邻居送花过来应该怎么答谢# Living
t*l
1 楼
As World Book Day approaches, academic Andrew Davis argues that the
synthetic phonics check isn't an appropriate way to teach or assess reading
among primary students.
Recognising words through sound alone can be confusing for pupils when they
have more multiple meanings. Photograph: Murdo Macleod.
http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2014/mar/04/reading-lessons-phonics-world-book-day
Andrew Davis
Tuesday 4 March 2014 02.00 EST
Current government policy concerning reading favours synthetic phonics (SP),
where children learn to recognise letters with their associated sounds –
and how to blend those sounds to "read" the "words".
The revised national curriculum, coming into force from September 2014,
requires reception and year 1 students to be taught SP. Students aren't
meant to get help from clues such as context, meaning or illustration. It's
difficult to gauge how rigidly this will be enforced, but the situation
certainly suggests there'll be a significant increase in pressure on schools
and teachers to conform.
The existing universal imposition of a phonics check on all five and six
year-olds reinforces SP. Students are tested on isolated pieces of text –
half of them are pseudo-words, such as "vap", and all of them can be blended
from conventional letter sounds.
Much of the current documentation around SP gives the impression that
phonemes are sounds from which spoken words can be constructed. For example,
the "cat" sound can be made up from |k|, |æ| and |t|. But the term "
phoneme" doesn't mean "sound"; it actually refers to sets of sounds in
speech that distinguish one word from another. For instance, /æ/ and /a
:/ are separate phonemes in English. /æ/ can be heard in the middle of
"hat", while /a:/ is heard in the middle of "hart". The change in the middle
sound gives us a different word.
So the concept of a phoneme is abstract; changing the sound may or may not
change the word. A northerner, for example, is likely to use |æ| when
they say "fast", while their counterpart from the south will probably use /a
:/. The widespread references to phenomes in SP literature and policy blurs
the difference between synthesising letter sounds into a result that may or
may not match how we say a real word, and words proper.
Words have meaning with text and speech versions. They can be expressed in
Braille and sign language, for example, and Shakespeare was apparently
capable of spelling the same word in more than one way on the same page.
Both spelling and pronunciation of many words has also changed over time,
and local accents have significant impacts.
Sometimes, it's only when you've worked out the context, that you know how
to say a word. For example, "The wind is blowing" and "I can wind the clock"
could be said in the same way but are pronounced differently and have
different meanings. Likewise, blending the sounds appropriate for "paws"
could produce something that also fits "pause", "pours" and "pores". So if "
paws" is encountered out of context, you cannot identify your sound blend
with a real word unless you already recognise the word "paws" as text.
If SP enthusiasts simply spoke of blending sounds, no one would think that
this was reading, even if it was seen as a helpful step on the way. Talk of
blending phonemes affords an inappropriate plausibility to the idea that
blending actually is reading.
It's really important to appreciate that the phonics check attempts to test
skills that aren't reading and for it to work it faces some very revealing
challenges. Take the so-called category of real words. Suppose that "blow"
were included in a test and a student blended the sounds resulting in
something rhyming with "cow". There's no real word in the English language
is pronounced like that. So the child constructs a sound from the relevant
letters, but it's not a word. What would happen if it was marked incorrect
because the sound produced fails to match any real words? (According to the
markers' instructions for the 2013 check, this is exactly what would have
happened.)
Then the check becomes a test of what words a child already has in their
spoken vocabulary. Yet the check isn't supposed to be testing what words a
child would recognise if they heard them; it's meant to be assessing their
skills in blending letter sounds, regardless of the result. On such grounds,
our enlightened test constructors in theory could say that the child should
be given credit for coming up with the "blow" blend concerned because they
blended the sound properly, even though the result isn't a word – but they
don't. When the child tackles the pseudo-words, on the other hand, then any
plausible blend is marked correct. So half the check assesses mere blending
of sounds, while the other half includes an attempt to assess the extent of
a child's spoken vocabulary even though no context is offered.
All this really does matter, because while the check continues, there is the
danger that some schools will train children to pass it, however far they
have progressed towards reading for meaning. Anecdotally, some fluent
readers fail the check, and fail it more than once. In the light of these
reflections, the Department for Education should abandon the check and allow
teachers to continue to use phonics intelligently and flexibly in the
context of reading for meaning.
synthetic phonics check isn't an appropriate way to teach or assess reading
among primary students.
