Outstanding overview addresses nonsense in Davis's paper

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

User avatar
Debbie Hepplewhite
Administrator
Posts: 3660
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Outstanding overview addresses nonsense in Davis's paper

Post by Debbie Hepplewhite » Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:07 pm

Papermover - You're very welcome indeed!

Jenny - thank you for that offer - I'll do my best to see if I can suggest a school reasonably local to you. :grin:

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

Re: Outstanding overview addresses nonsense in Davis's paper

Post by maizie » Tue Feb 04, 2014 4:01 pm

Interesting blog from Dan Willingham on the use of data

http://thewingtoheaven.wordpress.com/20 ... -d-hirsch/

In which he recommends this essay by Hirsch, which I think has a bearing on Davis's contentions about classroom research

http://www.hoover.org/publications/poli ... ticle/7262

Willingham says:
Hirsch notes that we do have a strong theory from cognitive science about how pupils learn. We can use this theory to guide our teaching. He argues that we can use the first principles of cognitive science to derive certain ‘middle axioms’ or ‘reliable general principles’ that can guide our day-to-day teaching. Here is his list of reliable general principles (in the article he discusses each at length).

• Prior knowledge as a prerequisite to effective learning.
• Meaningfulness.
• The right mix of generalization and example.
• Attention determines learning.
• Rehearsal (repetition) is usually necessary for retention.
• Automaticity (through rehearsal) is essential to higher skills.
• Implicit instruction of beginners is usually less effective.

It seems to me this is an excellent and easily accessible summary of what we know from cognitive science. If we used these as a basis for devising RCTs and as a starting point for discussing the findings we get from them, I think we would be doing well.

This summarises Hirsch's conclusion but the whole essay is worth reading

geraldinecarter
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Outstanding overview addresses nonsense in Davis's paper

Post by geraldinecarter » Tue Feb 04, 2014 6:36 pm

Thanks Maizie - I'd by-passed this tho I usually read Daisy Christodoulou's blogs. It may be that working with one specific SP approach for the past 7 yrs I see things through their prism but :
• Prior knowledge as a prerequisite to effective learning.
• Meaningfulness.
• The right mix of generalization and example.
• Attention determines learning.
• Rehearsal (repetition) is usually necessary for retention.
• Automaticity (through rehearsal) is essential to higher skills.
• Implicit instruction of beginners is usually less effective.
almost exactly describes why BRI is so effective. There is implicit instruction in the books - and it's rigorous - but it's very contained.
I'm also trying to explore the question of story context and learning (no NOT in a Whole Language way!!!)

JIM CURRAN
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:18 am

Re: Outstanding overview addresses nonsense in Davis's paper

Post by JIM CURRAN » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:05 pm

Reading lessons: why synthetic phonics doesn't work
As World Book Day approaches, academic Andrew Davis argues that the synthetic phonics check isn't an appropriate way to teach or assess reading among primary students

http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-netw ... d-book-day

User avatar
Susan Godsland
Administrator
Posts: 4973
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:10 pm
Location: Exeter UK
Contact:

Re: Outstanding overview addresses nonsense in Davis's paper

Post by Susan Godsland » Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:44 pm

John Walker responds: Andrew Davis's philosophical phonics fantasy

http://literacyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... onics.html

chew8
Posts: 4184
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Outstanding overview addresses nonsense in Davis's paper

Post by chew8 » Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:58 pm

Good blog - thanks, John.

It seems that the scope for mispronunciations of the 'blow' type has been minimal in the phonics check so far - there aren't nearly enough such words to cause a good decoder to fall short of the threshold mark.

Jenny C.

john walker
Posts: 369
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:46 am
Location: Buckingham
Contact:

Re: Outstanding overview addresses nonsense in Davis's paper

Post by john walker » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:41 pm

Thanks, Jenny.
On the mispronunciations of the 'blow' type, I'm sure you're right. I could have done with asking you before I finished the point. It would be interesting to know how often children do lose a mark for real words such as these.
John
John Walker
Sounds-Write
www.sounds-write.co.uk
http://literacyblog.blogspot.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 91 guests