The topic of the need for clear definitions and explanations when it comes to the topic of 'phonics' and reading/spelling instruction is ever-present.
So often people hold discussions and inadvertently misinterpret one another.
Molly de Lemos has often called for the need for clear definitions to avoid misunderstanding. Here is one of her latest contributions:
There seems to me to be some confusion in the current debate on phonics as to whether phonics is a method of teaching or if phonics is a body of knowledge (that is, knowledge of the alphabetic principle, or the link between letters and sounds).
For example, some people are claiming that you ‘don’t need phonics to be able to read’.
What they mean by this is that some children may learn to read without having been taught phonics (ie the link between letters and sounds) through an explicit ‘phonics’ teaching program.
However, if phonics is understood as a body of knowledge, then the claim that you don’t need phonics to be able to read is incorrect.
The ability to read depends on knowledge of the link between letters and sounds.
Most children do, eventually, learn to pick this up, even if they have not been exposed to an explicit ‘phonics’ teaching program.
But they will not be able to read without coming to understand, either through implicit learning or through explicit teaching, the link between letters and sounds.
And for most (all?) children, explicit teaching of the alphabetic principle is the quickest and most effective way of teaching them to read.
And being able to read is the quickest and most effective way of expanding vocabulary, language skills and the background knowledge that is required to comprehend written text.
I think it is a very good idea to distinguish between the alphabetic code as a 'body of knowledge' and the 'method of teaching' because the body of knowledge (the code) can be introduced and taught in many different ways - or as we know from the debate, not at all!
Re ‘method of teaching’ – this can be truly key even when programmes or provision purports to be 'synthetic' phonics – and I certainly identify many differences when I have reviewed (including watching practice) various phonics programmes and approaches. They are truly not the same as one another even if the 'end' is the same aspiration - to teach reading (and spelling)!
Virtually any phonics teaching can be effective and better than no phonics teaching. This also suggests that a phonics programme, or phonics provision, does not have to be particularly high quality to be able to teach children to read simply because it is 'phonics'. But this is another reason why having a universal phonics check is so important - it may well highlight which phonics programmes and practices are more effective than others (but for reading, not for spelling as the phonics check is a reading assessment).
For example, teaching blending for reading and oral segmenting for spelling are not a ‘given’ in phonics provision - and not necessarily given equal emphasis.
A school's provision may be effective at teaching the letter/s-sound correspondences of the alphabetic code (the body of knowledge) but provide too much practice using nonsense words with the phonics check in mind - which can be missing the opportunity to use real decodable words to add the extra ingredient of enriching vocabulary.
Teaching the code as ‘rules’ rather than as a ‘code’ can look very different as a teaching method.
Some phonics programmes use letter names for spelling processes rather than sounds.
Some phonics programmes emphasis word families (onset and rime) rather than spelling word banks based on words spelt with the same letter/s-sound correspondences.
Some phonics programmes teach the ‘simple code’ stage to word level only – not applying the code knowledge and phonics texts to decodable texts, whereas other programmes introduce decodable texts at an early stage.
Some programmes and provision emphasise handwriting, others don’t.
Some use no paper-based resources or may not involve parents/carers – others emphasise paper-based resources and working in partnership with parents or at least informing them routinely.
Some use diacritics (signs over or under the letter shapes, letters and letter groups) – some don’t.
We often hear references to 'analytic phonics' as opposed to 'synthetic phonics'. What are the differences in approach for teaching the code in 'analytic phonics' compared to 'synthetic phonics'?
Susan Godsland's site is packed full of information and references. Here she describes different phonics and reading instruction approaches with detailed explanations as necessary to achieve clarity:
