs governing learning and teaching, language development, curriculum, and the social community. Whole language teachers believe that all language systems are interwoven.
They avoid the segmentation of language into component parts for specific skill instruction. The use of strategies taught in meaningful contexts is emphasized.
Phonics is taught through writing and by focusing on the patterns of language in reading. Assessment focuses on authentic demonstrations of student work. The whole language movement has produced much interest, activity, and controversy and has had a major impact on how the reading education community thinks and talks about instruction.
However, the Whole Language approach, which has been thoroughly discredited yet maintains a vice-like grip on teachers and teacher-educators, should not be confused with the Duel Route Theory of skilled reading.Ken Goodman, one of the founders of Whole Language, claims "a story is easier to read than a page, a page easier than a paragraph, a paragraph easier than a sentence, a sentence easier than a word, and a word easier than a letter".
While this assertion may seem ridiculous to most people, in fact it is believed by many Whole Language/Balanced Literacy adherents. As a result, Balanced Literacy teachers encourage their students to "read" extremely-challenging material - material which contains many unknown words - and just guess at or skip over the hard parts.
Children taught this way develop deeply-rooted habits of skimming through text to get an over-all impression and, even when they are capable of reading all the words, they often miss important details and subtleties. Comparisons of whole-word and phonetic approaches show that whole word students do not typically have superior comprehension skills. (Adams, p.49)
Dual-route models are scientific hypotheses about the cognitive architecture of the information-processing system used for reading and spelling (Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001; Jackson & Coltheart, 2001; Houghton & Zorzi, 2003).
According to these models, written language processing is accomplished by two distinct but interactive procedures that are referred to as the lexical and non-lexical routes (Figure 1).1
Reading and spelling by the lexical route relies on the activation of word-specific orthographic and phonological memory representations. Although spoken and written words also automatically activate the corresponding conceptual representations in the semantic system, access to word meanings is not considered critical for accurate oral reading or spelling to dictation.
The lexical route can process all familiar words, regardless of whether they are regular or irregular in terms of their letter-sound relationships, but it fails with unfamiliar words or non-words because these items do not have lexical representations.
In contrast to the whole-word retrieval process employed by the lexical route, the non-lexical route utilizes a subword-level procedure based on sound-spelling correspondence rules. The non-lexical route can succeed with non-words (e.g., plunt) and also with regular words that strictly obey English phoneme-grapheme conversion rules (e.g., must), but it cannot produce a correct response to irregular words that violate these rules (e.g., choir).
Attempts to read or spell irregular words by the non-lexical route result in regularization errors (e.g., have read to rhyme with save, or tomb spelled as toom). It should be noted that although dual-route models contain functional components that are unique to either the lexical route (e.g., orthographic lexicon) or the non-lexical route (e.g., phoneme-grapheme conversion module), the two procedures are not considered to be completely independent.
For instance, the two routes share processing components at the phoneme and letter levels (Fig. 1). Furthermore, it is assumed that all written and spoken input is processed obligatorily by both routes in parallel, with cooperative or competitive interactions taking place at the phoneme (reading) or letter (spelling) output stage (Coltheart et al., 2001; Houghton & Zorzi, 2003). However, dual-route theory maintains that only the lexical route can deliver a correct response to irregular words, whereas the integrity of the non-lexical route is essential for accurate reading/spelling of non-words.
http://reading.uoregon.edu/Progression of Regular Word Reading
(saying each individual sound out loud)
Saying the Whole Word
(saying each individual sound and pronouncing the whole word)
Sight Word Reading
(sounding out the word in your head, if necessary, and saying the whole word)
Automatic Word Reading
(reading the word without sounding it out)
Irregular Word Reading
Although decoding is a highly reliable strategy for a majority of words, some irregular words in the English language do not conform to word-analysis instruction (e.g., the, was, night). Those words are referred to as irregular words.
Irregular Word: A word that cannot be decoded because either (a) the sounds of the letters are unique to that word or a few words, or (b) the student has not yet learned the letter-sound correspondences in the word (Carnine, Silbert & Kame'enui, 1997; see References).
•In beginning reading there will be passages that contain words that are "decodable" yet the letter sound correspondences in those words may not yet be familiar to students. In this case, we also teach these words as irregular words.
