Podcast: Anne Castles interviewed for the TES 'Phonics crucial...'

This is the hub of the site and the place to post queries, start discussions and join in the conversation!
Post Reply
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Podcast: Anne Castles interviewed for the TES 'Phonics crucial...'

Post by Debbie_Hepplewhite »

I find the title of this piece a bit mystifying, but do read the article and find the time to listen to the podcast interview at the end of the article:
'Phonics is crucial - even for those who won’t ‘get’ it'

The evidence base is clear that phonics is the 'great equaliser' when it comes to reading, says one cognitive scientist
https://www.tes.com/news/phonics-crucia ... ont-get-it
“Systematic phonics is the great equaliser,” states Anne Castles, distinguished professor in the department of cognitive science at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. “If the child does not have rich language background, you can teach them phonics then they can go and read and supply themselves with that rich language, which is so key for their ability to access the curriculum later on.”

Speaking on this week’s episode of Tes Podagogy, Castles argues that the evidence this is the case is now compelling.

“There have been thousands of studies that have looked at phonics in various ways, various forms and using various measures,” she reveals. “We are at a level of confidence now where we can say we have a pretty good understanding that if a phonics programme follows a set of principals then most likely it will be effective, because it would fit with the broader evidence base we have.”
The following statement needs a bit of clarification. It is the CRITICS of the promotion of systematic phonics that often base their arguments suggesting or implying that phonics proponents say that phonics is the 'only' diet for beginners. This confusion arises because phonics proponents point out that 'multi-cueing word-guessing' reading strategies are flagged up by research to be potentially damaging. So, any sense of 'only' is about not teaching, encouraging, or causing by default, multi-cueing word-guessing:

She says there has also been a tendency on both sides of the argument to claim that phonics should be the totality of reading instruction in the early years – or that this is what people wish to happen – and this has fanned the flames of the debate unnecessarily. It’s an issue she touched on in a co-written article for Tes earlier this year and one she revisits in the podcast.
The statement below also needs some clarification. The proponents of systematic phonics, as far as I am aware, have always promoted a language-rich and literature-rich environment as long as the "all sorts of reading instruction" does not amount to teaching multi-cueing word-guessing (such as guess from the picture, guessing through context, guessing from word shape or 'what would make sense'), and asking children to read aloud, but BY THEMSELVES, a book that causes lots of guessing and confusion:

“There should never be a suggestion that the only reading instruction children should be getting is phonics,” she says. “They should be read to, they should be enmeshed in a reading environment, they should be engaged in all sorts of reading instruction.”
Post Reply