Those who favour a speech-to-print-to-print approach often trace their light-bulb moment to the McGuinnesses but have diverged to some extent from McG. thinking. One such person is Nora Chahbazi, interviewed here by Darius Namdaran:
https://eblireads.com/podcast-interview ... -explored/
The interview is over 100 minutes long but well worth watching. Nora talks about how she searched for solutions to her own daughter’s reading problems, was inspired by Diane’s ‘Why Our Children Can’t Read’, was trained in PG, had some personal contact with Diane, and finally created her own programme, Evidence Based Literacy Instruction (EBLI).
I’ve had some useful email and Zoom contact with her and accept that she is getting good results, but I have reservations about some of what she does, e.g. in the demo lesson starting at about 1.06.53, where she treats Darius as a student. At one point she says the word ‘earn’ in her American accent, with a prominent /r/ sound, and asks him what the first sound is. He has a Scottish accent, though not broad, and says the sound as in that accent and also in British Received Pronunciation (RP) – just a vowel with no /r/. This sound can be unfamiliar to Americans*, and Nora thinks he has the first letter of the homophone ‘urn’ in mind so is saying /u/, but he isn’t. He then realises that it’s to do with earning money and she uses the word to illustrate 3 letters (‘ear’) representing a single sound. For her that sound is /r/ - not for him, but they both seems unaware that clarification is needed.
Nora’s analysis is questionable even in American pronunciation. That was confirmed by an American linguist whom I asked when I was dubious about a similar point on pp. 359-60 of Diane’s ‘Early Reading Instruction’ (/r/ spelled ‘er’ in ‘her’ and ‘ur’ in ‘turn). The linguist didn’t agree, and I now find the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) wouldn’t agree either as it gives symbols for two sounds, not one, before the /n/ of ‘earn’ in the American pronunciation. That matches the first attempt made by Darius, which Nora regards as wrong. Her analysis and his may both work fine from a practical reading/spelling point of view, and I myself am fully in favour of letting pragmatism prevail over linguistic accuracy at times in literacy instruction, but if the starting-point of speech-to-print is identifying the phonemes in spoken words, responses should not be counted as wrong if they are correct according to the OED and in the learner’s own accent.
I am also uneasy about what Nora does with the word ‘graduate’, where she wants Darius to think that the letter ‘d’ is one of several ways of spelling /j/. It’s true that the normal pronunciation of ‘graduate’ often has a /j/ sound because of co-articulation, but why make speech-to-print dictate instruction to that extent when print-to-sound is more helpful? In fact Nora herself stresses how print-to-sound can help with ‘hypertension’ and ‘hypotension’ in the section starting at 1.43.40 – the right sound is clear in the print even if not in the pronunciation.
I don’t know about PG, but I don’t think Diane would have used Nora’s approach with ‘earn and ‘graduate’, as she once told me in writing that ‘The sound-to-print orientation ends with the Basic Code’ (letter dated 10 June 2002), which for her meant just one spelling (the most probable) for each of 40+ phonemes. Her Basic Code certainly doesn’t include ‘ear’ and ‘d’ representing /r/ and /j/.
I’d be very interested in what others think about all this.
*Americans pronounce ‘her’, ‘girl’, ‘turn’ and ‘earn‘/’urn’ in a way that can sound like /hr/, /grl/, /trn/ and /rn/ (possibly a slight schwa before the /r/, but not a clear vowel). I wondered if the word ‘colonel’ might help them to understand that vowel sound as there’s no letter ‘r’ in the spelling, but the OED gives the American pronunciation as being exactly the same as that of ‘kernel’ so having an /r/ sound!
Jenny C.
Speech-to-print (aka sound-to-print)
Moderators: Debbie Hepplewhite, maizie
-
Debbie Hepplewhite
- Administrator
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
- Location: Berkshire
- Contact:
Re: Speech-to-print (aka sound-to-print)
Thank you for raising some of the complications of a speech-to-print approach Jenny - particularly the way you have exemplified what happens (quite typically) with a purist, or over-emphasised, speech-to-print approach.
I agree entirely with what you say here:
Teachers need to be supported to be fearless in how they deal with these variations - whether code (print) complexities or speech differences.
