Abi Steel: Eliminate these three top phonics myths from your mind

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Abigail Steel provides good explanations of three top phonics myths:

Eliminate These Top Three Phonics Myths From Your Mind

http://www.blackberryphonicstraining.co ... =hootsuite

1) Phonics kills the love of reading

2) Phonics is only for infants

3) Phonics doesn't work for all children

Teachers and parents may find this interesting and relevant.

[Dick Schutz]

It's too bad Abi didn't lead off with the last paragraph of her blog--which is the slayer of all three of the myths she is trying to dispel. Actually, if "Phonics" is poorly taught, it can turn kids off on reading. Of course, there is no reason or justification for mal-instruction, and if a child isn't taught how to handle the Alphabetic Code, there is slim chance kiddo will "love reading."

Myth 2 is also a bit out of whack. A child who can read all 40 items on the "Phonics Reading Check" does not require any additional instruction in reading, per se. This instructional accomplishment is being reliably achieved in some schools today by the end of Yr 1 or Yr 2, and there is no reason it can't be done schools. Certainly, kids will later encounter words in text that they aren't sure how to pronounce (expert readers encounter such words all the time), and there will be words they "can't spell" (ditto for expert readers). Also certainly, if a child can't pass the Check (whatever the individual's age) the school should "stick with it until they get it right.

Stringing "phonics instruction" out after a child can "pass the Check" is what can "kill the love of reading. A child who is "otherwise normal" who can't pass the Check by the end of Yr 2 has been inadvertently subjected to three years of mal-instruction. Since schools in general attribute all instructional deficiencies to the children or their parents rather than to instruction, it's true that "Phonics hasn't worked" for these kids. But anyone who makes such a statement needs a dose of something other than "Phonics."

Dispelling myths is almost as tough an endeavor as eliminating evil. As soon as you whack one, another springs up.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

Hi Dick, you said:

A child who can read all 40 items on the "Phonics Reading Check" does not require any additional instruction in reading, per se.

I'm afraid I cannot entirely agree with you regarding your comment above, although you may well be right that children reading all 40 items are well on their way to being competent readers for life.

I know of a Reception teacher (teacher of four to five year olds) who routinely uses the Year One Phonics Screening Check (for the five to six year olds) with her Reception class.

Two-thirds of her class reach or exceed the 32 out of 40 benchmark for the check.

It could be that these Reception children are so well-taught with regard to the alphabetic code and blending skill that they, too, arguably, may not need further phonics teaching for reading.

Or it could be that the check itself is not that challenging considering the complexities of the English alphabetic code.

Or it could be both.

Or it could be that without a more comprehensive knowledge of the letter/s-sound correspondences of the English alphabetic code that too many of the children will stall out with more challenging words or will resort to 'guessing' the words which include code they don't know - especially within words that are not in their existing vocabularies - or 'skipping' the words entirely when reading silently when they don't know the words already.

In any event, teachers should be teaching the alphabetic code not only for reading but also for spelling. Some people think, me included, that the value of teaching phonics for spelling goes on for much longer even when children are to all intents and purposes now proficient readers. My version of 'phonics for spelling' includes an emphasis on 'spelling word banks' where words with the same letter/s-sound correspondences are glued together with the design of resources and activities.

[Dick Schutz]

I join you in not agreeing "entirely" with what I said, and I don't "entirely" disagree with anything you said. But I stand by the statement as a " teaching principle"--a reliable rule of thumb-- or as a "Phonics Instructional Check." There are indeed "tricky children" or "exception children" who will later "go bad" or not self-teach to build on the reading capability they have acquired. These are little kids and they are "tender readers" who have oodles left to learn and need watchful attention and wise guidance in their subsequent schooling. That's what schools and teachers get paid to do.

The benefits of using the rule of thumb far outweigh the liability of stringing "reading instruction" out through the schooling period. Littlies aren't yet very adept meta-cognitively. A child knows when s/he "can read" and other kids know, but if they're told "you still need more phonics" it's a dissonant message that is counterproductive.

The "Anglo" view is that schools should aim to teach children to "love reading." The "French" view is that the aim should be to teach children to become independent, recognizing that teaching kids how to read fundamentally contributes to the broader aim. Whichever view, the earlier a child is told, "You can read!" the better.

The reading/spelling matter is a horse of a slightly different color--a part of which I don't understand: I don't understand how one can say "spelling is the reverse of reading" and at the same time say "Phonics" should be taught to enable kids to spell after they have been taught how to read. The one-and-the-same English Alphabetic Code applies to spelling and to reading "reversely" and "irreversibly." [I had to look up the spelling of "irreversibly." I'm sure there are "Phonics rules" I should have been applying, and I could easily read the word both before-and-after I keyed it.] That's the beauty of the Code, but the marvel is overlooked in the view that reading/spelling are reversible.

My quandary [another word I initially misspelled] is personal and I'd appreciate help from anyone to straighten me out, but it has wide-ranging instructional ramifications.

[Debbie_Hepplewhite]

There's no way to get round the fact that English spelling requires a great deal of specific knowledge about specific spellings for specific words. It's a bit of a quagmire.

But, there are ways to increase the likelihood of learners paying attention to the way that words are spelt and therefore to improve their spelling potential.

One way is to introduce the alphabetic code organised around the sounds generally identifiable in English speech which is considered to be around 44 or so dependent on accent and interpretation. Then, to organise the introduction of the alphabetic code based on sounds and the letters and letter groups that are code for those sounds. As Professor Diane McGuinness points out, the sounds come to an end-point whereas the spelling alternatives (letters and letter groups) go on and on in the English language. As you will be aware, Dick, this is what led me to produce various free printable Alphabetic Code Charts for different users and purposes:

See: www.alphabeticcodecharts.com

Specific high-frequency words with unusual spellings need to be high-profiled in a sensible, drip-drip manner, and words with the same spelling alternatives can be grouped together to glue the word bank in memory through word lists, spelling stories, various activities and so on. This type of activity can go on longer than simply introducing the code for reading purposes.

You are not the only one to express concern about phonics instruction dragging on and on - but surely it depends on whether the content and activities are age-appropriate and whether they increase learners vocabulary, associated language comprehension and spelling knowledge and potential?

[Dick Schutz]

"Spelling" in the digital age of the Internet is not what it once was. For one thing, the ubiquity of "SpellCheck" makes it effortless to "look up" words that you don't know how to spell. Moreover "the little person inside the device" will catch your spelling errors for you and flag the eror by underscoring it in red. Another thing, kids are txting using emoticons to communicate , more often than they're engaging in formal composition. "Spelling" instruction is headed the same place as instruction in calculating square roots is.

Again, I don't have any disagreement with anything you say in your last comment. You ask surely it depends on whether the content and activities are age-appropriate and whether they increase learners vocabulary, associated language comprehension and spelling knowledge and potential? I sure can't argue with that. I'm just questioning the advisability of calling the additional spelling instruction "Phonics."

Incidentally, you've dodged the matter of "reversibility," other than acknowledging that there are differences. Not complainen, just sayen.