Split infinitives, whole dilemmas. BETH WOOD explores the pros and cons of grammar teaching in UK schools

Have you ever found yourself lost in the labyrinth of grammatical terms? If so, you’re not alone. The current buzz about the Key Stage 2 SPaG (Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar) test might feel like deciphering a foreign language for many.
Imagine this: you’re cruising through your writing journey, confident in your skills, and then bam! The SPaG test hits, and suddenly, you’re facing a terrain filled with terms like “subjunctive mood” “adverbial phrase” and “relative clauses.” Sounds relatively insane, right? Well, this is a reality for England’s Key Stage Two students (ages 7 – 11) who have been obliged to endure this “rigorous new [SPAG] test” to prove they can write “properly, creatively and effectively” (Department for Education, 2013.)

Literacy challenges
Let’s rewind to 2012, where the English government’s performance tables were looking rather miserable – “the worst in the developed world for literacy” (Clarke, 2016) to be precise. Lord Bew’s ‘Key Stage 2 Testing Assessment and Accountability Report’ didn’t sugarcoat the failure of the education system, pointing out “significant issues with the existing writing national curriculum test” (DFE, 2011.) Enter 2013, and the newly appointed SPaG test is trialled, containing grammatical elements that even some undergraduate students would shiver at. Former Education Minister Elizabeth Truss (and more recently, former UK Prime Minister, 2022) claimed that despite the uproar, the new assessment was essential. “Why”, you ask? Well, Truss believed it was high time for primary schools to roll up their sleeves and “ensure that children leave primary school confident” with complex grammar. (DFE, 2013.)

However, not everyone agreed with Truss’s educational evolution. Linguist David Crystal, while a staunch advocate for grammar teaching, aligns himself with the opposition when it comes to this testing method. In his blog (2013), Crystal asserted that the conventional approach of having children identify sentence components out of context does little to enhance their writing abilities. He contended that a shift in focus was imperative, emphasizing the importance of helping children comprehend the reasons behind the use of specific grammatical elements, rather than just giving them the means to label it.

Whose Standard?
In his article on the role of Standard English Milroy (1999) highlighted that many linguists frequently endorse the instruction of clear-cut grammatical rules as a vital resource, particularly for children who lack exposure to ‘Standard English’ at home. Here is the twist – the tests designed to uplift children’s confidence and writing skills might be conveying conflicting messages. Is there a risk that these assessments unintentionally stigmatise unique dialects as ‘incorrect’? The questions evaluating familiarity with Standard English often overlook the fact that children inherently communicate in diverse dialects. However, Carter (1999) argued that a child who is not exposed to such teachings would face significant disadvantages, leading to disempowerment.
This prompts us to reflect on whether the commendable efforts by the government to improve children’s education could unintentionally yield negative consequences, causing students to scrutinise their own speech patterns. According to Thomason and Ward (2009), the effective teaching of grammar could be significantly enhanced if it were presented as a versatile “tool” for children to wield, thereby augmenting their language proficiency. Striking a delicate balance between imparting essential grammar knowledge and appreciating the richness of linguistic diversity is key.

More than one right answer?

Children’s writer Michael Rosen (2015), a famous adversary of the SPaG test, dauntlessly challenged the conventional notion of a singular correct answer when it comes to grammatical description. Rosen underscored scenarios, drawn from the 2016 test as an illustrative example, where children were assigned the challenge of matching prefixes to words. Rosen’s examination exposed the possibility of two acceptable answers and emphasising the intrinsic ambiguity in the assessment. In another blog, Rosen (2016) harshly critiqued the construction of the SPAG tests, identifying multiple inconsistencies that raise pertinent questions about the fairness of assessing children when those formulating the tests cannot agree upon an answer.
Adding fuel to the fire, discussions emerged between the then Minister of Education, Nick Gibb, and an interviewer regarding the interpretation of the term “after” within the sentence “I went to the cinema after I’d eaten my dinner.” This sparked a debate on whether “after” functions as a subordinating conjunction or a preposition (Aarts, 2016.) Surely if our adults are puzzled, we cannot expect our children to have the answers?
Wyse et al (2013), similar to Rosen, asserted that the questions in the SPAG test, particularly those eliciting controversy, are “dry as dust, decontextualised and old-fashioned”. They concluded that a mere labelling approach, as exemplified in such questions, does not facilitate meaningful learning about the English Language for children.

Terminologyitis?

Rosen’s critique of the SPAG test goes beyond the mere examination of its terminology; it encompasses concerns about the temperament and construction of the questions posed (2015.) In his view, he contends that the test falls short as a tool for enhancing children’s writing through metalanguage or analytical approaches, as it rigidly adheres to a binary perspective on grammar, neglecting to consider the dynamic influence of context in language and emphasising clear “right and wrong” answers (Rosen, 2015.)
Teachers’ union leader Mary Bousted (2016), argued that an emphasis on grammar terminology through “rigorous testing” (DFE, 2013) may not necessarily translate to enhanced writing abilities in children. According to Rosen (2015), the SPaG test is afflicted with “terminology-itis”, where an overemphasis on complex grammatical terms may not significantly contribute to improving the writing skills of our youngsters. Supporting this, Bousted suggested that encouraging extensive reading and fostering creativity through storytelling might be more effective in nurturing writing abilities than dedicating time to grammatical descriptions and testing.
In Bloom’s (2017) work, he aligns with Rosen’s argument asserting the existence of a “significant and persistent mismatch” between academic evidence supporting government policies and the actual implementation of these policies in the realm of teaching grammar to children in schools. Mansell’s report in The Guardian (2017) resonated with public sentiments, reflecting apprehensions that “strict [grammar] rules” might impede the creativity of young individuals, and portray writing as a restrictive and confining endeavour. This multifaceted discussion underscores the ongoing debate over the efficacy and fairness of grammar testing in shaping the language skill on creative expression of our budding wordsmiths.

Improving standards?

Regardless the ongoing protests, let’s not ignore the results. In 2017, a noteworthy 77% of students reached the expected standard in the SPaG tests, according to Ward (2017.) This begs the question: Are the tests achieving their intended outcomes, or is there more to the story? As the debate rages on, one thing is clear – the SPaG tests have stirred the educational pot, sparking discussions about the best way to nurture our young wordsmiths. Whether you’re on Team SPaG or cheering for alternative assessment methods, the journey towards effective literacy education continues.