•To strengthen students' reliance on the decoding strategy and communicate the utility of that strategy, we recommend not introducing irregular words until students can reliably decode words at a rate of one letter-sound per second. At this point, irregular words may be introduced, but on a limited scale.
•The key to irregular word recognition is not how to teach them. The teaching procedure is simple. The critical design considerations are how many to introduce and how many to review.
Advanced Word Analysis
Advanced word analysis involves being skilled at phonological processing (recognizing and producing the speech sounds in words) and having an awareness of letter-sound correspondences in words.
Advanced word analysis skills include:
•Knowledge of common letter combinations and the sounds they make
•Identification of VCe pattern words and their derivatives
•Knolwedge of prefixes, suffixes, and roots, and how to use them to "chunk" word parts within a larger word to gain access to meaning.
Knowledge of advanced word analysis skills is essential if students are to progress in their knowledge of the alphabetic writing system and gain the ability to read fluently and broadly.
Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts, 1998; see References
With the aid of my dictionary, I decided that "without consciousness" was the most appropriate definition of "automatically". With a few exceptions of which I am unaware, that means all the words in my aural vocabulary are sight words by your definition, because I have a concept of the pronunciation of all the words I recognise, though that pronunciation may not be the dictionary one and I am not conscious of the process by which I arrive at that pronunciation. I know that I do arrive at that pronunciation, because of the sub-vocalisation of which I can choose to be aware, and I am confident that I arrive at the vast majority of these pronunciations by decoding graphemes. The exceptions are probably mainly non-homophone homographs, which need context for their resolution, and a few words like "choir" with unique correspondences within my vocabulary.Toots wrote:By 'sight words' I mean words that are automatically recognised by the reader. ...
I must hasten to say that I don't follow research as closely as I tried to do when I was writing the Research Digest for the RRF newsletter. In those days I used to make regular visits to the London Institute of Education library and trawl through various academic journals. I had no research qualifications of my own, however, so my reading of research was that of a lay person with the kind of careful reading habits inculcated by studying for university degrees in English and then teaching English to Advanced Level for many years.Kiki wrote:And Jenny really is the person to listen to in regards to interpreting research as she has a very wide and deep knowledge of the subject and keeps abreast of all the research and the arguments.
My point is more that having read and discussed so widely over the years that you have the overview necessary to fully understand what an author was probably getting at in a particular quote or may have clarified in a following paper so your interpretation is one to be trusted. I too have read an awful lot over the last nearly 20 yrs but can't quote chapter and verse nor even which paper without having to look it up. I do hope that Toots is genuinely interested in arriving at an evidence informed conclusion and that the time you are giving is well spent.chew8 wrote:I must hasten to say that I don't follow research as closely as I tried to do when I was writing the Research Digest for the RRF newsletter. In those days I used to make regular visits to the London Institute of Education library and trawl through various academic journals. I had no research qualifications of my own, however, so my reading of research was that of a lay person with the kind of careful reading habits inculcated by studying for university degrees in English and then teaching English to Advanced Level for many years.Kiki wrote:And Jenny really is the person to listen to in regards to interpreting research as she has a very wide and deep knowledge of the subject and keeps abreast of all the research and the arguments.
I am in the process of trying to re-read various things in order to respond to Toots, but it's very time-consuming and I don't think it will be possible to cover everything.
If the implication is that your own interpretations are the only ones you will trust, Toots, perhaps I'm wasting my time in doing the sort of re-reading I've been trying to do in order to clarify things in a way that might satisfy both you and me.Toots wrote:And it is to be hoped that you know the difference between a trusted interpretation and an evidence-informed conclusion
That was my concern Jennychew8 wrote: If the implication is that your own interpretations are the only ones you will trust, Toots, perhaps I'm wasting my time in doing the sort of re-reading I've been trying to do in order to clarify things in a way that might satisfy both you and me.
Did you buy the book? I saw that the cheap copy went, so hope you did.Toots wrote: If you feel my remarks on the Stanovich article are not justified why not explain why and point me to where, in the article, Stanovich proves your belief (or even asserts it)? If you know of other material which you believe proves that the use of context is 'a bad thing' why not point me in that direction?