Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

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

Anna
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:43 pm
Location: Herts

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by Anna » Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:24 pm

Sorry, I meant possible pronunciations for that grapheme. :oops:

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

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by maizie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:48 pm

Toots wrote:One would hope that no teacher would expect a child to independently read a text of which only 80% was within their 'comfort zone'.
But teachers do that all the time when they give beginning readers books like the ORT 'look and say' readers.

Toots

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by Toots » Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:40 pm

Not in my experience, Maizie. Is that what you did when you worked with beginner readers?

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

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by maizie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:25 pm

Good heavens, no, Toots. I give them decodable books. Why on earth would you think I do any differently?

Anna
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:43 pm
Location: Herts

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by Anna » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:26 pm

Children can give an impression of being able to read ORT books because they memorise the book but show them the words in another context and they don't know them. I have had many parents reporting this to me. Others can memorise a certain number of whole words but eventually there are too many to remember and they don't have the code knowledge and decoding skills in place to decode new words once texts become more demanding. This memorising masks a child's weak decoding which only gets recognised after several years of schooling. This is why the phonics check is so important.

chew8
Posts: 4187
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by chew8 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:38 pm

Re. the Jack London passage quoted by Geraldine: we need to know the age of the child who was attempting it. I certainly work with a few Y3 children (age 7-8) who can't decode ORT books with one line of print per page with more than 80% accuracy.

Jenny C.

Toots

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by Toots » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:41 pm

JIM CURRAN wrote:Stanovich and Stanovich (1995) also summarize the findings regarding the role of context in reading acquisition. Of the three cueing systems frequently mentioned in reading (semantic, syntactic, and graphophonemic cues), the semantic and syntactic cueing systems seem to play a minor role. Recent eye movement research indicates that good readers do not sample the text and predict to recognize words efficiently, but rather see every single letter on the page.
"The key error of the whole language movement is the assumption that contextual dependency is always associated with good reading. In fact, the word recognition skills of the good reader are so rapid, automatic, and efficient that the skilled reader need not rely on contextual information. In fact, it is poor readers who guess from context-out of necessity because their decoding skillls are so weak." (p. 92)
In the NICHD intervention studies (Foorman et al., in press; Torgesen et al., in press) teaching children to use context and prediction as strategies for word recognition resulted in greater numbers of reading disabilities than instruction that taught children to use their sound-spelling knowledge as the primary strategy for word recognition.

http://www.nrrf.org/synthesis_research.htm
Jim, the Stanovich paper I have read on the use of context in reading (not sure it is the one you mention as 1995 sounds late) uses the term 'less-skilled' readers rather than 'poorer' readers. The group of less-skilled readers included younger children as well as contemporaries of the more-skilled readers, if I remember correctly (or may compare the same readers at different stages of development). It is perfectly logical to regard the use of context as an aid to pupils who have not built up a large repertoire of recognised words, or indeed, those who are less efficient decoders. There is no need to regard the use of context as causal to the condition of being 'less-skilled'. Stanovich observed this condition, but in the paper I am referring to did not conclude that children were held back by using context.

I would not argue with the idea that children should use their sound-spelling knowledge as the primary strategy for word recognition. This seems perfectly reasonable. However, where their sound-spelling knowledge breaks down or gives them ambiguous information other strategies have to be used. That is, there has to be something 'secondary' to complement their primary strategy, if needed. This dovetails neatly with Stanovich's observation that less-skilled readers use context, for these are readers who recognise fewer words or whose phonic skills are not yet well-developed and efficient.

I think this is the Stanovich article: Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Feeman, D. J. (1981). A longitudinal study of sentence context effects in second-grade children: Tests of an interactive-compensatory model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 185-199.


Eye movement studies that I have read (Rayner 1998) suggest that readers do predict content. If primed with an associated word flashed up momentarily before they read a word in text, their recognition of that word is faster than without the priming word.

Toots

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by Toots » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:49 pm

Anna wrote:Children can give an impression of being able to read ORT books because they memorise the book but show them the words in another context and they don't know them. I have had many parents reporting this to me. Others can memorise a certain number of whole words but eventually there are too many to remember and they don't have the code knowledge and decoding skills in place to decode new words once texts become more demanding. This memorising masks a child's weak decoding which only gets recognised after several years of schooling. This is why the phonics check is so important.
I have to wonder about these teachers who do not recognise what strategies their pupils are using and whether they are hearing children read or relying on parents to do that.

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

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by maizie » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:20 pm

Toots wrote: Stanovich observed this condition, but in the paper I am referring to did not conclude that children were held back by using context.
I suspect that the use of the term 'less skilled' might give us a clue as to Stanovich's assessment of these readers ability...