References

Aarts, B. (2015, November 6.) The study of grammar is interesting in its own right. Grammarianism. https://grammarianism.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/the-study-of-grammar-is-interesting-in-its-own-right/
Bloom, A. (2017, November 28). Teaching grammar does not improve children’s writing ability, research finds. Tes.com. https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/teaching-grammar-does-not-improve-childrens-writing-ability-research-finds
Bousted, M. (2016, April 19). ‘Our children are being set up for failure, stress, disappointment and disaffection.’ Tes.com https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/our-children-are-being-set-failure-stress-disappointment-and-disaffection
Carter, R. (1995). Standard Grammars, Spoken Grammars: Some Educational implication. In T. Bex & R.J. Watts (Eds.) (1999), Standard English: The widening debate (pp. 149 – 169). London: Routledge.
Clarke, E. (2016, March 12). Children love to learn grammar and thanks to Michael Gove they will get the chance. Spectator.
Crystal, D. (2013, May 5). On a testing time. David Crystal blog. https://david-crystal.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-testing-time.html
Department for Education, (2011). Review of key stage 2 testing, assessment, and accountability. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-key-stage-2-testing-assessment-and-accountability-final-report

Department for Education, (2013). New grammar, punctuation and spelling test will raise children’s literacy standards. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-grammar-punctuation-and-spelling-test-will-raise-childrens-literacy-standards
Department for Education, (2022). Key Stage 2 tests: 2022 English grammar, punctuation, and spelling materials. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/key-stage-2-tests-2022-english-grammar-punctuation-and-spelling-test-materials
Mansell, W. (2017, May 9). Battle on the adverbials front: Grammar advisers raise worries about says test and teaching, The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/may/09/fronted-adverbials-sats-grammar-test-primary
Milroy, J (1999). The consequences of standardisation in descriptive linguistics. In Bex. T & R.J. Watts (Eds.) (1999), Standard English: The widening debate (pp. 16 – 39). London United Kingdom: Routledge.
Rosen, M. (2015, November 3). Dear Ms Morgan: in grammar there isn’t always one right answer. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/03/morgan-grammar-test-right-answer-spag-english-spelling-punctuation-grammar
Rosen, M. (2016, April 16). Why SPaG is nasty and dangerous. Michael Rosen. https://michaelrosenblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/why-spag-is-nasty-and-dangerous.html
Thomason, T. Ward, G. (2009). Tools, not rules, Durham, CT: Eloquent Books.
Ward, H. (2017, July 4). Sats: 61 percent of pupils reach expected standard in three Rs. Tes.com. https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/sats-61-cent-pupils-reach-expected-standard-three-rs
Wyse, D. Jones, R. Bradford, H. Wolpert, M. (2013). Teaching English, language, and literacy (3rd Ed). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

“Ough ah” and “ough no”! Let’s take a step back and tone down the ‘Reading Wars’ rhetoric, says KAREN BOSWELL

Could you ever imagine that a well-meaning adult, trying to teach a child to read, could be open to accusations of “child abuse” (Improve-Education.Org, 2007)? Little did I know that in attempting to help my (then toddler) son to decipher the letters and sounds of the alphabet, I had unknowingly stumbled into a long-running linguistic war.

The ‘Reading Wars’ is a metaphor used in Britain, Australia, and The United States of America to describe polarised views about how early years reading and writing should be taught. The conflicting ideologies situated on the opposing sides of no-man’s land, are ‘systematic phonics’ on one side and ‘whole language’ on the other. Over the last few decades, these views have become more contentious. The video – Phonics vs Whole word – produced by Improve-Education.Org (2007) claims that the supporters on one side of this debate are, “evil”, “wicked”, and “perverse”. As if that language isn’t extreme enough, it also declares that teaching a child to read using the ‘Whole word’ approach is, “child abuse”. Thank goodness I used phonics! You can hold off on that phone call to Social Services…..

 Controversy about which approach to utilize in early years education continues to be hotly debated, with no overarching consensus between education, language experts and government policy.

What is systematic synthetic phonics?

The version of phonics mandated in the UK is called “systematic synthetic phonics, and it teaches children the sounds of letters in isolation and then coaches students to blend the sounds together” (Bowers, 2019). This allows individual letters and letter combinations (graphemes), to be related to units of sound (phonemes), which can then be assembled into words. The ‘whole language’ approach to literacy is analytical and focuses on “the development of children’s phonological awareness coupled with work on children’s capacity to draw analogies”, according to Dombey (1999, p.16), in her article in the literary magazine, Education 3 to 13. This approach teaches children to recognize individual words whilst experiencing whole texts, thereby providing more context. When Willingham states, in the Times Educational Supplement (2015, p.24), that “[t]he rival armies are entrenched and the battles vicious”, it begs the question: why is it so difficult for both sides to wave a white flag, call a ceasefire, and reach an amicable agreement in how to proceed?

The Rose Report (2006), recommended that synthetic phonics must be included in early reading instruction in English primary schools, following research in Clackmannanshire in Scotland in 2004 (Wyse and Styles, 2007, p. 35). This study claimed that “the synthetic phonics approach, as part of the reading curriculum, is more effective than the analytic phonics approach”, according to the researchers, Johnston and Watson, (2005, p.9; cited by Wyse and Styles, 2007, p. 38). Nick Gibb, School Standards Minister for the Department of Education in the UK at the time, accused those opposing the synthetic phonics approach as relying, “more heavily on emotion than evidence” and being “responsible for stifling human potential and negatively affecting life chances of countless children”, (Gibb, 2017).

Phonics testing

The UK government is so committed to the phonics approach that in 2012 it introduced the Phonics Screening Checks for children in Key Stage One, who are typically five-to-six years old. This view has been challenged by various voices, including the UK Literacy Association, who responded to Gibb’s comments by saying, “phonics is an essential part of learning to read but as a strategy for teaching reading, phonics is far from sufficient on its own”, (UKLA 2019). In his blog, Professor Jeffrey Bowers from the University of Bristol reached the conclusion that there is “little or no empirical evidence to support the conclusion that systematic phonics is best practice”, resulting from his studies of meta-analysis that have compared systematic phonics to methods that didn’t include any phonics at all, (Bowers, 2019).

‘Tough’ pronunciations [cough….]

The pronunciation of some English words can be notoriously difficult because of the many irregularities and alternative pronunciations that can be found in the English Language. Take, for example, the following words: ‘tough’, ‘though’, ‘plough’, ‘cough’, ‘through’, ‘thorough’. They all contain the same <ough> combination of letters, but try saying them out loud and you’ll notice that each one has a very different vowel sound, sometimes followed by a consonant sound (e.g. ‘cough’). Anyone learning to read phonetically would have to commit these words to memory in the same way that some other methods rely on, rather than relying on sounding out the different phonemes. Decoding unfamiliar words that don’t follow previously learnt, logical rules is problematic.

Is the phonics ‘one size fits all’ approach to acquiring the necessary skills to read and write the best way to proceed? The World Literacy Foundation (2015: cited by Castles et al, 2018, p.5), gives compelling reasons for the necessity to achieve good levels of literacy in the population, stating: “low literacy is a major contributor to inequality and increases the likelihood of poor physical and mental health, workplace accidents, misuse of medication, participation in crime, and welfare dependency”. This being the case, it seems that failing to teach children to read effectively is a legacy that affects the whole population. As government policy and leading academics cannot agree on one of the approaches discussed, then maybe it’s time to dig themselves out of the trenches and consider a more liberal way forward.    

 David Reedy from the UK Literacy Association, (2012), argued in a BBC feature article that a blended approach to the teaching of reading is required, and states that “reading should encompass a balance of teaching strategies including a systematic approach to phonics and other reading strategies, and a significant emphasis on children experiencing a wide range of texts”.

The argument for using a range of reading comprehension strategies is shared in the same article by Professor Maureen McLoughlin of the International Reading Association, (2012). McLoughlin claims that “[t]he goal of successful reading is comprehension […]” and that “students’ construction of meaning is enhanced”  by using a repertoire of strategies.

Surely if we want to show our children that reading can be a pleasurable activity and encourage them to fully engage with, and comprehend a variety of texts, we need to call a truce in this war and make reading fun as well as strategic?

References

Bowers, J. (2019, April). The Reading Wars. Jeff Bowers.

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, pp. 5–51.  

Dombey, H. (1999). Picking a path through the phonics minefield, Education 3 to 13 27(1), pp. 12-21.

Gibb, N. (2017). Nick Gibb: reading is the key to unlocking human potential. Gov.UK

Gov.uk (2022). Phonics Screening Check.

Improve-Education.Org (2007). Phonics vs Whole Word.

McLoughlin, M. (2012, October 15).Viewpoints: Teaching children to read. BBC.  

Reedy, D. (2012).Viewpoints: Teaching children to read. BBC.

Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading: Final Report. Department for Education and Skills.  

UK Literacy Association. (2019). One size does not fit all; UKLA’s response to Nick Gibbs latest comments on the phonics debate. UKLA.

Willingham, D. (2015, February). And the victor in the reading wars is… Times Educational Supplement, pp. 24-28.

Wyse, D. & Styles, M. (2007) Synthetic phonics and the teaching of reading: the debate surrounding England’s ‘Rose Report’. Literacy 41(1), pp. 35-42.

Edinbra? Edinbro? Edinburgh? SARA HUSSEIN sounds out the pros and cons of using phonics for literacy

I remember when I was in secondary school in Germany and read the word ‘Edinburgh’ for the first time. The teacher told me to read the word out loud and I pronounced it completely wrong. Instead of /ɛdɪnbɹə/ I said /ɛdɪnbɜːrg/. At that moment, I rethought my whole English literacy skills. I asked myself “How do British pupils learn to read English?’’. Well, I have to tell you that I have never had an answer for this query but today, I want to answer this enigmatic question. Consequently, my main aim in this blog is to focus on and evaluate the current UK government’s recommended method for teaching literacy skills to English pupils.

In the UK, pupils learn the synthetic phonics method to acquire literacy skills and at the end of Year 1, they are tested by the phonics screening check (Department of Education, 2019). The children who fail the test need to retake it at the end of year 2 (Ibid.). But what is synthetic phonics? And what is this screening check about? Let’s start with synthetic phonics. “In synthetic phonics programs, children are taught first to transform letters into sounds and then to blend these sounds to form words’’ (Dessemontet et al., 2019). In other words, synthetic phonics are Grapheme-Phoneme correspondences (Darnell et al., 2017). In the screening check, pupils are given 20 pseudo words and 20 real words which are not shown in a meaningful text (Davis, 2013). The assessment is about decoding the words correctly by using the synthetic phonics method (Darnell et al., 2017). But is this really efficient?

According to an educational psychologist Dr. Marlynne Grant, synthetic phonics promote literacy skills and even help disadvantaged children who come from a non- academic background or children with dyslexia (Adams, 2014). Also, some researchers claim that teaching phonics would be the best  way to acquire reading skills (Gove, 2013 cited in Davis, 2013).

Nonetheless, the synthetic phonics approach is criticised because they only focus on decoding phonics but not on comprehension (Davis, 2013; Walker et al., 2013, 2014 cited in Darnell et al., 2017). In addition, “English is not written in a consistently ‘phonic’ way, so learning to read phonically will never teach a child how to read everything’’ (Dombey et al., 2010). This quote illustrates the issue that I have mentioned before with the word ‘Edinburgh’. And this is not the only word that may be mispronounced. Further examples can be shown in the poem “the chaos’’ by Gerard Nolst Trenite (2014) which promote the fact that in contrast to a language such as German, English cannot be taught mainly synthetically. So would it not be more efficient in this case to include analytic phonics?

According to Dessemontet et al. (2019), ‘‘in analytic phonics programs children are taught to identify words, and in a second step to analyse letter-sound relations in these words“. Therefore, pupils would still learn phonics but in a different way. However, this method is also criticised. Learners may be confused because they still have to split the words into onset and rhyme units (Hepplewhite).

Another alternative to synthetic phonics would be the “whole word approach’’. In this method, pupils focus on the shape of words which could be best acquired in nursery rhymes or texts with pictures (Davies & Thirlby, 2014). One positive aspect about this method is that children would concentrate on the meaning rather than on phonics and its decoding process (Ibid., 2014). But the problem here is that children would not be able to memorise all of the words (Hepplewhite).

So what is the best method? Teaching synthetic phonics is not completely negative. The problem so far is that firstly, it focuses not on the meaning. Secondly, critics claim that the problem lays on the testing of young English children (Lyle, 2014) which can pressure a child. I would support this claim because when we only learn something for a test we do not really concentrate on the main target which for the pupils is reading.

Consequently, the children would mainly learn for extrinsic reasons. Another problem is the focus on only one method. “If we want England’s children to get better at reading and to do more of it, we have to give them a diet that is attractive, nutritious and satisfying’’ (Dombey et al., 2010). Thus, each individual learns differently which demonstrates that all suggested methods mentioned in my blog can be used by different children.

SARA HUSSEIN, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK           

References

Adams, R. (2014, June 16). Phonics education technique shown to have positive impact on literacy. The Guardian.

Darnell, C. A., Solity, J. E., & Wall, H. (2017). Decoding the phonics screening check. British Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 505-527.

Davis, A. (2013). To read or not to read: decoding Synthetic Phonics.

Department for Education (2019), Phonics screening check and Key Stage 1 assessments in England, 2019.

