Suggestion of Report
It is recommended that the “Jolly Phonics” system is not purchased by the Local Education Authority since there is a plethora of similar, free resources available to educators.
Overview of Helping Evidence
Phonics work is an integral part of all primary teaching and progress a strong foundation in reading at the individual word level is vital in the event that children are to perform well in more advance whole-text challenges (Ehri and Snowling, 2004). Phonemic awareness identifies the ability to change phonemes, the standard units of sounds that make up a dialect.
This understanding has repeatedly been shown to play an important portion in developing basic studying and spelling abilities (Bird, Bishop and Freeman, 95, Ehri ainsi que al., 2001, Goswami and Bryant, 1990, Torgesen, Wagner and Rashotte, 1994, Cardoso-Martins, Mesquita and Ehri, 2011) and it is directly to be included in the curriculum.
Jolly Phonics (http://jollylearning.co.uk) aims to educate children the basic principles of literacy through the use of man-made phonics, that happen to be allocated to one among seven teams. Children are taught in five stages that comprise learning the notification sound, learning letter development, blending, discovering the sounds in words and learning irregularly spelt words. Use of Jolly Phonics with kids lacking in simple reading ‘readiness’ has been found to increase examining age simply by up to two years and 7 months in comparison to a control group (Ekpo et approach., 2007) and Stuart (1999) found the Jolly Phonics system is good with both English speaking kids and kids for to whom English is actually a second language. Consequently , there is data to claim that Jolly Phonics could be a worthwhile investment.
Hypotheses of Browsing and Spelling
Ideas of studying are still underneath debate. Nevertheless , the way in which children learn new words, and recognise terms they have already go through, can be segregated into four main hypotheses (Ehri, 2006):
Phonological recodingis definitely where kids sound away and mixture either syllables or graphemes, which are the most compact, meaningful models in a dialect. This approach requires the aforementioned phonemic awareness.
Analogising(Goswami, 1986) involves the use of words and phrases a child is familiar with to help them read new words. For instance , a child who knows the word ‘fountain’ may use this to read the word ‘mountain. ‘
Prediction(Goodman, 1970, Tunmer and Chapman, 1998) can be when the kid uses framework and notice clues to try and guess an unfamiliar word.
Memory or perhaps sightimplies that the child acknowledges a word through the visual memory of finding it prior to.
In spite of a wealth of data in favour of the phonemic recoding approach to examining and transliteration, other ideas exist and their supporters possess argued that phonemic learning may not be the sole basis on what children can build their literacy skills. For example , there is the theory of ‘Mental Orthographic Representation’ (MOR) (Apel and Masterson, 2001, Apel, 2009), which is to be able to store a mental portrayal of the crafted forms that spoken terminology take and recognise terms by complementing them to their stored rendering (Mayall ain al., 2001). This theory would come under the ‘memory and sight’ umbrella rather than the more audiological basis of phonological recoding. Latest evidence provides suggested that MOR can develop individually of phonemic awareness, despite previous belief, and could become used to anticipate literacy creation (Apel, Wolter and Masterson, 2006, Treiman and Kessler, 2006, Land, Angell and Castles, 2007). Therefore , an excessive amount of focus on phonemic awareness through use of the Jolly Phonic system could possibly be denying kids of various other vital abilities they need to go through and mean successfully.
Yet , it is assumed that dyslexic children have trouble identifying new words and phrases because of poor phonemic recognition (Snowling, 1981, Bruck, 1992) and it is specified that they are counting on the aforementioned memory space and sight of words when trying to decode a novel word. Dyslexic kids struggle because they have no visual memory space of the word and cannot rely on phonemic awareness to try and decode that. Therefore , they are unable to look at the new word. This suggests that development of phonemic awareness should perhaps master the way in which youngsters are taught to see and spell successfully.
Good value
In conclusion, while there is strong proof that the ‘Jolly Phonics’ program and a great emphasis on growing phonemic awareness could significantly improve children’ literacy abilities, it is based upon a supplies that could be seen and used by educators in a more cost-effective way. There are numerous free methods available on the internet, for example , the Mister Thorne Will Phonics (www.mrthorne.com) website includes a collection of kid friendly video tutorials broken down into ‘phases’ and designed to instruct children phonemic awareness in a fun and participating manner.
Applying such a structured programme may distract instructors from supplementing your children’s reading with other options such as story-books, which could help develop different aspects of examining such as semantics and use of imagination. For example , it has been believed that a good grasp of phonemes can simply account for about 40% of a child’s studying ability (Manis, Doi and Bhadha, 2k, Cunningham, Perry and Stanovich, 2001) and Cunningham (1990) found that reading capacity was drastically improved in a group of kids who received phonemic awareness training that explicitly in depth the use, worth and application of phonemic consciousness in the work of browsing as opposed to the step-by-step type of schooling provided by devices such as Jolly Phonics. Consequently , it is important that professors don’t arrive to count solely on the Jolly Phonics system, a thing that could be encouraged in light of its expenditure.
