An example from the Reading Recovery Council of North America's website:
http://readingrecovery.org/reading-reco ... ng/phonicsExamples of Instructional Procedures
Using magnetic letters, children learn quick and flexible recognition of letters; they also learn how to take words apart using phonological and orthographic knowledge.
When reading continuous text, children learn to take words apart ‘on the run.’
In writing, children learn to hear the sounds in words and represent them with letters or letter clusters.
Children work with letters and related sounds (e.g., making personalized alphabet books to link sounds and letters).
Reassembling a cut-up sentence requires children to think about sounds in words as they place the words in order; the teacher segments words to focus on what a child needs to learn next.
During oral reading of texts, children learn to use phonological and orthographic information to monitor their reading and to decode unfamiliar words; they learn to ‘take words apart’ on the run while reading texts.
Yet in this very recent blog post (dated 5th Oct 2014) it is clear that Reading Recovery teachers and trainers really don't quite understand the purpose of phonic knowledge and skills
Andrea Sherratt: Reading Recovery/ECaR Teacher Leader describes a training session she has recently attended on 'Comprehension'
In the last paragraph she has this to say:
It seems from this that the RR teacher is seriously expecting the child to be able to work out the meaning of an unfamiliar word by the process of sounding it out and is saying that sounding out is not an effective strategy for this. Which is quite true; while sounding out and blending may well produce a word with which a child is familiar in their receptive or expressive vocabulary, and thus lead to knowing its meaning, as far as I am aware no phonics proponent would ever expect a child to know the meaning of a word unfamiliar to them in both its written form and meaning. Yet no-one who fully understands the purpose of phonics (i.e to be able to identify what a word 'says' before attending to meaning) would, as suggested by this RR trainer, actively discourage a child from sounding out and blending a word in favour of a range of other strategies focussed on working out its meaning. There is serious confusion of the skills of word identification and meaning identification apparent in this 'advice'. It demonstrates that RR is still, despite the lip service paid to phonics, giving priority to 'making meaning' over promoting automatic word identification by the practising of phonic knowledge and skills.Give children a ‘toolkit’ of strategies
Good readers have a range of, what Tony calls, ‘breakdown strategies’. A toolkit of things to try if they detect their reading does not make sense. In my recent experience, when a child begins to struggle on particular words within text, their default strategy is to ‘sound it out’. This may not always be the most efficient or effective way of dealing with the obstacle and if we can equip children to have a ‘toolkit’ of strategies, they will have the flexibility to choose from a number of ways to repair the breakdown. E.g. re-read sentence/phrase to clarify, look back and identify key words to get meaning, think aloud and verbalise thoughts, make a rich picture in their mind.
Perhaps the last point in the 'Examples of Instructional Procedures' should really read :
In the course of googling for the RR take on phonics instruction I came across this:During oral reading of texts, children learn to use phonological and orthographic information to monitor their reading and to decode unfamiliar words; except when they don't know what the word means before they have sounded it out.
The comments are interesting.