Dessemontet, R. S., Martinet, C., Chambrier, A.-F. de, Martini-Willemin, B.-M., & Audrin, C. (2019, January 21). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of phonics instruction for teaching decoding skills to students with intellectual disability. Educational Research Review, 26, pp.52-70.

Dombey. H. et al (2010). Teaching reading: What the evidence says. UKLA.

Hepplewhite, D. Debbie Hepplewhite’s advice on Synthetic Phonics teaching.

Lyle, S. (2014). The limits of phonics teaching. School Leadership Today 5 (5), 68-74

Thirlby, J., and Davies, M. (2014). The Great Phonics Debate. Babel, 9, pp.35-38

Trenite, G. N. (2014). The Chaos. Word Ways, 47(3), 219+.

Does a ‘one-size-fits-all approach’ work when teaching young children to read? ELEANOR HEATON investigates synthetics phonics screening checks

In 2007, England introduced synthetic phonics lessons in primary schools following the suggestion of the Rose Review (2006) which claimed success in this style of teaching after a study in Clackmannanshire (Scott, The Guardian). Then in 2012, this systematic synthetic phonics style of teaching was adopted nationally (Sellgren, 2013) and continues now to be the main way children are taught to read. Pupils are educated to recognise phoneme and grapheme relations separately and then they are taught to blend these together to read a word (Lyle, 2014, 69). For instance, the letters (or graphemes) <c> + <a> + <t> when pronounced as their individual sounds (phonemes) /k/ + /æ/ + /t/ should be blended together to make /kæt/. According to Lyle (2014: 69) “[i]t assumes that simple decoding is all that is required in reading and aims to teach the sounds of individual letters and the 44 phonemes of English”. The Rose Report resulted in drastic changes to the reading scheme. This impact causes a great deal of controversy on how children should effectively learn to read.

The Rose Report (Rose, 2006) stated that the Searchlights model which sculpted the current reading scheme, and first used in 1998 (Dean, 2013, p22-23) must be scrapped and be replaced by the Simple View of Reading model (Glazzard and Stokoe, 2013, p47-48). The Searchlights model placed a clear emphasis on phonics, but also how the knowledge of context, grammar and graphic/word recognition should be reinforced too (Education Skills Committee, 2004-05). It implied that decoding and comprehension complemented each other, and that a variety of strategies can be used to teach children how to read (Education Skills Committee, 2004-05). It should not rely solely on phonics (Education Skills Committee, 2004-05). However, Sir Jim Rose stated in his report that decoding and comprehension are two distinct skills and should be taught separately (which is shown in the simple view of reading model) and that phonics should be the only focus when teaching how to read. UK Education secretary at the time, Michael Gove, stated that phonics is the most successful way of teaching children to read and the government argued children must be drilled with one single approach that focuses on phonetic correspondence.

Therefore, to test a child’s ability to read, the government introduced phonics screening checks in 2012 which requires year 1s to read aloud 40 words – 20 real words and 20 made-up (pseudo words) (gov.uk). With their knowledge of phonics, they should be able to individually decode each of the words (gov.uk). The argument behind using pseudo words is that they are new to children and if they can decode these words they can decode any unfamiliar words (lcp.co.uk). Also, using a mixture of words can highlight if a child needs extra help. The government screening check teacher training video (gov.uk) demonstrates pupils reading aloud each word presented to them in isolation. At times they do appear to be put under unneeded pressure whilst they are examined to correctly pronounce a word. Whilst it may seem acceptable to judge a child’s reading ability to the government, I and many others disagree with this ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. Not all children learn to read at the same pace so why should they be tested the same and feel judged and criticised if they fail the test. Furthermore, some words do not follow the rules of phonics (e.g. ‘who’ and ‘was’) and are not spelled the way they sound (understood.org). This can add even more confusion to a child when tested in this way.

Despite the government’s efforts to convince us all that a systematic synthetic phonics approach is the best, there are still people who favour a whole word approach. This requires children to learn large numbers of words and not break them down into smaller units (Walker-Gleaves and Waugh, 2017, p51). They can then guess a word if they are unsure by using other words in a sentence as a clue and rely on context (Walker-Gleaves and Waugh, p51). Those who support the whole word approach state that it does not ‘drill’ children in letters and it makes reading more pleasurable and authentic (Willingham, 2015, p76). This focuses more on comprehension than isolated words in tests, but it can also be criticised that this way takes longer, and it is not practical with one teacher in a class of 30 pupils.

Since both phonics and whole word styles of teaching can have its pros and cons, why not adopt a new method based on a combination of approaches when teaching children to read? Could this be the solution to suit everyone? As the Searchlights model previously suggested, it is possible to teach children with a variety of strategies (‘cues’) where comprehension and phonics complement each other. The current methods focus directly on a one-size-fits-all idea and the same phonics screening checks to test different children on their different reading abilities can seem unfair. Phonics should not be the only method to teach literacy skills.

ELEANOR HEATON, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Dean, G (2013). Teaching Reading in the Secondary Schools, Second Edition. London: Routledge.

Glazzard, J and Stokoe, J. (2013). Teaching systematic synthetic phonics and early English, Northwich: Critical Publishing Ltd.

Gov.uk. Phonics.

Great Britain, Parliament. House of Commons, Education and Skills Committee. (2005). Teaching Children to Read: Eighth Report of Session 2004-05, London, United Kingdom: The Stationery Office.

LCP. Phonics Screening – Why Use Pseudo Words?

Lyle, S. (2014). The Limits of Phonics Teaching. School Leadership Today, 5 (5). 68-74.

Scott, K. (2010, January 19). Phonics: lost in translation. The Guardian.

Sellgren, K. (2013, June 5). Phonics Test: ‘accurate but unnecessary’.

Rose, J. (2006). Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading.

The Understood Team. (2017). Decodable Words vs. Sight Words: How They Compare. Understood. 

Walker-Gleaves, C and Waugh, D. (2017). Looking After Literacy: A Whole Child Approach to Effective Literacy. London: Sage.

Willingham, D. (2015). Raising Kids Who Read: What Parents and Teachers Can Do. San Francisco: Wiley.

Is compulsory synthetic phonics the way forward? LUKE STOKOE engages with ‘The Reading Wars’

Controversies around how to teach literacy skills to young children have often been labelled ‘The Reading Wars’. The debate was reignited in the UK in 2006 when the Rose Report recommended the teaching of synthetic phonics in schools, begging the question, is this the correct choice and is the war finally over?

Michael Gove would suggest yes. In 2013, in his role as Minister for Education, he claimed that “systematic, phonics instruction by a teacher is the most effective and successful way of teaching children to read”.

