There was a little passage doing the rounds on Facebook a couple of years ago. It went like this.
i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it.
I don’t think I have met anyone who has not been able to read this almost as quickly as if it had been written with the correct spellings all the way through. It concludes with the notion that “I always thought spelling was important!” But clearly that is not the case, well not once you have mastered the main strategies of reading. This research from Cambridge University certainly indicates that letter order is not as significant as some might like to think, if indeed it did take place at Cambridge University because a recent article that I found implied that it might not have done so.
http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/Cmabrigde/
However, in the above link, despite the academic suggesting that this meme does not work in all situations, there is a valid point that words do not have to be in a given order in order to give meaning to the reader.
Matt Davis cited a few sentences that proves another point in the skills of learning to read.
2) Big ccunoil tax ineesacrs tihs yaer hvae seezueqd the inmcoes of mnay pneosenirs
He suggests that these sentences get progressively more difficult. Why? Because they are not using simple, everyday language which implies that certain words need meaning or understanding to decipher their ‘code’. Take the word “seezueqd” in the second sentence. When I was reading this word, I had to read the rest of the sentence to decipher the anagram in front of me. The same applied to the word “magltheuansr” in the third sentence. It needed me to decipher the word “deid” “durg” and “blender” in order to realise that the missing word was “manslaughter”.
Guess what folks? This is exactly the way children learn to read; deciphering meaning.
They also learn a few key words that become familiar by default due to their frequency. Some bright spark, during the development of the National Literacy programme called these words “frequency words”. Original eh?
And they also learn by looking at a whole word rather than breaking it up into counterparts. And they learn these words.
http://www.highfrequencywords.org/first-100-high-frequency-word-list-precursive.html
They also learn the shape of words through memory and familiarisation so that they can see a physical linear pattern developing. The cursive up and down of the sentence provides meaning for them in conjunction with what they have learned about the shape of the letters, the familiarisation of words and the meaning of the sentence as a whole (to fill in the missing unknowns).
They also learn to read by breaking words down into sounds. Small children can begin to read simple CVC (consonant, vowel, consonant) words for themselves such as c-a-t, or h-o-t. Or s-e-x. Yes, children of a very young age somehow manage to spell that word perfectly well, often before they can even spell their own name.
And so it goes on. Children and indeed adults who are learning to read for the first time use all manner of approaches to this learning which may or may not include phonics, meaning, grapheme, memory, pattern etcetera, etcetera.
Let us return to the original passage of “if you can raed tihs”. It works in this simple form where there are not indecipherable words. You can read this, and read it very successfully without having the letters in the correct order. So, I ask myself, where precisely does phonics fit in with the reading of this text? Can you actually apply phonics to such reading and furthermore, if you were to give this text to a seven year old who has only learned to read through, oh I don’t know – let’s say synthetic phonics for instance, would they be able to determine the meaning of the consecutive words in that passage or would they be completely flummoxed or should I say fxmemluod or should I say flummucsd – the phonetic version?
Perhaps I ought to send this little passage to Mr Gove or Mr Guv has he may need to be phonetically known as. I wonder what he would make of it.
As with most things in life, there is no easy response or solution to a difficult scenario. If you choose to do something one way you may be ruling out help from other sources. This is exactly the way it is with learning to read. There is no ‘one way’. Individuals learn in different ways. My own children are a classic example. One child did learn to read with a heavier emphasis on phonics because that was the way he was. The other used meaning as his primary source but clearly developed his use of phonetics and word building as he came across words that he was unfamiliar with, and let us just remind ourselves that the English Language is not an automatic bedfellow with phonics. There are many, many thousands of words in English that do not adhere to a straightforward phonetic structure.
Which is why it is complete and utter contemptible madness to structure an entire mode of learning on one single method, which is precisely what the government, together with the likes of Ruth Miskin is trying to do. It cannot and will not work, and according to recent articles in the newspaper, there is insufficient evidence to thrust so much value behind this one method of learning to read.
I taught a child once who had learned phonetically to the detriment of all other learning strategies. She came from a very traditional background where her father coached her before she had entered the school gates. On first appearance her reading was brilliant, as was her computational skills. But when you asked her about the books that she was reading, when you asked her to tell you something about the subject matter, the meaning of the words, whether she could predict what was going to happen next in the story, she hadn’t got a clue. The reason for this was that she was totally controlled in her reading by the phonetic structure. All she was doing was functionally going through the text, not taking on board anything to do with the meaning of what she was reading.