I suggest that there is actually the need for a dance between the advantage (pragmatism) of both speech-to-print, and print-to-sound, as required - that is, to slip between:
*spoken words and orally segmenting them, then allotting the code (per identified sounds) according to the word featured, to print (which is really a spelling process) - AS WELL AS:
*identifying letter groups of printed words, then decoding from left to right all through the printed words to discern the target spoken words (which is a reading process) - and with the English language, teachers constantly need to call upon what could be 'exceptions', 'unusual words', 'irregular words', 'words with code in not yet taught' - as necessary - whether for spelling purposes or reading purposes.
In other words, the issue is not to be pedantic (as many speech-to-print advocates are) about the superiority of a speech-to-print approach to reach the reading process...
...But instead to appreciate that the literacy teacher, indeed any teacher, may need to slip between either 'direction' according to the need at the time to address specific words and/or groups of words.
The need for the teacher is to know and understand the complexities of the English alphabetic code in an organised way as much as possible, to know and understand about the fact spelling is a sound-to-print process and reading is actually about a print-to-sound process...
...And good phonics provision/programmes should include both 'directions' and teachers who are confident to acknowledge and address that need for pragmatism, flexibility and fearlessness.
The worry for me is the prevailing assumed superiority of the speech-to-print approach for teaching reading, not just spelling - without the accompanying discussion around the bigger picture of what specific phonics provision and programmes consist of in reality.
I believe we have both been blocked, even banned, from facebook groups featuring 'speech-to-print' - so all discussion is shut down even when some people have said how much they are enjoying and appreciating the discussion.
A good systematic phonics programme, I suggest, teaches both sound-to-print and print-to-sound 'directions', in equal measure and should be effective, therefore, in teaching spelling well, and teaching reading well, in equal measure.
It should also equip teachers to understand the complexities of the English alphabetic code for reading and spelling purposes, and to be able to teach and support learners 'incidentally' throughout the wider curriculum as required.
If teachers are too purist about their preferred direction of speech-to-sound even for teaching reading, they are going to get bogged down with accent variation and spelling variation pretty quickly and often!
It is also an unhappy state of affairs that any phonics programme perceived as having a 'print-to-sound' approach is therefore inferior to programmes stating they are based on 'speech-to-print'.
There may indeed be systematic phonics programmes that do not provide a good balance of both directions (that is, not teaching reading and spelling equally), but it is sad, and worrying, to see direct undermining of any phonics programmes/provision not proclaiming, or labelled as 'speech-to-sound' or 'linguistic phonics'.
It is surely worrying, and unacceptable, that we are blocked from discussing these points with teachers and other interested parties including parents, carers, tutors and researchers.
This is very misguided.
I agree entirely with what you say here:
The complexities of teaching spelling and reading are many - we might refer to these as 'spelling alternatives' and 'pronunciation alternatives' and much of the teaching will necessitate accounting for different accents - not only 'by country' but also 'by region' and even 'by individual'. Further, take into account, for example, learners with various speech impediments and take into account that young learners may not even have mastered clear, or 'adult' pronunciation as yet because they have immature and limited or impoverished speech. Indeed 'learners' learning English as a new or additional language may be of any age, so may not have much or any 'English' speech at all....I myself am fully in favour of letting pragmatism prevail over linguistic accuracy at times in literacy instruction...
Teachers need to be supported to be fearless in how they deal with these variations - whether code (print) complexities or speech differences.
I suggest that there is actually the need for a dance between the advantage (pragmatism) of both speech-to-print, and print-to-sound, as required - that is, to slip between:
*spoken words and orally segmenting them, then allotting the code (per identified sounds) according to the word featured, to print (which is really a spelling process) - AS WELL AS:
*identifying letter groups of printed words, then decoding from left to right all through the printed words to discern the target spoken words (which is a reading process) - and with the English language, teachers constantly need to call upon what could be 'exceptions', 'unusual words', 'irregular words', 'words with code in not yet taught' - as necessary - whether for spelling purposes or reading purposes.
In other words, the issue is not to be pedantic (as many speech-to-print advocates are) about the superiority of a speech-to-print approach to reach the reading process...
...But instead to appreciate that the literacy teacher, indeed any teacher, may need to slip between either 'direction' according to the need at the time to address specific words and/or groups of words.
The need for the teacher is to know and understand the complexities of the English alphabetic code in an organised way as much as possible, to know and understand about the fact spelling is a sound-to-print process and reading is actually about a print-to-sound process...
...And good phonics provision/programmes should include both 'directions' and teachers who are confident to acknowledge and address that need for pragmatism, flexibility and fearlessness.
The worry for me is the prevailing assumed superiority of the speech-to-print approach for teaching reading, not just spelling - without the accompanying discussion around the bigger picture of what specific phonics provision and programmes consist of in reality.
I believe we have both been blocked, even banned, from facebook groups featuring 'speech-to-print' - so all discussion is shut down even when some people have said how much they are enjoying and appreciating the discussion.
A good systematic phonics programme, I suggest, teaches both sound-to-print and print-to-sound 'directions', in equal measure and should be effective, therefore, in teaching spelling well, and teaching reading well, in equal measure.
It should also equip teachers to understand the complexities of the English alphabetic code for reading and spelling purposes, and to be able to teach and support learners 'incidentally' throughout the wider curriculum as required.
If teachers are too purist about their preferred direction of speech-to-sound even for teaching reading, they are going to get bogged down with accent variation and spelling variation pretty quickly and often!
It is also an unhappy state of affairs that any phonics programme perceived as having a 'print-to-sound' approach is therefore inferior to programmes stating they are based on 'speech-to-print'.
There may indeed be systematic phonics programmes that do not provide a good balance of both directions (that is, not teaching reading and spelling equally), but it is sad, and worrying, to see direct undermining of any phonics programmes/provision not proclaiming, or labelled as 'speech-to-sound' or 'linguistic phonics'.
It is surely worrying, and unacceptable, that we are blocked from discussing these points with teachers and other interested parties including parents, carers, tutors and researchers.
This is very misguided.
Re: Speech-to-print (aka sound-to-print)
Yes, the assumption that speech-to-print is superior is worrying. What I’m trying to get at, however, is the extent to which the belief as currently held is justified by McG. thinking either as it was 20-25 years ago or in any publicised changed form.
I had my first face-to-face encounter with Diane in June 1998 in London, when I attended a presentation by all 3 McGs at which they spoke about their 1998 publications – Reading Reflex and the UK edition of Why Children Can’t Read, the American edition of which had been published the previous year. I queued up to speak to her and said that I liked much of what they’d said but it didn’t seem very different from the way I was taught as a child or from Jolly Phonics. She was surprised but interested. I think Chris Jolly was also there and spoke to her. She looked into JP very promptly, liked it, and, I gather, made positive comments about it in print within a year, in the 1999 American edition of Why Our Children Can’t Read, which I don't have. She then made further positive comments about both JP and Fast Phonics First in RRF Newsletter 49 (autumn 2002) and in Early Reading Instruction, so the extent to which she regarded them as fitting her ‘prototype’ is all there in the public domain, though often, it seems, ignored by later advocates of speech-to-print even when they openly acknowledge their indebtedness to the McGs and specifically to Diane.
Starting with 3-sound word-building (encoding), as on p. 68 of Reading Reflex, is now regarded by many as a hallmark of speech-to-print – but Diane’s own Sound Steps to Reading doesn’t start with it or, indeed, include word-building of that type at any point. She did, however, approve of the UK synthetic phonics programmes which included it very early though not as the starting-point, as they introduced decoding ahead of encoding (though only slightly). As I’ve said, she also told me in private correspondence that the sound-to-print orientation ends with the Basic Code – but it looks to me as if speech-to-print people now extend it far beyond this.
So we now have speech-to-print proponents whose approaches diverge in demonstrable ways from Diane’s approach but who criticise or ignore the synthetic phonics type of approach of which Diane approved. Can they explain this?
Jenny C.
