A student reading to children. As with any form of learning, literacy needs to take place in a context, writes Patricia Fenton. Photo / NZME
I knew it! I always ki-ni-ĕ-wi it would come to this if the phonics first brigade had their way.
Reading revolution indeed, and the Janet and John readers in the illustration speak volumes of the full circle we've revolved around with the introduction of new phonics-based instructional reading books.
"Mia
taps on a mat,
Tap, tap, pat, pat …"
In case you hadn't noticed, folks (fi ŏ li ki si) English is not a phonetically regular language. By all means, learners of literacy in English should be equipped with the basic letter/symbol relationships.
The most effective way I've ever seen to achieve this is with illustrated charts and talented teachers playing the guitar while children sing along to the tune of Skip to my Lou: "Ants on an apple, a-a-a, Balls are bouncing, b-b-b …" Lively, fun, easily remembered, and all a beginning reader needs to get started.
As with any form of learning, literacy needs to take place in a context. No one would dream of drilling a rugby player in an isolated set of skills without experiencing the dynamic context of a real-life game. What happens in the game informs the next steps in learning. That's known in the educational world as formative assessment.
Dame Marie Clay identified three main cue sources in literacy: meaning, structure and visual cues. Reading is a meaning-gaining process. That is (or should be) the whole point. What would make sense?
Structure is about semantics – the way we use language – the likely sequence. Would we say it that way?
Visual cues – no, they're not about the illustrations, those are meaning cue. The illustrations reinforce the sense. Visual cues are about letter/sound relationships – aha – phonics! It was there all the time. That curly thing – s – that looks a bit like a snake makes a sss sound.
So, the word you're trying to work out might be "said". That makes sense, it fits, and it begins with the sss sound. You got it!
In meaningful contexts, children are more than capable of making that intuitive leap. There's a very good reason why Clay's work on literacy development was embraced by educators throughout the world.
I recall discussing early literacy with an educator from Jordan. She told me the children in her school – without exception – learnt to read in their first year. They learnt by heart the regular symbolic code of Arabic. She went on to say, "Of course, it isn't what you call reading. They don't all comprehend."
There are those who persist in believing that learning to read in English is a matter of cracking the code. They don't understand that being able to articulate the sounds of a written language is not reading.
On one occasion, a colleague at an international school came into the staffroom and threw two fat phonics workbooks on the table. "He's gone through both the phonics books and he still can't read a word!" she declared. So, what should she do? Give him a third one?
Another colleague commented in amazement after testing a child's knowledge of Jolly Phonics, "She doesn't know any of it, but she can read!"
Enthusiasm and curiosity are essential ingredients in promoting the desire to read. Phonics doesn't do that for them.
Clay emphasised the reciprocal gains of reading and writing and this is as relevant as ever. With support, a child may process his story for the class blog: I went to rugby and my brother scored a try.
The high-frequency words: I, went, to, and are words he'll encounter repeatedly so they need to become instantly recognised sight words. Teachers use games and activities to reinforce these.
Rugby is a high-interest word – he'll likely be motivated to remember that one. Depending on the child's readiness, the teacher may decide to talk about my and try: "Listen – they rhyme. What's the same? Yes – they both end with 'y'. So does rugby but it doesn't belong in the same rhyming family."
At home, the child might show his father his story on the blog. A fortunate child will have a father who is interested and full of praise. In this way, the young learner has experienced success in a meaningful context and the new understanding is likely to be transferred to subsequent reading and writing.
The reasons why New Zealand children are not performing well in international reading tests are varied and complex. Do they come to school from a rich linguistic background where they've been included in conversations from the day they were born?
Do they have captivating stories read to them? Have they experienced poems? (For rhyme and patterning, liberally infused with humour, you can't go past the expert – Dr Suess.)
Do they have health and environmental issues that impact their ability to learn? Are the skills and abilities they are developing in today's world not measurable in conventional tests? Have their teachers experienced high-quality pre-service and in-service professional development?
Contrived, phonetically regular texts will not motivate reluctant readers who are more naturally visual rather than auditory learners, any more than the various commercial phonics programmes currently being implemented. They need to begin by building on their strengths.
I can't agree that: "This approach is essential for some and harmful for none." Highly motivated children who arrive at school armed with all the prerequisites of competent readers could be bored to tears or worse, confused to find that "school reading" is not the creative, meaningful experience they have come to expect from written texts.
If you're looking for a formula, there isn't one. However, I'm quite prepared to accept that enthusiastic teachers who use phonics-based decodable readers selectively, as part of a well-balanced programme including appealing picture books, the arts, stimulating themes and rich, inquiry-based play experiences will see progress in literacy development. Just don't put it all down to phonics.
• Patricia Fenton is a New Zealand trained educator with specialisation in early literacy, including Reading Recovery. Her comment is in response to The evolution of a reading revolution (Northern Advocate Saturday, January 23).