Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j3E9qpG16213; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 05:52:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 05:52:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <022c01c540d7$4fbf4a90$0602a8c0@mesh> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "John Nissen" <jn@cloudworld.co.uk> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:4705] Re: Synthetic phonics a silver bullet? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 2947 Lines: 58 Hello Maureen, I think your analysis of failure is correct. That would explain the success shown in the Clackmannenshire study as compared to "conventional phonics" taught in other schools, where both the "whole word recognition" route and the "phonic decoding" route are tackled from the start. Research suggests that both routes are employed by experienced readers in parallel. However, in learning to read, starting with some whole words to recognise only confuses the learner. For example, the National Curriculum in UK contains lists of words to be recognised at various stages of reading, and many of the words for the first stage have irregular spellings (was, would, have, etc.). Essential to the Clackmannanshire approach was a quick start on phonics, starting with regular spellings, and learning to read within two terms as compared to two years expected in the National Literacy Strategy. Quick success must be a great motivator. And, as the learner's decoding speeds up, whole word recognition kicks in quite naturally. However, Maureen, I am not sure of the importance of bringing in the structure of the language at an early stage. When you learn an instrument, or learn to read music, you don't start with symphonies! Cheers, John P.S. concerning the "two routes": the research suggests that, after you look at a word, the brain has recognition processes working in parallel, and accepts the output from the path that first produces sufficient semantic connection to move onto the next word. One of the tests of this theory is to measure the disruption to reading when the text contains words that sound rite but are spelt wrong and mean something else. Another test is to measure the disruption from including words that are the right shape but mronq spelling. Fascinating stuff. I'm sorry I don't have any references. I read about this research a few years ago now, under neurolinguistics I think. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Maureen Carro" <mcarro@lmi.net> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 5:47 PM Subject: [NIFL-LD:4697] Re: Synthetic phonics a silver bullet? [snip] > What we cannot forget is that if a student cannot rapidly decode words, > they cannot comprehend what they are reading! If they cannot fluently > encode words, they cannot write in a way that they will be understood. > This is what leads to failure. Students with reading/writing problems > need explicit instruction in the structure of language. If they have some > information about six syllable types, prefixes, suffixes, and roots, > they will have a good start to fishing on their own! > Let's not "dis" synthetic phonics! It is a necessary piece which IS > typically left out of many early reading curricula. It may be a good > place to start with young children, but to truly "read" we need it all. It > IS a symphony!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:49 EST