Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

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

anicka
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:16 am
Contact:

Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by anicka » Wed Oct 15, 2014 3:27 am

I am looking for a scope and sequence for the teaching of SP. What is taught in Reception, Year 1 and Year 2?
Is the one below suitable? It does seem rather slow to me considering Jolly Phonics introduces all 42 sounds at the pace of about one a day.

http://www.getreadingright.co.uk/wp-con ... quence.pdf

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Many thanks
Last edited by anicka on Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by maizie » Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:56 pm

I think it's terrible, anicka, and I'm not even Early Years!

1) It takes more than a year to teach the 44(ish) sounds. Which will hold back children's reading and writing as they won't have the full range of sounds available to them

2) It teaches alternative spellings of sounds when it should be focussing initially on one way to represent each sound.

It looks like Diane McGuinness's 'Junk Phonics' :sad:


I'm hopeful that now I have said something others will come along and give their views!


What about Debbie's Phonics International sequence? Or Jolly Phonics? Or any of the good UK SP programmes that have such information on their web sites?

anicka
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:16 am
Contact:

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by anicka » Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:08 am

Thanks so much for your reply Maizie. I totally agree.

The problem that I constantly encounter here in Oz is that the idea of teaching all 42+ sounds in a year, let alone 16 weeks as in the Clackmannanshire study, sends some teachers into hysterics and crying fits. Seriously. They think it is too fast for the children and the digraphs are too complex. Then they totally reject the idea of synthetic phonics.

Apart from the Clack study I could not find any research or statements about the pace of the program or even a scope and sequence.
Last edited by anicka on Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by Kiki » Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:35 pm

Sometimes understandably nervous teachers are persuaded when then learn that many SP programmes were developed in very socially-economically deprived schools, often with traditionally high levels of special needs, EAL etc

Some programmes advocate a slower pace but I would be nervous about anything less that 3 a week. The problem with moving too slowly is that it can (contrary to some's instincts) cause real difficulties for less able pupils as well as holding more able ones back. The problem for less able pupils is that if you go too slowly you don't allow them to start using and applying their new knowledge and skills quickly enough for them to move from abstract concept to concrete knowledge with meaning. It can become very difficult for them to retain what has been taught long enough to be able to use it with the next bit you teach. There is also considerable evidence that the more we engage (even struggle) with new knowledge (ie try and use and apply it) that the better we learn it (long term).

Inexperienced (with phonics) teachers can also forget that you are building (scaffolding) up knowledge and skill sequentially and systematically from the simple code through to the complex - sometimes teachers just see the whole overview, not used to seeing it all laid out that way, worry that it is too, much, too complicated etc. If you looked at the whole of a maths curriculum and were not confident in your own knowledge you might be similarly daunted until you were reassured that it built progressively from very easy basic beginnings.

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

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by maizie » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:02 pm

Kiki wrote:Some programmes advocate a slower pace but I would be nervous about anything less that 3 a week.
The problem with the example anicka gave us was not only that the pace was funereal but also that there was absolutely no logic to the sequence of graphemes being taught!

How about the project using Direct Instruction in aboriginal schools, anicka (sorry, its name eludes me). I understand it is being successful. Do you have any results from that to use as an example? Though I don't know what their phonics curriculum looks like. Do you?

Perhaps Yvonne Meyer might be able to tell us more about it.

I'm not aware of any research into the scope & sequence of SP programmes. Good observational studies showing success of SP would be Dr Grant's study (linked on the Articles page of the RRF website) and the Sounds~Write data (2008 Research Report) http://www.sounds-write.co.uk/pdf-downloads.aspx

JIM CURRAN
Posts: 3186
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:18 am

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by JIM CURRAN » Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:04 pm

I'm retired now but for my last 20 years plus of an almost 40 years teaching career I ran a Unit at an all boys secondary school for children who had mild or moderate learning difficulties
There were children coming to us with reading ages of six,time was of the essence and we taught the Code in one term with outstanding results.We were one of only two Secondary schools in Northern Ireland recognized by the Eti our version of Ofsted for the excellence of our approach to teaching older poor readers.

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

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by Kiki » Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:12 pm

Hi maizie,

I was simply responding to your concern:
maizie wrote: 1) It takes more than a year to teach the 44(ish) sounds. Which will hold back children's reading and writing as they won't have the full range of sounds available to them
Which anika picked up on and echoed as an issue
anicka wrote: The problem that I constantly encounter here in Oz is that the idea of teaching all 42+ sounds in a year, let alone 16 weeks as in the Clackmannanshire study, sends some teachers into hysterics and crying fits. Seriously. They think it is too fast for the children and the digraphs are too complex. They they totally reject the idea of synthetic phonics.
This reaction is consistent with my experience so I thought I'd share what I have explained to trainees which has helped.

