Feedback on Phonic Check

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

Locked
geraldinecarter
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by geraldinecarter » 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.

yvonne meyer
Posts: 736
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:58 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by yvonne meyer » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:11 pm

KenM asked;
Toots, what do you mean by "sight word"?
I too would like to know what Toots means by "sight words''?

Toots says;
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.
This is the Whole Language philosophy of beginning reading.
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.
Quote below from Society for Quality Education,
LEARNING TO READ
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)
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.
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://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1988783/

yvonne meyer
Posts: 736
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 4:58 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by yvonne meyer » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:46 pm

It seems to me, from reading Toots' posts, that s/he picks snippets from scientific research, eg, Stanovich et al, to justify what is essentially his/her Whole Language belief.

Quote mining is ultimately pointless. The fact is that the consensus of the scientific community is that the most effective way to teach all children to read is direct, explicit, intensive and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, synthetic phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.

If Toots is not already familiar with this site, I recommend s/he reads 5 Big Ideas in Beginning Reading which lays out the process of teaching & learning beginning reading and is complete with references to the scientific literature.
Progression of Regular Word Reading

Sounding Out
(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
http://reading.uoregon.edu/

Toots

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by Toots » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:50 pm

By 'sight words' I mean words that are automatically recognised by the reader. To adopt the terminology in your extract regarding dual route theory words read through the lexical route. In these terms the use of context would go like this: the child encounters an unfamiliar word (therefore not accessible to the lexical route), which is irregular (therefore not accessible to the non-lexical route). Perhaps the word is 'choir'. However, because the child does know the spoken word 'choir' and what it means it becomes accessible through context. The written word may then be added to the lexicon of known words. Additionally grapheme/phoneme knowledge will be adjusted to accommodate the idea that 'ch' can spell /kw/. It is conceivable that this grapheme/phoneme correspondence is already known, but without the lexical information supplied by the context there is no sure way that the non-lexical route can secure accuracy of pronunciation, as there are alternative pronunciations for 'ch'.

I don't have a 'whole language belief'. 'Whole language' was really before my time.
Last edited by Toots on Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kiki
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:05 am

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by Kiki » Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:48 am

"You say that children use context and get the wrong answer and carry on using context, and that they come to depend on context. Why would that happen? A person wouldn't normally use a strategy that keeps failing, and they would depend less and less upon it if it kept failing them. "

They are not aware that the 'strategies' are failing them, at least not until it is to late. They particularly develop these strategies when reading books designed to encourage these strategies, where guessing is actually the EASIEST thing to do. The VAST MAJORITY of schools are stuffed to the rafters with such books and issue them to their learner readers every day. The guessing leads to the correct answer. But do they LEARN anything about the word they guessed from that process? No. Many teachers DO encourage these strategies and many WILL accept 'wrong word but similar meaning' guesses. By the time the pictures are gone and they are no longer expected to be learning to read but 'reading to learn' it is too late.

And how is a child reading on their own supposed to know if they have it right or not? If you listened without correcting to struggling young readers you would hear them make mistakes and if those mistakes altered the intended meaning they themselves would alter other words that they subsequently read correctly to match the wrong meaning they misread earlier! Most of the time they are not being listened to so when they are being listened to and given instruction don't you agree that is is critical that they are instructed in the skills they need to become independent readers?

Of course, as their skills advance, context will inform their decoding when selecting which phoneme is correct etc For example wind/wind (/i/ or /igh/). But it is a completely new word to them then they will be able to make a reasonable guess at how it is pronounced though it is primarily the phonics and not the context that will help in that situation (the context will inform the meaning). They won't be able to confirm pronunciation until they consult a dictionary or ask someone who knows the words.

I do think all of your questions have been answered especially regarding the pitfalls of guessing as a reading strategy. 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. None of us is interested in promoting a particular method per se, we consider and question and follow the evidence.

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

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by kenm » Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:09 am

Toots wrote:By 'sight words' I mean words that are automatically recognised by the reader. ...
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.
"... 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

chew8
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by chew8 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:39 am

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 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.

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.

Jenny C.

Toots

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by Toots » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:19 am

Just to set the record straight here.

Yvonne Meyer said: "S/he picks snippets from scientific research ....". This is not the case.

I read the Stanovich article originally because it was recommended either on here or on the TES forum by a proponent of SP. It was clear that this person believed that the article proved that the use of context in reading unfamiliar words was 'a bad thing'. But when I read the article I found that it did not prove this.

That does not constitute cherry-picking research on my part.

An argument that says,"I know what's right cos I've read more" doesn't wash if you get the reading wrong.

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?
Last edited by Toots on Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kiki
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:05 am

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by Kiki » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:25 am

chew8 wrote:
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 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.

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.

Jenny C.
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.

Toots

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by Toots » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:44 am

And it is to be hoped that you know the difference between a trusted interpretation and an evidence-informed conclusion.

chew8
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by chew8 » Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:02 am

Toots wrote:And it is to be hoped that you know the difference between a trusted interpretation and an evidence-informed conclusion
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.

Jenny C.

Toots

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by Toots » Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:14 am

I'm not implying anything. Any interpretation is different in quality from an evidence-based conclusion. Where there is documented evidence there is no need for trust. It is important to know the difference. Wouldn't you agree?

Kiki
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:05 am

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by Kiki » Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:53 am

I am beginning to think (actually, long since thinking) that 'Toots' is short for the American candy 'Tootsie Roll' :cool:

Kiki
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:05 am

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by Kiki » Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:56 am

chew8 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.

Jenny C.
That was my concern Jenny

Kiki
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:05 am

Re: Feedback on Phonic Check

Post by Kiki » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:00 pm

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?
Did you buy the book? I saw that the cheap copy went, so hope you did.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests