Tags: synthetic, phonics, education, literacy, reading, phonemes, learning
Posted on October 2, 2007
Filed Under FruitPhonics |
Some people this may seem like old hat, but the more we hear about the endless education debate and a ‘crisis of literacy and numeracy’ the more this programme intrigues. After all, it is quite a claim, that by learning about 61 sounds and 100 words children will be equipped to access 50% of the vocabulary of all books, whether written for adults or children.  Moreover, they also claim to reduce the incidence of ‘perceived’ reading problems from 20-25% of the student body, to something close to 2%, and eliminate the effects of social differences among learners. Where are the education policymakers and politico’s when there are questions to be answered? Not to mention the synthetic phonics crusaders.
A Little background for the uninitiated:
The claims, made by researchers at the Early Reading Research Project (ERR) led by Dr. Jonathan Solity of the University of Warwick, are backed up with seven plus years of data and swathes of satisfied parents, teachers and a few relieved local authorities. We can only presume that the children concerned are too immersed in their chosen ‘real’ reading materials to be bothered to comment. Whether that means noses in comics, football programmes, Insect Dissection Manuals or ‘Bling Faux Pas’s for Minors’, it’s all happy clappy stuff to us. If it works, wunderbar. The question is, if the claims are substantiated, and there appears to be little in the way of published doubt, why can we discern no corresponding educational clamour? It seems as though the great hue and cry of the for progress from  synthetic phonics choir is oddly muted, as are the education policymakers and politicians who would normally do their amplified town crier gig at the slightest breath of good education news. Are we waiting for more results to come in,? Is there a ghostly shadow of exposure at the feast?  A hint of family in fighting perhaps,  or are we missing something here? Why is eveyone not demanding answers from such apparently robust research. Maybe it’s the questions.
The basis of the program, as we understand it is as follows: basic phonics skills look pretty much like synthetic phonics.  Children learn the base 44 phonemes plus about 19 other frequently used common speech units to decode the 100 highest frequency words, as determined by a comprehensive analysis by the team, of children’s and adult literature. Those words that are not ‘regular’ and cannot be decoded according to synthetic phonics rules, are introduced slowly and learned by sight.
So far, so like synthetic phonics, but there are some fundamental differences. The real benefits of ERR come from an initial rigorous application of the synthetic phonics principles to develop a child’s phonics skills, but these are supplemented by a carefully designed  instructional based on theri cognitive psychology research. Once the phonemes and high frequency words are upto scratch, learners progress to what the researchers call ‘real books’. That is, unlike most poor readers trapped in traditional synthetic phonics skills oriented reading schemes, they become what Dr. Solity describes as ‘free readers,’ able to develop their newly acquired skills and vocabulary to access a huge range of commercially available children’s literature.
The learning strategy is based on a principle of ’short and often’, such as four short (10-12 minutes) sessions spread throughout the day, with each session concentrating on a different aspect of the programme. Teachers are trained to pick up faltering or struggling pupils and support there development with remedial exercises. Unlike most other reading schemes, failing pupils receive appropriate support as a part of the whole class. There is no need for one-to-one special educational needs style strategies. The research team claim that that incidence of perceived reading difficulties has fallen from the norm of 20-25% range to more like two percent, and in doing so, virtually eliminated the effect of social differences between young learners. (An issue worthy of an extended debate)
The ERR appears to be developing into a remarkable success and may point the way towards general policy design. The project results are impressive and add to the growing body of evidence that Synthetic Phonics based reading strategies are the most effective method of literacy tuition for the broadest range of children. Is it a magic bullet? Probably not, but if average teachers can be trained to achieve similar results, or at least substantial uplift, then maybe we really are developing a genuine potential avenue to address the UK’s chronic literacy performance.
As for the downside, we’ve heard some whispers that the phonics bit is rigid and boring. We could respond, ‘So what.’  Three months would seem a small price for the reward of being equipped with the single most important skill for a productive life.  But we won’t. Rather, we’ll open it up to informants and others in the know to illuminate us as to the current state of play in educational circles and covens. It also occurs to us, with our techno tinted specs on, that with the with the development of interactive technologies, the drills and skills development aspect could easily be integrated into rather more exciting games style activities.  Also, given that the schedule seems to be a fifteen minute session, repeated several times a day,  comprised of a series of carefully designed two minute drills during which the little mites are engaged to respond second by second, it would seem to leave precious little opportunity for boredom or tantrums. The results do speak for themselves.
Although there are no sure things as there are too many variables involved in a education outcomes, the Early Reading Research Project looks like a potential winner and demonstrates the simple power of systematic application of clear well designed learning strategies.   Parents should be in the know and administrators demanding access to information and answers.  Where it is reasonable to expect a stampede of curiousity, especially from the state sector, there is a respectful distance.
But as we indicated at the outset, the apparent underwhelming response does raise quite a few questions….oh yes and they are also using the same type of strategy for numeracy….even more interesting, and curious.Â
Comments
Some people this may seem like old hat, but the more we hear about the endless education debate and a ‘crisis of literacy and numeracy’ the more this programme intrigues. After all, it is quite a claim, that by learning about 61 sounds and 100 words children will be equipped to access 50% of the vocabulary of all books, whether written for adults or children.  Moreover, they also claim to reduce the incidence of ‘perceived’ reading problems from 20-25% of the student body, to something close to 2%, and eliminate the effects of social differences among learners. Where are the education policymakers and politico’s when there are questions to be answered? Not to mention the synthetic phonics crusaders.
Add to Onlywire