And while Jim is quite right that the fast pace means that you can have a dramatic impact in a short time when necessary, I was going to come back to say that *speed* is absolutely *not* why what some might think a fast pace is advocated. It is all about an optimum *learning* pace

anicka
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:16 am
Contact:

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by anicka » Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:48 am

maizie wrote:
The problem with the example anicka gave us was not only that the pace was funereal but also that there was absolutely no logic to the sequence of graphemes being taught!

How about the project using Direct Instruction in aboriginal schools, anicka (sorry, its name eludes me). I understand it is being successful. Do you have any results from that to use as an example? Though I don't know what their phonics curriculum looks like. Do you?

Perhaps Yvonne Meyer might be able to tell us more about it.

I'm not aware of any research into the scope & sequence of SP programmes. Good observational studies showing success of SP would be Dr Grant's study (linked on the Articles page of the RRF website) and the Sounds~Write data (2008 Research Report) http://www.sounds-write.co.uk/pdf-downloads.aspx
Thanks for the link. I will check it out today.

As far as Direct Instruction goes, here in Oz it would be the kiss of death to suggest it, despite the great success in the Northern Territory. DI has been highly effective but the prescriptive nature of it doesn't go down well.

Thanks for your input everyone. I've been retired for a few years and out of the SP loop. The other day someone got in touch and wanted a scope and sequence. I thought that things might have changed when saw the one above. Clearly they haven't so I can make recommendations based on what I know from the past.

User avatar
Debbie Hepplewhite
Administrator
Posts: 3654
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by Debbie Hepplewhite » Fri Oct 17, 2014 3:14 am

See page 3 for the order in Phonics International - the 'simple code' stage actually includes more than one spelling alternative for quite a few of the sounds. I have found this works extremely well:

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/Bri ... tshell.pdf

In general terms I suggest introducing one letter/s-sound correspondence every other day - but teach phonics every day.

The full teaching and learning cycle, however, includes code/word/sentence or text level activities for reading, spelling and writing - and building up spelling word banks - especially in the second half of the Phonics International programme.

Bear in mind that even at a pace of two focus letter/s-sound correspondences per week, that is still over 60 per year for four to five year olds and five to six year olds.

I promote 'keeping up' and not 'catching up' - and extending the faster to learn children.

I also promote 'two-pronged systematic and incidental phonics teaching' which enables lots of differentiation for children (any code can be taught at any time as appropriate) and easy integration into the wider curriculum:

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/Deb ... andout.pdf

anicka
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:16 am
Contact:

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by anicka » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:56 pm

Thanks Debbie for your reply. I am familiar with your website and all of the excellent advice on it. I was showing your Alphabetic Code to a group of teachers the other day to explain the terms 'simple' and 'complex' code.
Floppy's Phonics is now available here too from Oxford University Press. All very exciting. Phonics has been in the news here after a review of our new National Curriculum found that there was not enough emphasis on it in the early years. Nine years after the National Inquiry into the teaching of Literacy(2005) people still have very little idea about what systematic phonics is.

Perhaps there are no scope and sequence charts needed in the UK because the phases in Letter and Sounds are already linked to Years/Grades?

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

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by chew8 » Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:56 am

anicka wrote:Perhaps there are no scope and sequence charts needed in the UK because the phases in Letter and Sounds are already linked to Years/Grades?
There's also the fact that the phonics screening check specifies what should have been covered by the end of Year 1.

Jenny C.

Elizabeth
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:47 pm

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by Elizabeth » Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:03 pm

I've come across the term, "Scope and Sequence" when working abroad, but it's not a term used much in the UK.
Elizabeth

Elizabeth
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:47 pm

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by Elizabeth » Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:25 pm

Debbie has explained Phonics International's scope and sequence and it is easy to see online.

Jolly Phonics covers one way of spelling each sound as well as c, k, ck, x, qu and ue (as /yoo/) in the first nine weeks and in the rest of the first year it covers the most common vowel spellings (e.g. ai, ay, a-e). It also covers common words with spellings that are not included in those (called, "tricky words"). If a school goes on to use Jolly Grammar for the second year, most of the "scope" is the same as in Jolly Phonics, with a very few more "tricky words". However, there is more emphasis on accurate spelling in Jolly Grammar.

