[senco-forum] a defintion of synthetic phonics

Ok, so far so good; but surely even taking a synthetic phonics approach if

The evidence from speech research is that developmentally segmenting comes before blending.

Philip EP

Still in Sunny Calgary

________________________________

From: senco-forum-bounces at lists.becta.org.uk on behalf of Tim Rupp
Sent: Thu 11/10/2007 20:15
To: Alice Chenneour Randall; senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk
Subject: Re: [senco-forum] a defintion of synthetic phonics

I think that what has been pointed out is that synthetic phonics is
constructive while analytic phonics is destructive and so their purpose
differ in what you are actually doing. When constructing a word to spell or
write then you need to select the sounds of the letters that match the aural
sounds that you are trying to reproduce. You are synthesising these sounds
to create the words. Analytical phonics almost demands that there is already
a complete word that you need to break down into its component sounds. This
ability is particularly useful if you have already constructed a word and
you want to check that you have the right sounds for that word by taking it
apart.
It is highly likely that any individual that is trying to spell a word,
mentally or on paper, or decode a word will develop the skill to use both
synthetic and analytic phonics. In the early stages of language development
synthetic phonics is the more powerful tool.
A reception/Y1 child will not have the skills necessary to analyse a whole
word. For them the decoding of individual synthetic sounds is where they are
at.

Tim Rupp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alice Chenneour Randall" <alice.chenneour at btinternet.com>
To: <senco-forum at lists.becta.org.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [senco-forum] a defintion of synthetic phonics

> Ok, so far so good; but surely even taking a synthetic phonics approach if
> I want to spell a work I will first analyse the word in order to identify
> its constituent phonemes which I will then try and map - am I therefore
> allowed to analyse things whilst taking a synthetic phonic approach, or am
> I being too pedantic (feel like I need a gin and tonic!!!).
>  Alice
>
> Mmilesep at aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 09/10/2007 20:30:10 GMT Daylight Time,
> alice.chenneour at btinternet.com writes:
>
> I would really like to pick your brains on how you would describe
> synthetic
> phonics in relation to analytic phonics - it's just that when I put it to
> staff that the focus of literacy teaching had moved from an approach which
> favoured analytic phonic to one favouring synthetic phonics, they jumped
> on this
> saying that all phonics teaching was largely of the synthetic variety. I
> did
> point out teaching literacy along the lines of onset and rime was an
> example
> of the analytical approach but I flapped. What do you understand by these
> terms!?
>
>
>
> You either synthesis or analyse. Synthesise - build up; analyse break
> down.
>
> So, the word "Cat" can be synthesised or built up from the phonemes /c/
> /a/
> /t/ or can be analysed or broken down from the whole word to its separate
> sounds. Also same analysis applies to the onset (initial sound) and rime
> (rest
> of the word).
>
> Sounds first or words first? Discuss. Where are you Julie?
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>