It was a tragedy that I sought to put right.
The government now wants to introduce phonic tests for children at the end of Year One to identify which ones need additional support with their reading.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jul/04/national-phonics-test-primary-pupils
What the ****? If I was teaching a group of Year One children, which indeed I have, and it took me to the end of the year by means of an imposed test of forty words to discover that there were certain children within my class that needed additional reading support, I’d hand in my resignation immediately. I would want shooting if I had allowed one single child to slip through unnoticed in this way, and that is before you even get onto to the whole subject of teaching reading purely through synthetic phonics, robbing children of the utter delight of real books that they can share enthusiastically with their parents, developing a love of reading for its own sake rather than a mechanism for finding facts or reading labels or instructions.
This test is an absolute nightmare. It is a total waste of time, if people are doing their job properly, i.e. that they are listening to children read regularly, that they are opening all strategies of reading learning to their pupils, that they are regularly tracking their progress without keeping ‘score’, that they are giving them a wealth of opportunities to demonstrate their reading, that they are giving them a wealth of opportunities to transfer their reading skills to writing. A single, bloody useless test is not going to make a difference.
Now, if, within a special needs department, there is a test such as this that is used as a diagnostic tool, or to determine whether a class teacher was correct in referring a child for additional support, then that is a different matter altogether. As a Special Needs co-ordinator, I might find such a test a useful tool but only as part of a package of diagnoses. I would still use other things to try and ascertain the best method of support for a child in such circumstances like picture impetus, like trying to ascertain whether they can recognise a cursive style of writing, like looking at some “frequency” words to see if they have any idea what they are – ad infinitum of diagnostic tools until I got to the bottom of the child’s learning difficulty.
There is never just one solution and this test would not tell me anything that I did not already know.
The government have even had the audacity to cite professors of education and their research to back up their claims that this test is required.
See their responses in the following clip.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jul/05/children-need-more-than-phonics
But if you don’t want to read it, let me paraphrase by saying that these professors have been mis-cited. Their work has been taken out of context for the political whim of a man who has NO IDEA how to teach reading, or for that matter any other subject judging by his views on the teaching of history and English Literature for instance.
Even those academics who believe in the positive possibilities of synthetic phonics have a problem with this testing approach.
“What the research evidence shows is that systematic phonics teaching within a broad and rich language curriculum enables children on average to make better progress in reading words than unsystematic or no phonics teaching.
There is not yet enough research evidence to show that synthetic phonics is superior to other phonics approaches, though both theory and classroom experience suggest this.”
This is from a supporter of synthetic phonics, who I actually disagree with because of the things that I have already stated. However, each to his own, and if he continues with his research, then maybe he may come to a different view. However, he clearly advocates that phonics is just one aspect of learning to read, not – to coin a phrase – the be all and end all of learning how to read.
The government are wrong, plain wrong in all sorts of ways. Please note, I am actually still talking about the teaching of reading but interpret the previous sentence as broadly as you wish. (See, meaning requires context; something that no amount of phonics is going to provide).
It seems that I am not alone in this conclusion.
As reported in the Guardian this week, there is a group of MPs that has suggested that phonics learning and this stupid test is going to de-motivate children and even prevent them from picking up books for the enjoyment of the fabulous stories that are out there for them to read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jul/07/report-phonics-children-reading-test
MPs have criticised government plans to test pupils on their reading ability at the age of six, warning that it will put children off reading for pleasure.
The report criticises the government's focus on phonics – in which children learn individual sounds and then blend them to read words – as a "mechanical" approach and warns that it will contribute to a decline in literacy.
Fabian Hamilton, who chairs the MPs' group, said: "If there is a central theme to this, that is, reading must be a pleasure. Of course children need the tools to understand what sounds the symbols make, and what those sounds mean. Phonics is only one way of doing it, there are others."
The rest of the article talks about the “whole word” approach to reading and the combination of reading strategies that most teachers employ. Schools minister Nick Gibb hold the didactic message that synthetic phonics is the only way and that this strategy is the only way to open up a lifelong love of learning.
Believe me Nick, you will have turned many a child off through unnatural, imposed and even made-up words of synthetic phonics before they ever get a chance of becoming familiar with the great authors of the day.
This is a tragedy; a real tragedy and it is time for teachers once more to stand up and fight for what they know is right, i.e. that reading cannot be taught in one way for all, and that the emphasis on phonics is jsut palin dfat.
No comments:
Post a Comment