tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post6025563176281274944..comments2023-06-28T17:05:30.899+01:00Comments on The Literacy Blog: Castles in the airJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13315146014179526480noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post-11725394115495814632016-07-09T15:48:29.735+01:002016-07-09T15:48:29.735+01:00Thanks much, John. That clears the matters up for ...Thanks much, John. That clears the matters up for me. The Sounds-Right instructional architecture, now that you have explained it, indeed differs from the architecture of the programme class that starts instruction with short-vowel Correspondences rather than long-vowel Correspondences as S-R does. There is a rationale for both architectures, and my reading of the PSC data is that both are reliable.<br /><br />There are two other reliable reading instructional architectures. One is the tightly-scripted programmes that Zig Engelmann popularized as "Direct Instruction." These programmes concretize a scenario that a "gifted instructor" has constructed--with or without influence of the Alphabetic Code. Engelmann's is a an example of "without." Tom and Hilsey Burkard's programme is an example of "with." <br /><br />The fourth architecture is one that is "only and always 'decodable.'" That is, it teaches no Correspondences out of the context of text. Children are taught how to handle the Code by reading a "real book" from the get-go. The book entails only five Correspondences, but it taps the full complexity reading--responding to text with understanding equal to that were the text read to the child. Additional Correspondences and other linguistic considerations are then spoon-fed in subsequent texts. With this architecture the child is a "fluent reader" from the beginning and the boundaries of the "fluency" transparent to the child, the instructor, and everyone else. Piper Book's BRI/ARI is an example of this architecture.<br /><br />Each of these architectures has been shown to be reliable. Whether they are equally reliable remains to be investigated. The programmes also differ in terms of personnel training requirements and cost; important considerations that receive little attention.<br /><br />On the rest of your explanation, we're exactly on the same page--with only a few font differences that aren't consequential.Dick Schutzhttp://ssrn.com/author=1199505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post-70014458134971461352016-07-09T08:44:29.530+01:002016-07-09T08:44:29.530+01:00Hi Dick,
Thanks for the questions - they are alway...Hi Dick,<br />Thanks for the questions - they are always useful in providing opportunities to explain further what my take is on a complex business.<br />You ask: 'How does the child know to "first read as /steek/?' The child knows because we teach children that sounds can be spelled in different ways. We start with the sound [ ae ] and teach the spelling [ ai ], [ ay ], [ ea ], and [ a-e ]. So, the child(ren) know and work with this idea in the context of words such as 'rain', 'play', 'break', and 'gate'. And, yes, I know that [ ea ] is a spelling alternative for /ae/ in only three words.<br />We then go on to teach a limited number of spelling alternatives for the sound /ee/, one of which includes the spelling [ ea ]. Once they've had time to absorb this, we teach explicitly that [ ea ] can be /ae/ and it can also be /ee/ and we practise this in the context of real words and in real sentences. If a pupil is uncertain, they try both and see which one makes sense (meaning).<br />Of course, the pupil will also have to be skilful in taking sounds out of words and dropping in alternatives to 'try them out'. To that end, we teach children the skill of manipulating phonemes right from the start of the Sounds-Write programme.<br />Later, when we get to different spellings of /e/, expressed as [ e ] and [ ea], the pupils will have another alternative to try. This isn't a big deal. After all, we (fluent adults!) have to do exactly the same thing when, for example, we visit new places and are not sure how to pronounce a place name. My favourite is the time I pronounced the place 'Lowton' with an /ow/, as in 'cow', instead of an /oe/ as in 'grow'. So, in short, the child knows because we've taught the possibilities and the learner tries them until they make sense.<br />On the second point, I completely agree: we share the same understanding: the code does apply to both reading and spelling. The history of the language did, as you say, make for spelling alternatives, which is covered by the concept we teach children explicitly: that sounds can be spelled in more than one way. Again as you say, the history also made for 'reading alternatives': a spelling can represent different sounds.<br />Finally, I do think that reading and spelling are two sides of the same coin. However, from a psychological point of view, they are not the same. Reading is to do with recognition memory - the cue is there in front of us. Spelling, on the other hand, isn't in front us: we have to dredge it up from our memories and recall memory is a deeper kind of memory. This has always been why David Philpot and I went for testing children on their spelling - because we felt that it revealed much more than reading tests, which often masked lack of knowledge of the code in children with very good visual memories for whole words.<br />In the meantime, I hope you are well and wish you the best,<br />JohnJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315146014179526480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post-87451828405539128502016-07-09T01:36:14.515+01:002016-07-09T01:36:14.515+01:00I understand that you "do NOT teach from prin...I understand that you "do NOT teach from print to sound," John. What I don't understand is your example. When a child encounters the word "steak" s/he doesn't hear any sounds. What s/he sees are letters. How does the child know to "first read as /steek/? Does Sounds~Right teach this as the "first choice" Correspondence for "ea," with the second choice /stek/?<br /><br />The crux of the Code is in the Correspondence between the sounds/symbols, (graphemes/phonemes), rather than either separately. Or am I wrong about that? I understand that the Alphabetic Code applies to both reading and spelling, and that the Code was invented to convert spoken language into a graphic/written form, and the history that made for "spelling alternatives," but that history also made for "reading alternatives," didn't it? <br /><br />While I'm asking-one more question. Do you subscribe to the doctrine that "spelling is the reverse of reading"? I concur with your last three sentences, which seem to conclude otherwise?<br /><br />Just curious about these questions. Dick Schutzhttp://ssrn.com/author=1199505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post-22680782509855947362016-07-03T22:41:42.136+01:002016-07-03T22:41:42.136+01:00Hi Max,
