Phonics Debate

I am aware of the effectiveness of teaching phonics synthetically after following a programme called Read Write Ink (RWI) with some year 2 SEN pupils whilst working at Sefton Park Primary. RWI is underpinned by a synthetic approach to blending phonemes.The books go up in sequence and there is much repetition of key words so that you can target specific words depending on where the child is at. This method is based on sounding out words, using flash cards and learning to say the words in and out of context. I found the package to be very beneficial particularly with one child whose development was particularly delayed meaning that we had to revise phonic sounds from Reception and year 1. I worked closely with the child’s mother who invested time into putting her daughters key word magnets on the fridge and also read through these fun, engaging books with her at home. This was not a long arduous process we would have discrete daily sessions at a brisk pace which would increase learning in a fun productive way. It worked well as it is systematic with a clearly defined and structured progression for learning all major grapheme/phoneme correspondences. The structure of the books gave the pupils something to aim for, as reading for some of them had become a very anxiety producing task which they were conscious of. High importance was placed on the reading being fun, punchy, structured and above all motivational.
I also took out a phonics group each week who were middle ability within the class and played a variety of phonics games such as ‘Jolly Phonics’ and an increasingly popular ICT resource called ‘Nessy’. I was particularly fond of one Nessy game and so were the children, it was a fishing game which involved a word blending task. Children pair up and each have a magnetic fishing rod, they must try to collect as many fish each as they can by saying out loud the words printed on the fish. If they sound out a word correctly they can pick up the fish with their magnetic rod. I think little games like these can be useful filler games and can be used first thing when the kids arrive in the morning. I also used it with the SEN children I taught. In this way the children are learning whilst they are enjoying which I’ve experienced to be a winning combination.



Although the use of synthetic based learning tools were highly successful for the struggling readers I believe that sticking rigidly to one doctrine in a class full of unique pupils is bound to cause problems. So many differing needs and expectations emerge in one class, so many different influences coming from their home life. Children learn in a variety of different ways. Having personally seen the growth of many struggling pupils who needed the structure and guidance of ‘synthetic’ reading I feel I can not reject this method as I know and have seen it producing marvellous results. It seems as though those who were struggling need that structure and signposting. Phonics doesn’t have to be all doom and gloom with laborious segmentation of words there are games that can be played and the pupils can develop in a fun atmosphere. However children develop at different speeds and it is possible to have a mixture of learning styles in the classroom. After reading the article on ‘Putting literature at the heart of the literacy curriculum’ by Deborah Nicholson and watching the teacher at Sefton Park involve the children so much in story time (e.g. discussing opinions, feelings about story) there appears to be great value in the learning in context style which is adopted by the analytical method. I was particularly taken aback by Nicholson’s article as to how much the children were engaging in the books studied and it seems that choices of books are paramount! The children seemed to reach a clear and empathetic understanding of the characters in the books they studied; the analytical method is very conducive to this. Further to this for those pupils who were prolific readers in the year 2 class which I worked with at Sefton Park, the analytic method seemed much more apparent and natural in them.

Ultimately I think a combination of the two approaches (synthetic and analytical) could prove the most effective. It seems that for the pupils struggling with their reading, synthetics are an access tool which can anchor their vocabulary building confidence so that hopefully they will eventually be able to use analytical methods, which I feel uses higher order skills.
It must also not be forgotten that focus can be an issue for youngsters and anything which captures their attention and accesses their capacity to engage in the lesson is powerful. I feel that the ‘synthetic’ and ‘analytic’ styles can co-exist. It appears to me that it is almost an open ended and closed learning style debate. The analytic allowing free reign and encouraging independent analytical skills whereas the synthetic style seems to closely nurture a child’s reading ability in a structured way. Both are highly valid strategies in my eyes.

Your experiences with phonics remind me of when I taught English in a school in Spain to 7 year olds. They had to fish letters out and tell me what the letter was and a word beginning with that letter. They absolutely loved it. I had to actually hide the game because they were excited by the mere sight of it!