Phonics International Forum Index Phonics International
an International Online Synthetic Phonics Programme
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Challenges to 'research' basis for SSP promotion in England

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Phonics International Forum Index -> All sorts of articles, blogs, research and topics to stimulate debate!
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2482
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 2:06 pm    Post subject: Challenges to 'research' basis for SSP promotion in England Reply with quote

Here in England, over and again various people challenge the research basis for successive governments increasingly promoting the need for systematic SYNTHETIC phonics to teach reading and spelling instruction - the 'technical' elements of reading and spelling.

Systematic Synthetic Phonics is now embedded in the statutory National Curriculum in England (Sept, 2014).

Susan Godsland addressed this persistent doubt about 'the research' with the following message to me and others. I was aware of Diane McGuinness's review of the Torgerson et al research review but not the parliamentary inquiry by the Science and Technology select committee.

Susan wrote:


Quote:
I’m almost certain that the follow-up research people refer to is the DCSF commissioned Torgerson et al research review. It’s commonly used to put down Synthetic Phonics and cause uncertainty because its conclusion was that there was no strong evidence, 'that any one form of systematic phonics is more effective than another'. The review carried little weight with the Rose Report team (Final Report, March 2006). The reasons for this are explained in a report by Parliament's Science & Technology Committee, produced after they had examined the evidence base of the Rose report -see paras.22,23,24:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/900/900we24.htm

Professor Diane McGuinness examined the Torgerson et al review closely.

See http://www.syntheticphonics.com/articles/Torgerson%20article.pdf for her ‘pulling no punches’ analysis.

_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2482
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is very common for people to attack the Clackmannanshire studies which are known to have influenced Government-thinking on the advantages of synthetic phonics versus analytic phonics.

Here, the authors of the studies, Rhona Johnston and Joyce Watson, address the 'myths' that have arisen around the Clackmannanshire studies:


http://www.rrf.org.uk/archive.php?n_ID=170&n_issueNumber=59

Quote:
Fact and Fiction about the Synthetic Phonics Study in Clackmannanshire

Rhona Johnston & Joyce Watson

Since our study of synthetic phonics in Clackmannanshire (Johnston and Watson, 2004) has been widely discussed, though perhaps not widely read, a remarkable number of myths have been circulating.

Hall (2006, page 12) argues that in our research in Clackmannanshire ‘analytic phonics was set up for failure’. Actually, as we are scrupulously careful researchers, our very first study set out to find out exactly how analytic phonics was taught. Definitions of analytic phonics are rarely very explicit; below is one of the more detailed ones that we have found.

_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2482
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here I've linked to another thread about attacks on Government promotion of Systematic Synthetic Phonics in England.

This time the attacks have come from some academics in Scotland - where many teachers remain unaware about the advantages and approach of systematic synthetic phonics - and where the Scottish 'Curriculum for Excellence' barely gives a nod to phonics:


http://phonicsinternational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=707
_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
debbie



Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 2482
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In any event, another 'attack' on Systematic Synthetic Phonics in classrooms in England, is the perpetuation of the discredited 'multi-cueing reading strategies' (30 years of research findings discredit this approach to reading instruction and yet still it persists) which amount to using various cues to 'guess' the words to lift them off the page, and dilution of SSP according to various weak practices.

I created a graphic to illustrate this issue and to help teachers to identify possible reasons as to why their Year One children might not be faring so well with the statutory Year One Phonics Screening Check:

The Simple View of Schools' Phonics Provision:

http://www.phonicsinternational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=847
_________________
Debbie Hepplewhite
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Phonics International Forum Index -> All sorts of articles, blogs, research and topics to stimulate debate! All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group