Types of Further Information
http://www.jollylearning.co.uk– website pertaining to the Jolly Phonics software, which includes case studies.
http://www.tes.co.uk– a plethora of totally free teaching solutions that could be utilized as an affordable alternative to the Jolly Phonics system.
http://www.mrthorne.com– a collection of child friendly video tutorials designed to instruct the phonics system.
‘Learning to see Words: Theory, Findings, and Issues’ by Linnea C. Ehri– a comprehensive assessment on the distinct theories of reading, offered by http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Depts/SPED/Forms/Kens%20Readings/reading/Readings/Ehri%20Word%20Learning.pdf.
References
Apel, K. and Masterson, J. M. (2001) Theory-guided spelling analysis and input: A case study. Language, Speech and Ability to hear Services in Schools, thirty-two, pp. 182-195.
Apel, K., Wolter, L. A. and Masterson, M. J. (2006) Effects of phonotactic and orthotactic probabilities during fast-mapping upon five 12 months olds’ finding out how to spell. Developing Neuropsychology, 29(1), pp. 21-42.
Apel, E. (2009) The acquisition of mental orthographic illustrations for reading and punctuational development. Interaction Disorders Quarterly, 31(1), pp. 42-52.
Fowl, J., Bishop, D. Versus. M. and Freeman, D. H. (1995) Phonological recognition and literacy development in children with expressive phonological impairments. Diary of Talk and Hearing Research, 38(2), pp. 446-462.
Bruck, M. (1992) Persistance of dyslexic’s phonological consciousness deficits. Developing Psychology, 28(5), pp. 874-886.
Cardoso-Martins, C., Mesquita, To. C. T. and Ehri, L. (2011) Letter brands and phonological awareness support children to learn letter-sound contact. Journal of Experimental Kid Psychology, 109(1), pp. 25-38.
Cunningham, A. E. (1990) Explicit vs . implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Log of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, pp. 429-444.
Cunningham, A. E., Perry, E. E. and Stanovich, K. E. (2001) Converging proof for the concept of orthographic control. Reading and Writing: A pluridisciplinary Journal, 14(5-6), pp. 549-568.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. L., Willows, Deb. M., Schuster, B. Sixth is v., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z .. and Shanahan, T. (2001) Phonemic understanding instruction helps children figure out how to read: Evidence from Examining Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, thirty-six, 250-287.
Ehri, L. C. and Snowling, M. T. (2004) Developing variation in word reputation. In: C. A. Rock, E. L. Silliman, M. J. Verehren and K. Apel eds. Handbook of language and literacy. New york city: Guilford, pp. 433-461.
Ehri, L. C. (2006) Understanding how to read words and phrases: Theory, conclusions, and problems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 92(2), pp. 167-188.
Ekpo, C. M., Udosen, A. E., Afangideh, Meters. E., Ekukinam, T. U. and Ikorok, M. M. (2007) Jolly phonics strategy and the ESL pupils’ reading development: a preliminary study. Daily news presented by 1st The middle of Term Convention held in the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo Express: Nigeria.
Goodman, K. (1970) Behind the eye: What happens in reading. In: K. Goodman and O. Niles eds. Reading: Method and Program. Urbana, ELLE: National Authorities of Teachers of English language, pp. 3-38.
Goswami, U. (1986) Children’s using of analogy in learning to read: A developmental analyze. Journal of Experimental Kid Psychology, 40, pp. 73-83.
Goswami. U. and Bryant, P. (1990) Phonological expertise and learning to read. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jolly Learning Limited. [no date]. Teaching Literacy with Jolly Phonics [online]. Available from http://jollylearning.co.uk [Accessed 23 February 2013].
Manis, Farrenheit. R., Doi, L. Meters. and Bhadha, B. (2000) Naming rate, phonological recognition, and orthographic knowledge in second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), pp. 325.
Mayall, K., Humphreys, G. W., Mechelli, A., Olson, A. and Price, C. T. (2001) The consequences of case mixing up on term recognition: Evidence from a PET study. Journal of Intellectual Neuroscience, 13(6), pp. 844-853.
Mr Thorne Productions (2013) Mr Thorne Does Phonics [online]. Available at: http://www.mrthorne.com [Accessed 23 Feb 2013].
Region, K., Angell, P. and Castles, A. (2007) Orthographic learning by way of self-teaching in children learning how to read English: Effects of coverage, durability, and context. Record of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, pp. 71-84.
Torgesen, J. T., Wagner, L. K. and Rashotte, C. A. (1994) Longitudinal research and phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Treiman, 3rd there�s r. and Kessler, B. (2006) Spelling as statistical learning: Using consonantal context to spell vowels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), pp. 141-170.
Tumner, W. and Chapman, J. (1998) Dialect prediction skill, phonological recoding ability and beginning examining. In: C. Hulme and R. Joshi eds. Examining and Punctuational: Development and Disorders. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Affiliates Inc., pp. 33-67.
Snowling, M. J. (1981) Phonemic deficits in developmental dyslexia. Psychological Study, 43(2), pp. 219-234.
Stuart, M. (1999) Getting ready to get reading: Early phoneme recognition and phonics teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city second language learners. English Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, pp. 587-605.