Toots

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by Toots » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:28 pm

Less-skilled - learning
Skilled - proficient

JAC
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:51 am

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by JAC » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:14 am

Toots said
I have to wonder about these teachers who do not recognise what strategies their pupils are using and whether they are hearing children read or relying on parents to do that.
It is not uncommon for teachers to not recognise what strategies children are using, and that surely is the point of having the phonics screen, to check they can decode. Clearly, from the results, many children are not decoding adequately. Has this come as a surprise to teachers?

Even as a very experienced teacher, there have been times when I have found it hard to be certain how a child is tackling new words in the early stages of learning to read.

As for relying on parents, I know at my school we utilise parent labour a great deal to listen to children reading daily; there's little likelihood of a teacher being able to hear this quantity of practice singlehandedly. It is also true that some parents are not up to the job, either with their own or with other children. Children can learn maladaptive strategies anywhere.

Toots

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by Toots » Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:51 am

The phonics check threw up some results which disappointed and surprised teachers, when their good readers misread some of the nonwords, which were similar to real words. Whether this means they are not good decoders is a debatable point. Research shows that good readers do sometimes make mistakes which they later go back to correct; eyes track forward in general but occasionally track back to review. The check may also have been useful for finding out which GPcs were less well-known and guiding future teaching, where the teacher had not done his/her own assessments of progress.

I'm sorry that you have difficulty in identifying the strategies your early readers are using. Have you tried sharing a new book with them, choosing something a level above what they are used to, and observing carefully what they do? You can cover over pictures or parts of text and ask questions. You'll soon get an idea of what they are doing. Then perhaps you could share what you find out with your parent volunteers to encourage them to adopt approaches tailored to the child. Do you use reading record diaries?

It is very difficult to fit hearing readers into a busy school day, and SP has the advantage that you can teach groups of children at once, although this can make it difficult to know which children are confident and which are following. But this should not be a substitute for hearing children tackle text and tutoring them individually.
Last edited by Toots on Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

Anna
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 2:43 pm
Location: Herts

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by Anna » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:04 am

Toots wrote

'I have to wonder about these teachers who do not recognise what strategies their pupils are using and whether they are hearing children read or relying on parents to do that'.

My perception is that since the advent of the Literacy Hour, schools do a lot more group reading & relying on parents for individual reading. This does need addressing. However, the point is that ORT and other look say reading schemes, book band boxes etc are all based on the multi-cueing model of reading. Therefore these books require children to use strategies other than decoding. They contain words with grapheme/phoneme correspondences which the child has not yet learned in phonics lessons. They are predictable texts which encourage guessing.

if children are reading these books, not only are they being encouraged to use strategies other than decoding, they are not being given texts which tie in with their current code knowledge & given them lots of practice in applying their sounding out and blending skills. The weaker learners need lots of practice in sounding out and blending words in the early stages to read automatic recognition of words.

I get the impression that awareness of decodable texts amongst teachers is still very low. :cry: I feel this is a very important issue which needs addressing.

geraldinecarter
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by geraldinecarter » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:40 am

Reading a selection of messageboards, the original OUP Biff and Chip loom large. In an ideal world, schools would have spent some of their Phonics Catalogue funds on replacing these books with Jelly and Bean, Dandelion Books, Jolly Phonics readers, Floppy's Phonics etc. as well as on training. The supplementary materials have been more than a distraction. They create the impression that all sorts of tricksy additional material is required. Much of this material is little better than junk material and takes funds away from the core needs of synthetic phonics' instruction.
While the DfE cannot exert direct pressure on OUP to get rid of these damaging books, there is a symbiotic relationahip between OUP and the DfE and it's a great pity that the DfE didn't feel able to discuss the matter with OUP. OUP have earned billions from being first to make use of the dazzling number of changes to instructional materials that have poured forth from the DfE to back up the latest attempts to square the circle.

chew8
Posts: 4187
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:26 pm

Re: Opinion about the Year One Phonics Screening Check

Post by chew8 » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:03 am

Geraldine: you haven't told us how old the child was who was reading the Jack London passage.

Re. Stanovich: A number of his published articles were reprinted in a book published in 2000 – Progress in Understanding Reading: Scientific Foundations and New Frontiers. The 1981 paper Toots mentions is not included in that book, but in the book’s first chapter, which is not a previously published article but specially written as a sort of introduction, I think, Stanovich says that he and his colleague Richard West were at first very taken with Frank Smith’s theories about context effects and expected their own research to confirm them. Their experiments led them to very different conclusions, however.
Stanovich wrote:To our surprise, all of our research results pointed in the opposite direction: it was the poorer readers, not the more skilled readers, who were more reliant on context to facilitate word recognition (see Chapters 2 and 4). I write “to our surprise” because we embarked on these studies fully expecting to confirm Smith’s (1971) views.
Jenny C.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests