Thank you so much, ladies, for sharing your discussion widely. With regard to possible 'missing elements in literacy instruction' and observations into the experiences of children from the outset of 'planned' instruction including 'phonics', what does 'phonics' actually mean to people? Is it something we understand in common? I suggest not. I was particularly interested in Natalie's emphasis on 'writing' and its importance. Even the word 'writing' may mean different things to different people - but with early writing in mind, this includes letter formation, for example, and how to link letter formation with the 'sounds'(phonics) as opposed to the letter 'names' - and what do children think in their heads when they practise their early writing? I've noticed that simply 'copy writing' and 'self-dictation' (the latter being when children have access to the text and it is not just a teacher-led verbal dictation as such) - are missing elements in early experiences and in 'phonics' provision. In an interview between Robert Pondiscio and ex-minister, Nick Gibb, the suggestion was made that England could be 10 to 15 years ahead of the US when it comes to official guidance to provide 'systematic synthetic phonics' but Nick Gibb expressed his lack of understanding of why some schools still do so much poorer than others according to the statutory Year One Phonics Screening Check. The problem is that in England's context, the Department for Education has 'validated' systematic synthetic phonics programmes (around 45 of them) according to a 'core criteria' - but these are nevertheless, not the same and with some significant differences. And 'writing' experience is one of the differences that I consider to be significant - but basically, 'unexamined' as yet. Phonics provision is dominated by flash card routines and mini whiteboard work. Teacher-led dictations are also promoted heavily. But for very young children (4+ in England's context) to pull out of their heads the code (letters and letter groups) and letter formation is very challenging (for some, cognitive overload perhaps), and a missing element of practice is copy-writing and self-education of cumulative, decodable texts. I think if research is to go anywhere moving forwards (for reading and writing instruction), we need the kind which amounts to 'time on task' consisting of truly close observations of the experience of each and every child in their phonics lessons. This may open some eyes and minds. But, when the fastest growing phonics programme in England is now in 5,000+ schools and its pedagogy is 'Strictly no worksheets or workbooks', I find this incredibly chilling and grossly inappropriate. If teaching such a complex alphabetic code as for the English language, reading and spelling, aspiring to enrich vocabulary and language comprehension in the process, how can demonising content and practice with actual paper-based resources possibly be the way forwards? Perhaps it is a step backwards and a missed opportunity? Here is a link to my blog if this topic of differences and outcomes in actual phonics programmes and provision is of interest: https://hepplewhite.org/debbie-hepplewhites-literacy-blog/ Warmest best wishes, Debbie Hepplewhite (author of three DfE-validated phonics programmes)
Hi Debbie--thanks for this thoughtful comment. I'd love to learn more about how phonics is connected to writing, and the varying levels of success of different UK phonics programs. I'm actually doing a story on it for a UK magazine. I'll message you about it. But would you say generally that there needs to be more connections between phonics acquisition, reading and writing?
Absolutely! We should have moved far beyond the language of just 'phonics' to the examination of phonics programmes themselves! We don't really know or understand the success of different 'DfE-validated' (in England) phonics programmes because there is a lack of professional knowledge and understanding in their differences and potential (including in the Department for Education) and no transparent sharing of findings of what these 'look like' for every single child. And where is the professional curiosity of the researchers and academics? I'd love you to contact me about this topic, please email me at debbie@phonicsinternational.com .
Thank you so much, ladies, for sharing your discussion widely. With regard to possible 'missing elements in literacy instruction' and observations into the experiences of children from the outset of 'planned' instruction including 'phonics', what does 'phonics' actually mean to people? Is it something we understand in common? I suggest not. I was particularly interested in Natalie's emphasis on 'writing' and its importance. Even the word 'writing' may mean different things to different people - but with early writing in mind, this includes letter formation, for example, and how to link letter formation with the 'sounds'(phonics) as opposed to the letter 'names' - and what do children think in their heads when they practise their early writing? I've noticed that simply 'copy writing' and 'self-dictation' (the latter being when children have access to the text and it is not just a teacher-led verbal dictation as such) - are missing elements in early experiences and in 'phonics' provision. In an interview between Robert Pondiscio and ex-minister, Nick Gibb, the suggestion was made that England could be 10 to 15 years ahead of the US when it comes to official guidance to provide 'systematic synthetic phonics' but Nick Gibb expressed his lack of understanding of why some schools still do so much poorer than others according to the statutory Year One Phonics Screening Check. The problem is that in England's context, the Department for Education has 'validated' systematic synthetic phonics programmes (around 45 of them) according to a 'core criteria' - but these are nevertheless, not the same and with some significant differences. And 'writing' experience is one of the differences that I consider to be significant - but basically, 'unexamined' as yet. Phonics provision is dominated by flash card routines and mini whiteboard work. Teacher-led dictations are also promoted heavily. But for very young children (4+ in England's context) to pull out of their heads the code (letters and letter groups) and letter formation is very challenging (for some, cognitive overload perhaps), and a missing element of practice is copy-writing and self-education of cumulative, decodable texts. I think if research is to go anywhere moving forwards (for reading and writing instruction), we need the kind which amounts to 'time on task' consisting of truly close observations of the experience of each and every child in their phonics lessons. This may open some eyes and minds. But, when the fastest growing phonics programme in England is now in 5,000+ schools and its pedagogy is 'Strictly no worksheets or workbooks', I find this incredibly chilling and grossly inappropriate. If teaching such a complex alphabetic code as for the English language, reading and spelling, aspiring to enrich vocabulary and language comprehension in the process, how can demonising content and practice with actual paper-based resources possibly be the way forwards? Perhaps it is a step backwards and a missed opportunity? Here is a link to my blog if this topic of differences and outcomes in actual phonics programmes and provision is of interest: https://hepplewhite.org/debbie-hepplewhites-literacy-blog/ Warmest best wishes, Debbie Hepplewhite (author of three DfE-validated phonics programmes)
Hi Debbie--thanks for this thoughtful comment. I'd love to learn more about how phonics is connected to writing, and the varying levels of success of different UK phonics programs. I'm actually doing a story on it for a UK magazine. I'll message you about it. But would you say generally that there needs to be more connections between phonics acquisition, reading and writing?
Absolutely! We should have moved far beyond the language of just 'phonics' to the examination of phonics programmes themselves! We don't really know or understand the success of different 'DfE-validated' (in England) phonics programmes because there is a lack of professional knowledge and understanding in their differences and potential (including in the Department for Education) and no transparent sharing of findings of what these 'look like' for every single child. And where is the professional curiosity of the researchers and academics? I'd love you to contact me about this topic, please email me at debbie@phonicsinternational.com .