[senco-forum] Re literacy ? / muddle in meaning

Hi Clare

I read your post then went to an online dictionary to find some definitions
of the verb to read, and literacy a noun.

I found the Cambridge Dictionaries Online Extra

Noun Literacy first (shortest definitions)

the ability to read and write: ;
(knowledge of a particular subject, or a particular type of knowledge:)

Verb Read

to obtain meaning by looking at words or symbols ;
to understand and give a particular meaning to written information, a
statement, a situation, etc: 

That was the easy bit

The next bit is where a variation occurs

Verb Read

to say the words that are printed or written ;
How you read a piece of writing, or how it reads, is how it seems when you
read it: ; 
(especially when communicating by radio), to hear and understand someone: 

Could explain some of the muddle.

Best wishes

dolfrog

-----Original Message-----
From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
[mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of Clare North
Sent: 03 January 2007 00:18
To: 'Maggie Downie'; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: RE: [senco-forum] Re literacy

I agree that this debate seems to be getting very muddled. A phonic
approach would, in my experience, be useful for just about every child
who is learning to read (and spell). Most children seem to pick it up
relatively easily and can cope with a fairly fast pace. I think my
concern is that we should not forget that many children start school
with a bank of 'whole words' which they already recognise (family names
etc) which could be incorporated into the teaching to illustrate how the
letter sounds really do work (or not  e.g. names such as charlotte)
However, by the beginning of Year 1 there will sometimes be a sizeable
group of children who aren't making the expected progress. Additional
phonic input MAY be the answer but it wont necessarily be so and we
still need to have a repertoire of other approaches which we understand
and are 'allowed' to use. Harrison  (1992, cited in The Primary File
Guide to Reading) says 'how is it that some of the poorest readers in
our schools are the ones who have had years of the teaching of phonics?'
He goes on to stress the importance of phonemic awareness as a necessary
pre-phonic skill and reminds us that a phonic approach sometimes
destroys meaning if the pupil is overly dependant on 'sounding out' and
blending everything. Phonics is a really important tool but the ability
to access phonics is developmental and I have taught pupils who cannot
access phonics on school entry and other older ones who recall doing
phonics but really didn't understand what they were being asked to do
and are very disillusioned with anything related to literacy. Phonics
and some key whole words is probably the way to start off reading but we
have to be very ready to change tack if it doesn't seem to be working
and I am worried that we might end up being tied into programmes which
end up failing quite a large group - including those with speech and
language disorders, specific learning difficulties and APD. We perhaps
should also remember that there are many more children with medical and
learning difficulties in our mainstream classes now and we need to
remain flexible in our approaches. 

I do support Maggie's concerns that there are inconsistencies in what is
being said but, having said that, don't think that all the skills she
mentions are unnecessary for reading (although they are perhaps more
unnecessary for spelling). My favourite example is the sentence 'Though
smelly and very old, the sewer made beautiful clothes' which is an
example of how context influences our understanding and ability to
accurately read the text.

Clare

---
This email and any attachments have been scanned by AVG AntiVirus 7.5.

-----Original Message-----
From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk
[mailto:senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk] On Behalf Of Maggie
Downie
Sent: 02 January 2007 22:59
To: senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: Re: [senco-forum] Re literacy

I'm finding this 'debate' completely bizarre!

  Eddie says

  " I think we will have to agree to disagree 
about the ethics of teaching children wholly unnecessary things - it is 
certainly not good teaching practice to subject children to a great 
number of lessons on a subject for which they have no need."

  I'm sorry?  What alternative method of teaching reading are you going
to use for this supposed 80%  (where DID that figure come from - have
you a reference for it?) who 'don't need phonics'.  Phonics is the basis
of our writing system, as previously pointed out to dolfrog; why don't
children need to be taught the fundementals of their written language?
And why should the supposed 20% of children who 'need' phonics have
their reading skills and self esteem badly screwed up by being taught
the 'wrong' way for a year or two, before being given what they really
needed?

    What about the ethics of teaching children to guess words from their
shape, context, initial letters & pictures - all of which 'skills'  are
totally unnecessary for successful reading ?

  Maggie

 Send instant messages to your online friends
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 