I had my first face-to-face encounter with Diane in June 1998 in London, when I attended a presentation by all 3 McGs at which they spoke about their 1998 publications – Reading Reflex and the UK edition of Why Children Can’t Read, the American edition of which had been published the previous year. I queued up to speak to her and said that I liked much of what they’d said but it didn’t seem very different from the way I was taught as a child or from Jolly Phonics. She was surprised but interested. I think Chris Jolly was also there and spoke to her. She looked into JP very promptly, liked it, and, I gather, made positive comments about it in print within a year, in the 1999 American edition of Why Our Children Can’t Read, which I don't have. She then made further positive comments about both JP and Fast Phonics First in RRF Newsletter 49 (autumn 2002) and in Early Reading Instruction, so the extent to which she regarded them as fitting her ‘prototype’ is all there in the public domain, though often, it seems, ignored by later advocates of speech-to-print even when they openly acknowledge their indebtedness to the McGs and specifically to Diane.
Starting with 3-sound word-building (encoding), as on p. 68 of Reading Reflex, is now regarded by many as a hallmark of speech-to-print – but Diane’s own Sound Steps to Reading doesn’t start with it or, indeed, include word-building of that type at any point. She did, however, approve of the UK synthetic phonics programmes which included it very early though not as the starting-point, as they introduced decoding ahead of encoding (though only slightly). As I’ve said, she also told me in private correspondence that the sound-to-print orientation ends with the Basic Code – but it looks to me as if speech-to-print people now extend it far beyond this.
So we now have speech-to-print proponents whose approaches diverge in demonstrable ways from Diane’s approach but who criticise or ignore the synthetic phonics type of approach of which Diane approved. Can they explain this?
Jenny C.
-
Debbie Hepplewhite
- Administrator
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
- Location: Berkshire
- Contact:
Re: Speech-to-print (aka sound-to-print)
Extremely interesting to note is that a phonics programme previously labelled as 'linguistic phonics' (meaning sound to print) has now become labelled as a 'synthetic phonics programme'. This is astonishing.
Is this a move purely to capitalise on the labelling that has been adopted by England's Department for Education (DfE) of 'Systematic Synthetic Phonics' (SSP) - a label spreading internationally?
By this I mean, has the commonality, or adoption, of the labelling of phonics programmes as 'synthetic' spread and taken on such significant importance to the extent that authors/publishers of phonics programmes (or some of them) see an advantage to adopt the label despite vociferous claims that the approach of 'linguistic phonics' (sound-to-print) programmes is superior to the approach in 'synthetic phonics' programmes?
I have maintained, over and again (for example, via Twitter) that teachers and other professionals in the field of literacy need to be able to evaluate the content of phonics programmes (beyond the labels) and to understand what the delivery of them should 'look like' for each and every child in reality.
Regardless of 'label', a good systematic phonics programme should provide resources and activities to ensure plenty of practice in 'both directions' - sound-to-print and print-to-sound.
And although people in the field of literacy are very wary about the title of 'balanced literacy' as this can amount to an approach which does not include quality 'systematic' phonics provision, nevertheless 'balance' is required when it comes to phonics provision - a balance of sound-to-print and print-to-sound code knowledge, understanding and practice.
Is this a move purely to capitalise on the labelling that has been adopted by England's Department for Education (DfE) of 'Systematic Synthetic Phonics' (SSP) - a label spreading internationally?
By this I mean, has the commonality, or adoption, of the labelling of phonics programmes as 'synthetic' spread and taken on such significant importance to the extent that authors/publishers of phonics programmes (or some of them) see an advantage to adopt the label despite vociferous claims that the approach of 'linguistic phonics' (sound-to-print) programmes is superior to the approach in 'synthetic phonics' programmes?
I have maintained, over and again (for example, via Twitter) that teachers and other professionals in the field of literacy need to be able to evaluate the content of phonics programmes (beyond the labels) and to understand what the delivery of them should 'look like' for each and every child in reality.
Regardless of 'label', a good systematic phonics programme should provide resources and activities to ensure plenty of practice in 'both directions' - sound-to-print and print-to-sound.
And although people in the field of literacy are very wary about the title of 'balanced literacy' as this can amount to an approach which does not include quality 'systematic' phonics provision, nevertheless 'balance' is required when it comes to phonics provision - a balance of sound-to-print and print-to-sound code knowledge, understanding and practice.