Recognising words through sound alone can be confusing for pupils when they
have more multiple meanings. Photograph: Murdo Macleod.
http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2014/mar/04/reading-lessons-phonics-world-book-day
Andrew Davis
Tuesday 4 March 2014 02.00 EST
Current government policy concerning reading favours synthetic phonics (SP),
where children learn to recognise letters with their associated sounds –
and how to blend those sounds to "read" the "words".
The revised national curriculum, coming into force from September 2014,
requires reception and year 1 students to be taught SP. Students aren't
meant to get help from clues such as context, meaning or illustration. It's
difficult to gauge how rigidly this will be enforced, but the situation
certainly suggests there'll be a significant increase in pressure on schools
and teachers to conform.
The existing universal imposition of a phonics check on all five and six
year-olds reinforces SP. Students are tested on isolated pieces of text –
half of them are pseudo-words, such as "vap", and all of them can be blended
from conventional letter sounds.
Much of the current documentation around SP gives the impression that
phonemes are sounds from which spoken words can be constructed. For example,
the "cat" sound can be made up from |k|, |æ| and |t|. But the term "
phoneme" doesn't mean "sound"; it actually refers to sets of sounds in
speech that distinguish one word from another. For instance, /æ/ and /a
:/ are separate phonemes in English. /æ/ can be heard in the middle of
"hat", while /a:/ is heard in the middle of "hart". The change in the middle
sound gives us a different word.
So the concept of a phoneme is abstract; changing the sound may or may not
change the word. A northerner, for example, is likely to use |æ| when
they say "fast", while their counterpart from the south will probably use /a
:/. The widespread references to phenomes in SP literature and policy blurs
the difference between synthesising letter sounds into a result that may or
may not match how we say a real word, and words proper.
Words have meaning with text and speech versions. They can be expressed in
Braille and sign language, for example, and Shakespeare was apparently
capable of spelling the same word in more than one way on the same page.
Both spelling and pronunciation of many words has also changed over time,
and local accents have significant impacts.
Sometimes, it's only when you've worked out the context, that you know how
to say a word. For example, "The wind is blowing" and "I can wind the clock"
could be said in the same way but are pronounced differently and have
different meanings. Likewise, blending the sounds appropriate for "paws"
could produce something that also fits "pause", "pours" and "pores". So if "
paws" is encountered out of context, you cannot identify your sound blend
with a real word unless you already recognise the word "paws" as text.
If SP enthusiasts simply spoke of blending sounds, no one would think that
this was reading, even if it was seen as a helpful step on the way. Talk of
blending phonemes affords an inappropriate plausibility to the idea that
blending actually is reading.
It's really important to appreciate that the phonics check attempts to test
skills that aren't reading and for it to work it faces some very revealing
challenges. Take the so-called category of real words. Suppose that "blow"
were included in a test and a student blended the sounds resulting in
something rhyming with "cow". There's no real word in the English language
is pronounced like that. So the child constructs a sound from the relevant
letters, but it's not a word. What would happen if it was marked incorrect
because the sound produced fails to match any real words? (According to the
markers' instructions for the 2013 check, this is exactly what would have
happened.)
Then the check becomes a test of what words a child already has in their
spoken vocabulary. Yet the check isn't supposed to be testing what words a
child would recognise if they heard them; it's meant to be assessing their
skills in blending letter sounds, regardless of the result. On such grounds,
our enlightened test constructors in theory could say that the child should
be given credit for coming up with the "blow" blend concerned because they
blended the sound properly, even though the result isn't a word – but they
don't. When the child tackles the pseudo-words, on the other hand, then any
plausible blend is marked correct. So half the check assesses mere blending
of sounds, while the other half includes an attempt to assess the extent of
a child's spoken vocabulary even though no context is offered.
All this really does matter, because while the check continues, there is the
danger that some schools will train children to pass it, however far they
have progressed towards reading for meaning. Anecdotally, some fluent
readers fail the check, and fail it more than once. In the light of these
reflections, the Department for Education should abandon the check and allow
teachers to continue to use phonics intelligently and flexibly in the
context of reading for meaning.