The question, to me, seems nonsensical. Yo...Hi Max,<br />The question, to me, seems nonsensical. You give the example of 'sail' and 'sale' and then situate one of the words in the context of a sentence. As they are homonyms, the only thing that would differentiate their meaning is context. If the words are to be read, as in the UK government's Phonics Screening Check, as single words and thus decontextualised, to be able to read the words, children would have to have been taught that [ ai ] and [ a-e ] are alternative spellings of the sound /ae/. What's the problem, because that's exactly what they do? I suppose a child could render 'sail' as 'sel', given that [ ai ] is also a very infrequent spelling in /e/ but then the government does allow alternative pronunciations where a spelling can represent more than one sound. <br />Accurate decoding depends on children being taught explicitly the alternatives spellings of sounds. That is what we do and everything we see happening in schools demonstrates that it works: not only do children at the end of the first three years of school end up being able to read almost anything, they can spell almost anything, too.<br />On your second question, you are simply mistaken: I do not believe that there is any point at all in teaching rules, for the reason that I've never met a teacher that knows all the rules, not to mention all the exceptions to the rules. What I do agree with is McGuinness's contention that the human brain is remarkably good at spotting patterns and, with lots of exposure (reading and writing), patterns there are in English spelling aplenty.<br />As for your question about < oo >, we do NOT teach from print to sound. We go from sounds, which all children learn naturally, to print, an invented system. So, we don't teach that [ oo ] can be this, that or the other first. That is putting the cart before the horse and it is typical of all graphemic phonics approaches, which teach the code backwards. We teach that the sound /oo/ can be spelled [ oo ], [ ew ], [ ue ], etc. Shortly afterwards, we'll teach that < oo > is a way of spelling the sound /oo/, as in [ oul ] ('could'), [ u ] ('bush'), and [ oo ] ('book', though this is a regional variation). <br />When reading, if pupils aren't sure, they try the alternatives. However, someone has to teach them the alternatives before they can do this. Here's an example: 'Last night I ate a tasty steak.' which the child reads first as 'steek', then as 'stek' (possible in Yorkshire!), and finally as 'steak', at which point the child declares for 'steak'. Why? because the human brain is decoding AND searching for meaning simultaneously and it does this so fast that, for fluent readers, it takes place under the level of conscious attention - until that is the reader is faced with, say, a place name with which the reader is unfamiliar. What happens then? The reader ask someone and remembers the pronunciation of the word. Whether, however, they remember the spelling (for writing) is a different matter and that depends partly on how less frequently encountered the particularly problematical spelling in the word is and how often they read and write the word.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315146014179526480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post-65173168021478387712016-07-03T09:35:58.644+01:002016-07-03T09:35:58.644+01:00Hi Juliet,
You're right! I've corrected it...Hi Juliet,<br />You're right! I've corrected it and thanks for spotting that and for letting me know.<br />As to the question about St George's, I'll have to ask but it has a very poor catchment area, the poorest in south London, so I imagine that they have quite a few children with delayed language. However, having said that, I know that they do sterling work in the nursery.<br />As soon as I've had chance to ask, I'll write to you and let you know.<br />Best,<br />JohnJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13315146014179526480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post-73477573693563794752016-07-03T03:06:51.016+01:002016-07-03T03:06:51.016+01:00Two questions, John.
1. You can understand and co...Two questions, John.<br /><br />1. You can understand and correctly reply to the printed question "Is SAIL about ships or shops?" You couldn't do this if you were responding just to the pronunciations of the words since SAIL and SALE have the same pronunciation. And context cannot help here since context does not favour one of these interpretations. So how could you do this if reading comprehension depends on phonology?<br /><br />2. Your view is that all written English words obey letter-sound rules and so all can be correctly translated from print to speech by rule. Can you list the rule for OO that when applied to GOOD MOOD and GOON gets the pronunciation of the OO correct for all three, even when they are presented as single words i.e. no context?<br /><br />Max<br />Max Coltheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9462344.post-88178599008404165412016-07-02T17:48:16.179+01:002016-07-02T17:48:16.179+01:00Hi John,
Great post but I think in your intro you ...Hi John,<br />Great post but I think in your intro you mean "No! Sight words have not been unjustly slighted" (They have been justly slighted!)<br />Very interesting and I need more time to think and read more about it all!<br /><br />On another topic, I asked this question on Twitter but I think it was missed: How many students do you think enter St Georges Primary with speech/language difficulties that should make them more resistant to instruction only this doesn't seem to be the case? (Prevalence estimates at around 7%?)<br /><br />Regards,<br />Juliet<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926686372487155474noreply@blogger.com