Re: Speech-to-print (aka sound-to-print)
In a recent Sounds Write podcast, one point that came up has been summarised as follows by Spelfabet:
‘For example, Nora Chahbazi and John Walker agreed in Episode 11 of the Sounds-Write podcast that teaching consonant-e as a word-final spelling (e.g. ke in ‘take’, ‘se’ in these, ‘ne’ in line, ‘pe’ in hope, ‘te’ in cute) is probably a better idea than teaching kids about ‘split’ spellings (a…e as in ‘take’, e…e as in these etc). ‘Split’ spellings mess with straightforward left-to-right reading.’.
(https://www.spelfabet.com.au/2023/05/fr ... -learning/)
I just can't go along with this. My logic is that ‘hop’ and ‘hope’ differ in meaning, differ by one sound in pronunciation (the vowel sound), and differ by one letter in spelling. For readers, the difference in spelling signals the difference in sound which allows them to understand the intended meaning. To me, this means that the ‘e’ in ‘hope’ is part of the vowel spelling, not part of the final consonant spelling. The flip-side, for spellers, is that they need to use a spelling which signals the right vowel sound for the meaning they intend.
I see that as a phoneme-based and linguistically accurate explanation.
Jenny.
‘For example, Nora Chahbazi and John Walker agreed in Episode 11 of the Sounds-Write podcast that teaching consonant-e as a word-final spelling (e.g. ke in ‘take’, ‘se’ in these, ‘ne’ in line, ‘pe’ in hope, ‘te’ in cute) is probably a better idea than teaching kids about ‘split’ spellings (a…e as in ‘take’, e…e as in these etc). ‘Split’ spellings mess with straightforward left-to-right reading.’.
(https://www.spelfabet.com.au/2023/05/fr ... -learning/)
I just can't go along with this. My logic is that ‘hop’ and ‘hope’ differ in meaning, differ by one sound in pronunciation (the vowel sound), and differ by one letter in spelling. For readers, the difference in spelling signals the difference in sound which allows them to understand the intended meaning. To me, this means that the ‘e’ in ‘hope’ is part of the vowel spelling, not part of the final consonant spelling. The flip-side, for spellers, is that they need to use a spelling which signals the right vowel sound for the meaning they intend.
I see that as a phoneme-based and linguistically accurate explanation.
Jenny.
-
Debbie Hepplewhite
- Administrator
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm
- Location: Berkshire
- Contact:
Re: Speech-to-print (aka sound-to-print)
I agree, Jenny.
And it's also being (arguably) pedantic and purist rather than pragmatic.
From a pragmatic perspective, I suggest to teachers that they point out it is rare for an end letter 'e' to have any pronunciation. There are so few words, such as cafe, that require generation of a sound for that letter e.
Then I refer to the letter patterns of a-e, e-e, i-e, o-e, u-e with a single consonant letter in between as being an alert that the pronunciation required might be /ai/ /ee/ /igh/ /oa/ /oo/ or /yoo/. So try those (relevant sounds).
With regard to tracking the print from left to right, simply use one finger for pointing under letters and letter groups that are recognised and two fingers 'split' to point to the letter patterns a-e, e-e, i-e, o-e, u-e. It's not hard.
If the route of learning end letters such as -te, -be, -ke for example, then there are an awful lot of those to learn - nearly every consonant letter of the alphabet plus the end e!
be, ce (has to be learnt as being code for the /s/ sound), de, fe, ge (which is code for the /j/ sound at the end of a word), ke, le (which can be code for /ul/ as in kettle), me, ne, pe, re, se, te, ve, we, ye, ze.
And it's also being (arguably) pedantic and purist rather than pragmatic.
From a pragmatic perspective, I suggest to teachers that they point out it is rare for an end letter 'e' to have any pronunciation. There are so few words, such as cafe, that require generation of a sound for that letter e.
Then I refer to the letter patterns of a-e, e-e, i-e, o-e, u-e with a single consonant letter in between as being an alert that the pronunciation required might be /ai/ /ee/ /igh/ /oa/ /oo/ or /yoo/. So try those (relevant sounds).
With regard to tracking the print from left to right, simply use one finger for pointing under letters and letter groups that are recognised and two fingers 'split' to point to the letter patterns a-e, e-e, i-e, o-e, u-e. It's not hard.
If the route of learning end letters such as -te, -be, -ke for example, then there are an awful lot of those to learn - nearly every consonant letter of the alphabet plus the end e!
be, ce (has to be learnt as being code for the /s/ sound), de, fe, ge (which is code for the /j/ sound at the end of a word), ke, le (which can be code for /ul/ as in kettle), me, ne, pe, re, se, te, ve, we, ye, ze.
Re: Speech-to-print (aka sound-to-print)
I don't feel strongly about this, although I do agree with Jenny's and Debbie's comments. I certainly don't believe there's anything superior about teaching consonant-e as a word-final spelling, as <ke> in ‘take’.
I've heard five year olds explain "split vowel digraphs" happily and confidently, to the amazement of some adults.
I like Jolly Phonics "Hop-over <e>". The <e> hops over and changes the sound of the vowel - simple, accurate enough, and child-friendly. "Magic <e>" is similar in concept. Of course the <e> doesn't literally hop and it's definitely not really magic. However, historically, "Hop-over <e>" and "Magic <e>" could be said to be more "correct" than either split digraph or putting the last consonant and <e> as a single phoneme. I have read that originally the <e> was added to indicate a long vowel sound and not that two vowels were split. But it doesn't matter for teaching. I say it only because some people seem to think that the term, split digraph, is more correct.
I've heard five year olds explain "split vowel digraphs" happily and confidently, to the amazement of some adults.
I like Jolly Phonics "Hop-over <e>". The <e> hops over and changes the sound of the vowel - simple, accurate enough, and child-friendly. "Magic <e>" is similar in concept. Of course the <e> doesn't literally hop and it's definitely not really magic. However, historically, "Hop-over <e>" and "Magic <e>" could be said to be more "correct" than either split digraph or putting the last consonant and <e> as a single phoneme. I have read that originally the <e> was added to indicate a long vowel sound and not that two vowels were split. But it doesn't matter for teaching. I say it only because some people seem to think that the term, split digraph, is more correct.
Elizabeth
Re: Speech-to-print (aka sound-to-print)
600 years ago, the ‘a’ in words such as ‘name’ was pronounced as /ah/ and the final ‘e’ was sounded as a schwa, so ‘name’ was /nahmuh/, rhyming with ‘drama’. The International Phonetic Alphabet for the /ah/ sound is /ɑ:/, where the colon denotes a ‘long’ sound. For vowel sounds which do and do not have the colon, see p. 63 here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 220714.pdf
The words ‘foot’ and ‘boot’ illustrate that even in modern English, there can be ‘short’ and ‘long’ versions of a vowel sound even when the spelling is the same.
If things in the US haven’t changed much since Diane McGuinness’s Why Our Children Can’t Read was published there in 1997, it may be understandable that that the print-to-speech movement there is as it now is. It’s clear, though, that the situation in the UK was different even before the McGuinnesses came here in 1998 to promote their approach, in the sense that although the National Curriculum guidance for early reading at the time was very much influenced by whole-word and whole-language theories, there were pockets of good phonics teaching here and there. Diane took the trouble to investigate them, saw that they were very different from the American phonics which she had criticised, and expressed her approval of them in print. We therefore already had UK programmes emphasising speech-to-print in the way she favoured and have not needed programmes taking it further than that, especially if they cause unnecessary friction and confusion among those who believe in the systematic code-based teaching of both reading and spelling.
Jenny C.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 220714.pdf
The words ‘foot’ and ‘boot’ illustrate that even in modern English, there can be ‘short’ and ‘long’ versions of a vowel sound even when the spelling is the same.
If things in the US haven’t changed much since Diane McGuinness’s Why Our Children Can’t Read was published there in 1997, it may be understandable that that the print-to-speech movement there is as it now is. It’s clear, though, that the situation in the UK was different even before the McGuinnesses came here in 1998 to promote their approach, in the sense that although the National Curriculum guidance for early reading at the time was very much influenced by whole-word and whole-language theories, there were pockets of good phonics teaching here and there. Diane took the trouble to investigate them, saw that they were very different from the American phonics which she had criticised, and expressed her approval of them in print. We therefore already had UK programmes emphasising speech-to-print in the way she favoured and have not needed programmes taking it further than that, especially if they cause unnecessary friction and confusion among those who believe in the systematic code-based teaching of both reading and spelling.
Jenny C.