Thoughts on Phonics

Thoughts on Phonics

First and foremost, I do not feel I have enough first hand experience with the use of phonics in schools to form a valid argument for or agonised its practise. I do however have some conflicting opinions based on what I have read.

Unless taught with a great deal of skill and creativity, learning through the use of systematic phonics alone, in my opinion, takes away any enjoyment which comes from the readers’ comprehension of the text. In order for a reader to enjoy reading he or she has to have the ability to relate to its dialogue. As discussed during our session on phonics, reading is not only word recognition but is also measured by a readers’ comprehension of the text. Synthetic phonics seems to put all the emphasis on pronunciation and letter recognition, whilst ignoring the readers understanding or comprehension of the text. It seems then that reading just becomes a function with little depth or meaning, stripping it of all enjoyment. However as I have mentioned, I have not had enough first hand experience to back up this opinion and therefore, with more experience, this idea may be proved wrong.

I can see the beneficial use of phonics for those children who may find reading and writing more difficult, in particular for those with dyslexia. The Rose report shows that the use of synthetic phonics has proved to be more inclusive. The Rose Report recognises a development in the written skills within a cross section of children, through the use of spelling and sound correspondence. At a grapheme phoneme level of learning I can see how this use of synthetic phonics may prove very beneficial.

However as the level of learning progresses, looking at onset and rime through a systematic phonetic approach does not always prove straight forward within the English Language. When a child begins to learn words such as caught or bought, Shwa words or silent letters, this can be quite confusing and a more analytical approach is often taken. The way children learn these words happens mainly through word recognition, developed early on in their lives. This is a way of learning seemingly ignored by systematic approaches. Referring back to my earlier point, systematic phonics ignores reading for meaning which I feel is a more intuitive and effective way of learning. Systematic approaches also seem to ignore the fact that children spontaneously chunk words and or spelling together, such as shopping or helpful, which again shows a skill acquired through experience. However, those children who may not have been exposed to literacy form a young age may not have developed these skills, in which case theses students may benefit from the more systematic approach.

As I have mentioned, my knowledge surrounding the teaching of phonics is very limited. At this stage my opinion towards teachers having to take on one approach to teaching literacy at key stage 1 may prove un-beneficial to many students. Although I can see the place of systematic phonics within schools, I feel that other approaches towards learning should not be ignored. Children all learn in different ways and from different experiences, therefore the use of a single method of teaching may help some, yet hinder others. I look forward to learning more regarding the use of synthetic phonics and look forward to obtaining first hand experience during my SSE placement.

i agree - you can tell what a difference having experience of phonics being taught makes from these posts!