Synthetic phonics is the practice of teaching children to read multiple new letters and sounds together by blending – pronouncing them as a unit, not individual letters (Johnson and Watson, 2014). An alternative would be the whole word approach to reading, which encompasses remembering the shape of a whole word and its pronunciation.

Under the current synthetics phonics scheme, children are taught phonics over the course of Year 1, (aged 5-6), with further learning supplementing the government’s “Letters and Sounds” programme in Year 2.

There are many reasons that synthetic phonics is favoured by the government, including claims of faster progress and outperforming non-phonics classes. It allegedly also boosts the abilities of students when dealing with unknown words, as the sounding method taught in phonics allows them to pronounce it correctly more times than not, the first time they see a word (Krashen, 2002).

However, the main argument raised against synthetic phonics is not the idea that people should “learn to read by reading”, as was suggested by Goodman (1982) relating to the comprehension hypothesis, which states that any skill is learnt via practicing that skill. The central complaint against compulsory synthetics phonics teaching is that the children are not taught to read in context and are expected to only read one word at a time even though experts like Rumelhart (1976) would suggest otherwise, stating that reading is a “simultaneous, multi-level interactive processing”. This effectively means that reading is not reading without some meaning being attributed to the word, it is simply decoding (pronouncing). The issue concerning parents and teachers alike is not only angst as to whether this system will kill children’s love of reading before it has even developed, by making learning to read boring and too complex, as suggested by Michael Rosen (2012). Rather, the final nail in the synthetic phonics coffin is the compulsory, national tests that accompany the programme.

The tests were rolled out nationally for the first time in 2012. They consisted of children being asked to pronounce 40 words, half of which are so-called ‘pseudo words’ (invented words), that has met with substantial opposition from teachers. The pass rate in 2012 was 58%, which rose to 80% by 2016, as reported by Adams in The Guardian (2016).

Encouraging, yes, but all that may display is that teachers are now better equipped to teach to the tests.

All told, the vitriol and contempt with which the two main sides of the debate refer to one another’s arguments is counter-productive. The idea that only one method should be used to teach children to read is flawed, with Michael Rosen (2012), stating, “One size fits all typically fits no one”. One academic opinion supporting this idea, provided by Willingham (2015), is that perhaps a mixture of these main methods would be beneficial to more pupils. Surely, all anybody wants is for children to succeed? If so, why not seek to create as fair and accessible a system as possible?

LUKE STOKOE, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Adams, R. (2016, September 29). Phonics test results rise again but poorer pupils lag behind. The Guardian.

Goodman, K. (1982). Language, Literacy and Learning. London: Routledge.

Johnston, R and Watson, J. (2014). Teaching synthetic phonics in primary schools. London: Sage Publications Ltd. 

Krashen. S. (2002). Defending whole language: The limits of phonics instruction and the efficacy of whole language instruction. Reading Improvement, 39(1), 32-42.

Rose, J. (2006) Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading: Final Report. 

Rosen, M. (2012, May 3). My thoughts on the Year 1 phonics screening test. Michael Rosen Blog.

Willingham, D. (February 2015). And the victor in the reading wars is… Times Educational Supplement, pp. 24-28.

How easy is it to read ‘bread’ and ‘bead’? LUKE EDWARDS explores synthetic phonics.

The teaching of literacy skills to UK children has been the subject of a long running debate. Literacy is obviously a key part of learning as it sets a foundation for children in later life. However, in the past the different teaching methods could be confusing, with a child being taught one method in one school which is vastly different to that of children in a neighbouring school.

This is why the UK government proposed ‘synthetic phonics’ as its main literacy method. Lyle (2014) explains that learning to read using a phonics method is about looking at the sounds (or ‘phonemes’) that letter combinations make. English itself contains 44 phonemes. The Dyslexia Reading Well provides a full coverage of these phonemes. This is the UK government’s approved method of teaching as it is more quantifiable than other methods – it is easier to test and therefore teachers can work out pupils’ reading level. It is also allegedly easier to learn and memorise 44 phonemes than learn via reading in context which requires a child to learn the shapes of whole words based on context and prior experience.

Synthetic phonics is primarily aimed at five-to-seven-year-olds though there is some degree of vocal ‘play’ before this age. This would involve games, singing, alliteration and other language play (Johnston & Watson, 2014). Then in Year One they begin being taught phonics to its full extent. The teaching starts with looking at words, segmenting them to understand the different phonemes involved. This is also done the opposite way,  phonemes being blended together to form whole words. These practices are then applied to reading and spelling (Johnston & Watson, 2014). After this children are taught ‘digraphs’; whilst this sounds daunting, a digraph is simply a pair of letters representing a single speech sound.

At the end of the digraph stage they have learnt all the phonemes taught in the current guide. They will then learn the alternative pronunciations of some phonemes (Johnston & Watson, 2014). This involves the differences in the pronunciation of words such as ‘bread’ and ‘bead’. These words both have the /ea/ phoneme followed by  a /d/. This is one of the key issues with phonics teaching as it confusing for children to learn the irregular forms of words (Lyle, 2014, pg. 70). This is compounded by the quantity of irregular sounding words the English Language has developed and adopted over its life.

There are many compelling views from both sides of the phonics debate. Some researchers and academics such as Sue Lyle, Andrew Davis and Michael Rosen object to a solely phonics based approach. Lyle (2014) believes that reading and understanding words in context is more important to children’s learning than learning the pronunciation. Davis appreciates some of the key arguments in favour of the phonics method but disagrees with it as a sole method.  He states, similar to Lyle, that he is against the “imposition of text decoding outside of ‘real’ reading contexts” (Davis, 2013, pg. 14). He also has a chapter dedicated to the statement “letter sounds and decoding is not reading” (Davis, 2013, pg. 19) again giving weight to the idea that there are other important aspects of reading aside from phonemic spelling. Michael Rosen’s (2013) blog which also follows the opinions of Lyle and Davis in the idea that phonics is not truly reading.

In his report, that is one of the key studies that led to the implementation of phonics teaching , Sir Jim Rose (2006) suggested that the older methods risked “paying insufficient attention to the critical skills of word recognition” (Rose,2006, pg. 36). The phonics method provides a set outline of how to teach a large class all at once rather than a teacher having to attempt one to one reading with 30 children which is a somewhat daunting task. The phonics approach is also quantifiable, as mentioned above, and there is currently a test in place that tracks a child’s understanding of phonics.
So in the UK, currently the phonics approach is prevailing. What are your thoughts and experiences of learning to read and write? Although it may be an easier way to teach a full class in a measurable way, is phonics truly learning to read?

LUKE EDWARDS, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

Davis, A. (2013). To read or not to read: decoding Synthetic Phonics. 

Dyslexia Reading Well. ‘The 44 Phonemes in English’.

Johnston, R and Watson, J. (2014). Teaching synthetic phonics in primary schools. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Lyle, S. (2014). The limits of phonics teaching. School Leadership Today 5 (5), 68-74.

Rose, J. (2006). Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading: Final Report 

Rosen, M. (2013) Phonics: a summary of my views. Michael Rosen. 

‘Geck’, ‘chom’ & ‘thazz’! TIFFANY WOODWARD asks: ‘Are UK five-year-olds being taught to read through meaningless words?’

Since 2006, and the publication of the Rose Review on the teaching of reading and writing, the UK government has promoted the use of a literacy method, known as ‘systematic synthetic phonics. This is where children are taught the 44 sounds of English in a specific order – ‘d’ and ‘g’ before ‘ch’ and ‘th’, for example (Jolly Learning; Rose, 2006). Upon learning the sounds, the youngsters then face the challenge of blending them, to pronounce the words of English (Neaum, 2017, p. 2). The majority of educators seemed to understand the reasoning behind the promotion of this method. After all, the Rose Report (2006) was heavily based upon a multitude of research. In an investigation by Johnston and Watson (2005) in Clackmannanshire, children exposed to ‘systematic synthetic phonics’ had a reading age of more than three years above their actual age (Gibb, 2014). Clearly, teachers everywhere wanted their pupils to excel in this way. If the suggested method was to work best for the children, then this was what they would adhere to.

As we might expect, this ceasefire in the so-called ‘Reading Wars’ was relatively short lived. The introduction of a compulsory Phonics Screening Check (test) in 2012, has been strongly opposed by many, not only those teaching phonics (Gibb, 2014). The check assesses the phonic knowledge of children in Year 1, and requires them to read aloud 40 words (Richardson, 2014), which seems like a somewhat straightforward task. However, the checks have been criticised for a variety of reasons, from their extortionate cost (Clark, 2014, p. 13), to the negative influence that they are found to have on the confidence of young and fluent readers (UKLA, 2012).

For many though, the crux of the matter is that half of the words that children are presented with during these checks, are not real words. What are they, if not real words? They are non-words, or ‘pseudo’ words, such as “voo” and “spron” (Richardson, 2014), that children, age five, are expected to be able to break down into sounds, and then blend, to read the word aloud. Spending even a small amount of time in a Year 1 classroom, allowed me to experience the sheer weight that schools place upon learning these non-words. The Year 1 teacher that I observed, spent a significant amount of time practising these non-words with the children. It is difficult to see how rehearsing these non-words, solely in preparation for the checks, helps the children to become better all-round readers.

The check, described by the Department for Education (DfE) as a “short, light touch assessment” (DfE, 2013), is nothing of the sort, according to 87% of teachers questioned, all of whom disagree with their implementation. Ninety-one per cent of teachers questioned, claimed that the checks did not give them any additional insight into the children’s reading abilities (ATL/NAHT/NUT, 2012), which leads many to question whether the checks are fit for purpose. The teachers surveyed claimed that the non-words were a very confusing element for the majority of children, who, in an attempt to make sense of what they were reading, read words like ‘thend’ as ‘the end’ (UKLA, 2012, p. 4). These errors significantly affected their marks in the tests (UKLA, 2012, p. 4).

Of course, avid supporters of the checks refer to a range of advantages associated with their use. Gibb (2014), who claims that phonics should be used as “the sole method for teaching children to decode and identify words”, is one of a number of individuals, who consistently support the use of the checks. The DfE (2013) claim that one of the main benefits of early testing, is that children who might be struggling with reading can be spotted from their cohort at a young age. Teachers and support staff, therefore, will be able to implement the correct support and guidance, to help the child catch up with their peers, and essentially, “close the gap” (Grant, 2014, pp. 22-23).

It is understandable that the early identification of issues in reading, for children is essential to their successful development throughout the key stages. However, it is also important to recognize that the effects of these checks, on teachers, and more importantly, the pupils sitting them, have been negative. If the aim of teaching children to read using a systematic, synthetic phonics method, is to improve the early reading abilities of children, then why are these reading abilities being tested through the reading of words that are not real? Unless five-year-olds request to read Lewis Carroll’s ‘Jabberwocky’ (Davis, 2013, 29) every day, then it seems that the checks will not help them become better readers.

TIFFANY WOODWARD, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

ATL/NAHT/NUT (2012, July). Teachers’ and head teachers’ views of the year one phonics screening check.

Clark, M. (2014). Whose knowledge counts in Government literacy policies and at what cost? Education Journal, 186, 13–16.

Davis, A. (2013). To read or not to read; Decoding Synthetic Phonics. Impact: Philosophical Perspectives on Education Policy (No. 20). 

Department for Education. (2013). The phonics screening check.

Gibb, N. (2014, 16 June). Phonics tests show progressive teaching is doomed to failure. Daily Telegraph. 

Grant, M. (2014). The effects of a systematic synthetic phonics programme on reading, writing and spelling.

Johnston, R., and Watson, J. (2005). The effects of synthetic phonics teaching of reading and spelling attainment: A seven year longitudinal study. The Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

Jolly Learning Educational Publisher. Teaching literacy with Jolly Phonics.

Neaum, S. (2017). What comes before phonics? London, United Kingdom: Learning Matters.

Richardson, H. (2014, 28 January). Able readers damaged by phonics, academic says. BBC News. 

Rose, J. (2006). Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading (The Rose Report), Nottingham, United Kingdom: DfES.

United Kingdom Literacy Association. (2012). UKLA analysis of schools’ response to the year 1 phonics screening check.

Are grammar tests for school pupils a necessity for job success or a waste of time and resources? ANNA TOLLITT discusses SATs and CATs.

The teaching of grammar and Standard English in British primary schools is a subject that has been widely up for debate since as long ago as 1921, when Sir Henry Newbolt presented a report to the English and Welsh Board of Education highlighting the lack of English teaching in schools, and outlined future changes to be more inclusive of the subject (Oxford Reference, 2003).

Fast-forward almost a century and primary schools up and down the country have introduced obligatory spelling, punctuation and grammar testing – or SPaG tests, as they are more widely known – for all Key Stage one and two students in order to promote and enforce the usage of correct grammar and Standard English in 4-11 year olds. However, since their inception into the British schooling system in 2013, SPaG tests have received mixed to negative reviews from parents, teachers and students alike, being accused by the National Association of Head Teachers of being a “waste of time and resources” resulting in “increased misery” for year six students already anxious about their SATs tests and impending transition to high school (BBC, 2012).

Furthermore, the SPaG testing regime has frequently been accused of trying to ‘catch out’ young students through arguably poorly worded and vague questions. These include asking year two students (6/7 year olds) to correctly distinguish the punctuation mark to be put at the end of the sentence “What a wonderful present you gave me”, accepting only an exclamation mark as the correct answer regardless of the fact that a full stop would be perfectly adequate. The use of the pre-determiner ‘what’, usually associated with questions, at the start of the sentence may serve to trick the younger students to wrongly use a question mark. The UK Literacy Association (UKLA) have waded into the debate, arguing that “decontextualised teaching to the intended test of grammar, spelling and punctuation is certain to be counterproductive” (UKLA, 2013) and therefore regard SPaG tests as unnecessary and even obstructive to the acquisition of ‘correct’ grammar.

Not everyone has been so quick to criticise elementary grammar testing however. A large majority of EFL teachers maintain that a decent grasp of grammar is beneficial to teaching both English and other modern foreign languages, stating that “you won’t be able to convey your ideas to their full extension without a good command of the underlying grammar patterns and structures of the language”, and that a decent understanding of grammar and syntax actually increases the ease at which British children may pick up a second language (Foppoli). This can only be seen as a benefit considering that a survey in 2011 ranked England’s teenagers “the worst in Europe” when it came to learning modern foreign languages (Paton, 2013).

It has also been reported that, due to a falling standard of grammar and Standard English in recent years, companies are more keen than ever to take on employees with a good grasp of English, with Wiens (2012), the CEO of the company iFixit.com, claiming that an applicant’s use of grammar could be the difference between being offered a job at his company and being ignored. Furthermore, a 2010 Survey of Employability found that, when reading a covering letter, employers generally attributed 18% of their attention to spelling and grammar, and a further 26% to clarity of speech, amounting to 44% of attention being drawn to a potential employee’s grammatical ability (Hilden, 2010).

Another modern dilemma faced by many when it comes to the implementation of Standard English in primary schools is the rise of text-speak and slang which is allegedly slowly creeping into mainstream usage. In 2013, the Daily Mail newspaper (Levy, 2013) reported that 14.3% of a sample of 35,000 sixteen-year-olds admitted to using text-speak, colloquialisms and non-Standard English in their schoolwork and even GCSE exams. According to Wood, Kemp and Plester (2014) it was found that children who text more perform less well in Cognitive Abilities Tests, observing that “as [their] texting increased, children’s performance on the CAT decreased”. Surely then, with modern society’s growing obsession with mobile devices and instant messaging – with one in ten children now receiving their first mobile phone at age five (Sayid, 2013) – it is more crucial than ever to ensure that correct grammar and Standard English is taught and enforced from an early age?

ANNA TOLLITT, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK

References

BBC. (2012). Heads oppose new punctuation and spelling test.

Foppoli, J. (Date Unknown). Is Grammar Really Important for a Second Language User? 

Hilden, E. (2010). Survey of Education. 

Levy, A. (2013). Exams and essays full of ‘txt speak’.

Oxford Reference. (2003). Oxford University Press.

Paton, G. (2013). Three-quarters of adults ‘cannot speak a foreign language’.

Sayid, R. (2013). Children given mobile phones at age of 11. The Mirror. 

UKLA. (2013). UKLA statement on teaching grammar.

Wiens, K. (2012). I won’t hire people who use poor grammar.

Wood, C. Kemp, N., Plester, B.  (2014). Text messaging and literacy: The evidence. London: Routledge.

Are SPaG tests a gateway to fluency or yet another hoop for school pupils to jump through? SOPHIE COOPER investigates

The importance of Standard English in schools emerged with the Newbolt Report in 1921. Newbolt believed Standard English had the ability to heal the damage done to the country by uniting us after the First World War, and that the inability to use this dialect was a “handicap” (p. 67), even going so far to claim regional dialects to be “evil habits of speech” (p. 59).

Few would be so bold to be quite so discourteous today, especially in official government reports, but many, such as Trudgill (1995), claim this attitude towards standard and non-standard dialects still lingers. A school in Middlesbrough compiled a list of non-standard terms, requesting that parents ‘corrected’ them, even labelling commonly used lexis, such as “dunno”, ‘incorrect’ (Williams, 2013). Can we really be outraged that a school went so far as to distinguish a right and wrong way to speak, when primary schools up and down the country are now enforcing Standard English through weekly “grammar hammers” and SPaG (spelling, punctuation and grammar) tests on children between the ages of 5 and 11?

These tests, which the Department for Education (2013) claim are needed in order to raise literacy standards, were informed by an independent report carried out by Lord Bew. He suggested there are “elements of writing […] where there are clear ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers, which lend themselves to externally-marked testing” (Bew, 2011, p.60). Thus, the SPaG test was born. The tests are not without controversy; their introduction has faced much criticism from teachers and experts alike. The United Kingdom Literacy Association (UKLA) stated that decontextualized teaching of grammar is “certain to be counterproductive” (2013), and Sellgren (2012) reported that the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) voted in favour of stopping the tests, stating that they are a waste of resources, and that they will only add more stress to children already buried under exams.

One of the main statements used to justify the tests, however, has found support in the form of iFixit CEO, Kyle Wiens. The government asserts that these tests are crucial due to complaints from employers about the amount of so-called illiteracy among school leavers. Wiens reaffirms this attitude in a 2012 article, stating he would not hire those who used non-standard grammar (Wiens, 2012). Although this is just one man’s opinion, research seems to reaffirm the sentiment. In 2011, Myhill claimed that allowing a speaker access to Standard English allows access to powerful positions (p.76). Speicher and Bielanski (2003) support this, highlighting findings across studies that suggest social mobility is prevented when speech is “deemed inappropriate” (p.158).

This suggests children should be given access to Standard English. But are these tests the way forward? Is it really necessary to know the complete ins and outs of grammar at such a young age?

Children’s writer and political columnist Michael Rosen suggests not. In an open letter to the then UK Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, Rosen (2015) highlighted some key issues with the tests, stating that grammar is not always black and white, that these tests seem to be setting children up to fail, and that many items presented as fact are actually contested in linguistic circles. Linguists do not necessarily agree on what constitutes a standard grammar, and Brindley and Swann (1996) propose that even Standard English is not immune to changes over time (p.209); an idea which these tests seem to be fighting against, especially with their use of archaic terms such as ‘subjunctive’. Is it, as Rosen suggests, a waste of time to teach children such specific terminology, which even degree level students aren’t necessarily clear on? Does this knowledge truly aid writing development?

In 2006, Andrews et al set out to find the answer. Upon reviewing the research available at the time, they found that teaching syntax has negligible impact on the quality of children’s writing. Interactive and creative teaching of grammar, however, may be beneficial. Researchers Myhill, Jones, Watson and Lines (2013) found that when grammar is taught in context in high schools, writing scores improved up to 20%. In light of this, in KS3 at least, through certain teaching methods, explicit grammar could be argued to improve writing.

Obviously, the issue remains a point of contention in the education community. Teaching methods are evidently an important aspect when it comes to having an actual impact on the writing skills of British children. If we truly want to get to the bottom of the issues this test proposes to fix, we have to take these methods into account. Otherwise, one could argue that the SPaG test is yet another example of teaching children to jump through hoops.

SOPHIE COOPER, English Language undegraduate, University of Chester

References

Andrews, R.C., Torgerson, S., Beverton, A., Freeman, T., Lock, G., Low, G., Robinson, A. & Zhu, D. (2006). The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Education Research Journal (32)1, 39-55.

Bew, P. (2011). Independent review of Key Stage 2 testing, assessment and accountability. 

Brindley, S., & Swann, J. (1996). Issues in English teaching. In N. Mercer & J. Swann (Eds), Learning English: Development and diversity (pp. 205-242). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Department for Education. (2013). New grammar, punctuation and spelling test will raise children’s literacy standards.

Myhill, D. (2011). Living language, live debates: Grammar and standard English. In J. Davison, C. Daly, & J. Moss (Eds.), Debates in English teaching (pp. 63-77). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Myhill, D., Jones, S., Watson, A., & Lines, H. (2013). Playful explicitness with grammar: a pedagogy for writing. Literacy, 47(2), 103-111.

Newbolt, H. (1921). The teaching of English in England. London, United Kingdom: HMSO.

Rosen, M. (2015, November 3). Dear Ms Morgan: in grammar there isn’t always one right answer. The Guardian. 

Sellgren, K. (2012, May 6). Heads oppose new punctuation and spelling test. BBC.

Speicher, B. L., & Bielanski, J. R. (2003). Critical thoughts on teaching standard English. Curriculum Inquiry, 30(2), 147-169.

Trudgill, P. (1995). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. London, United Kingdom: Penguin.

UKLA. (2013). UKLA statement on teaching grammar.

Wiens, K. (2012, July 20). I won’t hire people who use poor grammar. Here’s why. Harvard Business Review.

Williams, O. (2013, February 3). Primary school tells parents to stop children using slang phrases as it is preventing them from learning ‘standard’ English. The Daily Mail.

Is the ‘phonics versus whole word’ literacy debate a false binary? CHELSEA EATON favours a bit of both

Since the introduction of the phonics screening checks in 2012 by the UK Government, primary schools in England have been encouraged to favour a ‘synthetic phonics’ approach to teaching their pupils how to read. Whether this is the best method to use is highly contested and up for debate.

Synthetic phonics focuses on individual (or combination) letter sounds within words (Willingham, 2015) – learning these sounds gives children alphabetic code which they can utilise to decode any text given to them. According to the then UK Schools Minister Nick Gibb, writing in The Telegraph newspaper (16 July 2014), support for the phonics approach is substantial, with advocates praising its ability to increase a child’s reading age by up three years. Gibb claims that the increase in reading age is illustrated in a study by Dr Marlynne Grant, which took place in a catholic primary school in the southwest of England. In the study, a phonics scheme was adopted in reception classes to see what effects it had. A year later Dr Grant returned to find the children had an average reading age of 8 years and 2 months, which was 22 months above the average reading age of 6 years and 4 months (Gibb, 2014). Not only does phonics appear to increase a child’s reading age, it also teaches other skills simultaneously. Debbie Hepplewhite (2011) points out that phonics teaches reading and spelling from the outset. Children are taught to read through the process of blending the individual speech sounds, and spelling skills come from segmenting the spoken word.

Previously, in his government report in 2006, Jim Rose observed an insufficient focus on an essential component of learning to read. This component was the promotion of listening skills to ensure that children “built up a good stock of words, learnt to listen attentively and spoke clearly and confidently” (Rose, 2006:3). This is a skill that could be built upon with the introduction of a synthetic phonics approach, according to Rose. So on the face of it the phonics approach seems to be an adequate way of teaching children to read – it can considerably increase a child’s reading age and teaches effective listening skills at the same time. But is total reliance on a phonics approach really the way to go?

Advocates of the ‘whole word’ approach would warn against the over reliance on phonics. The whole word approach involves the learning of words as wholes, through methods such as repetition, working out and focusing on meaning, context, pictures and other clues (Willingham, 2015).

Whole word supporters criticise phonics because it does not equip children with the tools to draw meaning from a text. Lyle (2014) gives a concise critique of phonics which points out the dangers of confusing “decoding” with “reading”. In her words “decoding has nothing to do with the whole purpose of reading – making meaning” (Lyle, 2014:1). So while there is no disagreement that phonics provides children with essential skills, there is an argument that it doesn’t teach children the meaning of what they are reading. It could be said that the absence of meaning makes reading rather futile.

With a grasp of meaning comes a knowledge of comprehension across sentences. Willingham (2015) shows how writers often omit certain parts of information in their text for literary effect. Children therefore need a knowledge of context and comprehension to be able to fill in the missing parts of information. If children do not have this skill then the meaning of the text can be lost. Supporters of the whole word approach say that the learning of individual words in context gives children a chance to grasp meaning.

Some supporters of the whole word approach point out that English is a very irregular language, which makes learning certain rules for certain words even more important. English is characterised by its irregularities (Lyle, 2014) and this is one of the reasons why relying on just a phonic approach can become misleading for some children. For example phonics doesn’t work for all CVC (consonant, vowel, consonant) words, of which there are plenty in the English Language. Children are often taught to sound CVC words such as <cat> in the phonics approach. However what happens when a child is faced with a word like <sir>? If they use their phonic knowledge will they know that the <r> changes the pronunciation of the letter <i> in this example? (Lyle, 2014:1). Lyle argues this could confuse children.

It is clear from the opposing arguments that both strategies have their merits and downfalls, but in my opinion we should be adopting a mixed methods approach, using the most effective parts of both strategies. We should be looking for a middle ground between the two methods. This would eliminate the “one size fits all” argument that may seem practical on the face of it, but just doesn’t work when put into practice.

CHELSEA EATON, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester

References

Department for Education and Skills. (2006). Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading. 

Gibb, N. (2014). Phonics Tests Show Progressive Teaching is Doomed to Failure. 

Hepplewhite, D. (2011). Debbie Hepplewhite’s Advice on Synthetic Phonics Learning. 

Lyle, S. (2014). The Limits of Phonics Teaching. School Leadership Today. 5(5), pp. 68-74

Willingham, D. (2015, February 27). And the Winner in the Reading Wars is…Times Educational Supplement, pp 24-28.