Letters and Sounds covers one way of spelling each sound in the first term and a half approximately, followed by consolidation (especially practising blending consonants). It also includes c, k, ck, qu, x and what it calls "tricky words" with the same meaning as Jolly Phonics "tricky words" in the first year. Common alternative spellings are introduced in the second year (Year 1). There are a lot of them, all to be taught systematically.

So Jolly Phonics goes at a much faster pace than Letters and Sounds in the first year, but spends more time on consolidation afterwards, through Jolly Grammar.

Phonics International goes more slowly, with more time for consolidation from the start, but ends up in approximately the same place within the first year and a half.

Sound Discovery is similar to both, except that there is a big section for consolidation and practice of blending consonants before introducing spellings that have two letters for one sound (digraphs).

The Sound Reading System introduces the alphabet letters, then the digraphs alongside common alternative spellings (e.g. ‘oa’, ‘o’ as in no, ‘o-e’, etc.) and later more alternative spellings. Instead of "tricky words", it teaches those words alongside the other spellings for the sounds, e.g, 'could', 'would', 'should' alongside 'look', 'stood', 'foot' etc. I know the Sound Reading System as an intervention for older pupils, so I do not know the details of the pace for beginning readers of around five years old.

I could go on. I am a little concerned that I am doing all of this from memory and in my own words, so I apologise to the programme authors if I have got any of it wrong.

I understand Sounds-Write is similar to the Sound Reading System, but I am not as familiar with it.

I suspect Sounds Together is similar, but I don’t know.

Read Write Inc. is similar again.

The main differences between them (as far as scope and sequence go) are in the details of which common correspondences are introduced first (e.g., Read Write Inc introduces ‘ay’ before ‘ai’, while others introduce ‘ai’ first), when they pause to consolidate and when and in what order they introduce common words with unusual correspondences (tricky words, etc.).

If you want an overview of the scope and sequence for synthetic phonics, you could say something along these lines:

All synthetic phonics programmes
• cover 42 + sounds at a fast pace followed by, or alongside, common alternative spellings for the sounds,
• teach the skills of blending sounds to read words, and identifying the sounds in spoken words to spell from the start,
• teach common words with unusual letter-sound correspondences (e.g. ‘to’), focussing on the letter-sound correspondences in the words, and do not include high frequency words (common words) for children to memorise without phonics,
• revise and revise by asking children to read and write words using all the correspondences that have been taught
• develop fluent reading by asking children to read texts with letter-sound correspondences they have learned (so that they learn to read common words “by sight” through repetition based on phonics)
• cover all of this, beginning with children of around five years old, in less than two years.

It would be useful for me to hear if anyone who knows about synthetic phonics thinks any of this is wrong.
Last edited by Elizabeth on Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Elizabeth

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

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by yvonne meyer » Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:57 pm

Hi Anicka,

Yes, Direct Instruction is the kiss of death here in Australia. As Kerry Hempenstall says, "most teachers don't know what DI is, but they know it's bad".

However, it should be possible to slip in "Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons" which doesn't have DI in its title. 100 Easy Lessons is a cut-down version of DI's 'Reading Mastery' developed for parents to use at home. It costs about $30.00, can be ordered through Amazon or your local bookstore, and is supported by its own website.

The Spalding Method teaches all 75 of its 'phonograms' (starting simple and finishing with the 6 most common sounds of 'ough') in the first 2 terms of the first year of formal schooling (20 minutes a day, every day, about 20-30 hours of instruction in total). Romalda Spalding's book, "The Writing Road to Reading" can be bought on-line. Robyn Grace, retired Victorian Primary teacher/Principal now runs the Spalding centre in Australia. I don't have the contact details but Google will find it. I'm sure Robyn has a lot of information about synthetic phonics and how to deal with reluctant teachers.

Echoing what was posted by others, the reason teachers insist that children can't learn phonics at the speed that is required for the program to be effective is that they can't teach it. The just published review of the National Curriculum makes the point that out teachers received Whole Language/constructivist instruction when they were at school and can't teach what they themselves don't know.

I would point out to anyone who gets defensive about synthetic phonics that it will be required once the revised National Curriculum is published, most likely in 2016.

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

Re: Help needed with scope and sequence of SP

Post by FEtutor » Mon Oct 20, 2014 7:51 am

Can I propose to moderators that Elizabeth's last message is saved as a classic post?

Also should at least one of the pinned opening subjects on the board be moved elsewhere - at a quick glance it might seem there's no new activity.
Joan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests