The work of our GIANTS - How often do we have to evidence the same results? What matters the most now?

This is the hub of the site and the place to post queries, start discussions and join in the conversation!
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The work of our GIANTS - How often do we have to evidence the same results? What matters the most now?

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sat May 18, 2019 2:15 pm

Professors James Chapman and Bill Tunmer have worked very hard for years on analysing the results and realities of the Reading Recovery intervention programme - and their contribution is exceptionally important for laying bare the truth of the whole language approach on already weak readers:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1054

We conclude that RR does not tailor instruction to meet the needs of individual students, as claimed. The RR instructional model, developed in the 1970s, fails to recognise the importance of explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness and the use of letter–sound relations. Such instruction is essential for most students who struggle with literacy learning during their early years of schooling and especially important for students who experience the most difficulty with learning to read. Suggestions are presented for strengthening the RR programme and for reducing the number of unrecovered students.
User avatar
Debbie_Hepplewhite
Posts: 1944
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Re: The work of our GIANTS - How often do we have to evidence the same results? What matters the most now?

Postby Debbie_Hepplewhite » Sun May 19, 2019 12:22 am

Member of the founding committee of the International Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction, Sir Jim Rose, is world-renowned for his work to promote evidence-informed systematic synthetic phonics - drawing on both research findings and leading-edge classroom practice:

About Sir Jim Rose:

https://iferi.org/members/sir-jim-rose- ... a/#more-51

Sir Jim Rose's famous report commissioned by the, then, UK Government in 2005/6 was a turning point in England to the official acceptance of the Simple View of Reading model (Gough and Tunmer, 1986) replacing the 'Searchlights' multi-cueing strategies (National Literacy Strategy, 1998) for teachers' professional understanding of what it means to be a reader in the full sense. Despite many phonics critics and detractors, England has gone from strength to strength in accepting and embracing the need for systematic synthetic phonics provision in early years and infant schools.

See Sir Jim Rose's Final Report (2006) via this page:

https://iferi.org/evidence/

Sir Jim Rose continues to support the need for systematic synthetic phonics in our schools and writes articles periodically on the topic of literacy, for example - see the topics of IFERI's blog to view several articles by Sir Jim:

https://iferi.org/blog/

Return to “General Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests