John Bald/language and literacy

The simple view of reading, and why it is too simple. Updated

A good and succinct account of the simple view of reading is here. Its basic idea is that reading consists of two elements, decoding, which it says is based on phonics, and comprehension, a time-honoured but obscure word that means understanding. 

The need for understanding is self-evident, and I welcome current research into building it up. JM Carroll and others, Developing Language and Literacy (Wiley, 2011) is an important account of this work.

The first reason the simple view is too simple lies in its equation of decoding with phonics. In order to decode in English, we need both phonics and a systematic approach to the occasions on which phonics does not work. It is not enough to say that there are irregular or sight words, as this leaves the learner with no systematic way of dealing with them, or of using the partial information conveyed by the letters that make them up.

We have, as far as I can find, no systematic research on the teaching of irregularity in English, and yet it is an issue that is obvious to everyone who has ever learned to read. For phonics proponents,  it is an Achilles' heel that has allowed the guessing game people to make fun of them, establish themselves in academic positions by means of factions, and impose nonsense on the population. For the guessing game "school of thought", it is a fact that they have misinterpreted and abused in equal measure to sustain an approach that has no basis whatever in research or practice.

What needs to be done? There are several options.

1. Careful case studies of people with serious difficulties.

2. Controlled trials. It is never possible to use the medical model in education for one overriding and essential reason - you cannot blind the teacher in the same way as you can a doctor. It is one thing to make two identical white pills, one with an ingredient and one without. It is another to expect a person to teach without knowing what he or she is doing (or supposed to be doing...)

3. Linguistic analysis. Irregularity in English is a fact, capable of objective observation and analysis without the need for experiment. It is therefore capable of investigation via inductive reasoning, provided that a model of spelling is accepted as a starting point.

What is not an option is to continue as we are, with two competing sets of half-truths. Or, more accurately, one three-quarter truth and one piece of sophisticated rubbish.

Update. The idea that word reading (aka decoding) and comprehension are the most important elements to reading appears  true. However, they are not the only elements. Reading also includes the grouping of words into phrases and sentences, and the right pattern of intonation and emphasis that is needed to bring out the full meaning of an English sentence. Quick, accurate word identification is essential to phrasing (See Perera, K, PhD, U Manchester c1989) but the idea of picking words with in a sentence for particular emphasis isn't always evident to people who have learned to read as English native speakers. These are good reasons for continuing to hear children read aloud, from demanding texts as well as from easy ones, well past the initial stages of learning to read.

 

Eliminating Failure in Language Learning - revised

Note - for the convenience of readers who have read the earlier version of this posting, I've put the new passage in blue.

 

Since Chaucer’s Prioress, language learning in the UK has a long and sorry history of failure, and it’s not confined to French. As a linguist, I’m often taken as having a particular talent in this area, but I’m sad to say it doesn’t appear to be true. I had trouble with Latin and dreadful trouble with German at school, not helped by the head of German, who kindly told me the morning after an exam what a load of rubbish he’d seen me writing. I am a slow learner, and, having received a bus pass, am now resigned to it – the pattern of learning I’m currently experiencing in Spanish and Mandarin, both of which I began in my fifties, is similar to that of my teenage years. But interest, practice and determination have made me a fairly good linguist, and the experience of learning difficulty has helped me understand other people’s problems and made me a good teacher. I’ve seen and experienced failure in language learning for over half a century, and know it is unnecessary. Here is why, and how to eliminate it once and for all.

  

This diagram, from The Learning Brain (Blakemore S and Frith U, FRS,   Blackwell, 2005) shows brain cells reaching out to make contact with each other. As we learn, and focus our attention, electricity flows (I heard a recent, informed estimate of 0.1 volt) along these connections and strengthens them. The learning that we have thought of as a mental process is, therefore, also a physical process, and with infinite potential. A recent article in New Scientistestimated the number of connections available to individual brain cells at around 1,000, and we have hundreds of billions of them.

The implications for language learning are straightforward and revolutionary. Anything that promotes these connections helps learning, and anything that disrupts them holds it back. The connections are the key to understanding, and the channels of communication depend on them and reinforce them. Speaking, listening, reading and writing all appear to use the same networks, though in different ways. We can’t easily speak and listen at the same time, or indeed read and write. My guess is that the channels will flow in either direction, but not in both directions at once. The networks involve a fundamental interconnection between language skills, and we lose sight of this if we consider them, and particularly reading, writing, speaking and listening, as separate entities. Body language, facial expression, tone, all feed into the networks, to make the uniquely human construct of language (animals sometimes understand chunks of language, but don’t generate it).

Connections are promoted by giving people material that they can easily understand on the basis of what they already know, so that new connections have a well-established foundation in those that already exist.  I find the best way to do this is to start with colours. Meaning here is self-evident, and so children can focus all of their attention on the new words and what makes them different. It’s easy to learn to say colours in a new language, and equally easy to learn to write them. All we need to do is point out where the spelling of a colour differs from the way we would spell it in English (eg bleu in French, rojo in Spanish), have the children study it, look away from the board and “write” it on their sleeve with their finger. They will nearly all get it right first time, and I’ve yet to see anyone take more than two shots at this.

This simple focal point lets us teach listening, reading, speaking and writing together right from the start, and ensures that children’s experience of all of them is successful. Early experience of copying is often not successful, because jerking the eyes back and forth as we copy means attention is constantly switched, so that electricity can’t flow, and the formation of networks is disrupted. For this reason, copying should not be used in schools, and certainly not in teaching languages.

Our first connections should be included in a classroom display, where learning will be reinforced every time a child notices individual items. We can use the display for quick practice sessions during the week. Colour connections are usually established quickly, and we can then add other items where meaning is self evident. Numbers are a good second item, and can be followed by telling the time. Days of the week take a little longer to establish through practice, but are easy to reinforce at register time. Moving to months and dates consolidates much basic understanding very effectively and with little time. Writing the date in the new language at the same time as in English gives at least 28 occasions for practice each month, again reinforced each time a child’s eye rests on the date.

Because we can say hardly anything without using verbs, I introduce these next. The technique is slightly different in French and Spanish.In French, we begin with pronouns. Children first point to themselves with an open hand, and sing Je, on a simple tune going up and down the C scale. They then point to a friend, and sing tu. Then, still looking at their friend, they point to a boy, sing il, and a girl, sing elle. Next, a broad circular sweep with both hands, sing nous. Point with both hands either at two other children or at the teacher, sing vous. Then point to two boys, sing ils, two girls, sing elles. A class will normally do this after me once or twice, then try on their own. Who thinks they are il?  Who thinks they are elle?

I then explain the idea of subject and verb, which I unpack to make the point that most verbs do things, but that some, notably to be and to have, don't (eg My shirt has a hole in it, my dog is dead). The French call these  verbs of state  and the Chinese  link verbs.  I like the Chinese idea, but begin by reminding children that languages are human and therefore not entirely consistent. We spend a little time practising identifying verbs in English.

We shake our heads, pointing as with the pronouns, and sing Je ne suis pas, Tu n'es pas etc, usually inserting the English translation on the first couple of rounds. We then repeat this with Je suis. I do the negative first, for no better reason than that it seems to work better this way round. We practise this for a couple of weeks, then start adding words - eg Je suis jeune, Je ne suis pas pauvre - to the same tune, going through the complete conjugation in the present tense on each. The pointing and head-shaking keep the children engaged, and I also write the verbs on a board, explaining the apostrophes.

I explain that Spanish verbs take a shortcut, as the changes at the end of the verb mean they don’t have to use pronouns – so, I  hav ebecomes Tengo. All Spanish verbs seem to fit Ten Green bottles, and the negative is  easy in Spanish, just put No in front of the verb

Once we've got the idea of subject and verb, we move to making other sentences, on any theme the children choose - things they like or don't like, family and friends. We usually translate the classroom rules into French, and, following the HMI report, Modern Languages Achievement and Challenge, I've started to give more emphasis to classroom instructions, giving them in singular and plural forms to ensure that children understand the difference.  I often use Clicker (Cricksoft) to present and build sentences, as it will read them back with its Acapello speech engine. This example shows how a basic sentence can be extended:

   

 

The final piece in my beginners’ jigsaw is to explain the idea of boys’ and girls’ words, masculine and feminine, which run through every European language except English, and which are a big obstacle to learning. To explain them,  I go back to ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, and to changes in the way people think, so that most – not all – modern religions have one god. We usually only use masculine and feminine for people and animals, but other languages have kept with the old ways. Another human quirk. We practise picking out masculine and feminine words on the basis of the short words (articles) that precede them, as these are more reliable than the word itself. So, un homme,une femme, le pantalon, la règle. I usually have the children pick out the feminine words first, as these tend to be more emphatic in French and Spanish, and hence easier to recognise. By the third lesson, children are usually quite good at this and enjoy getting it right.

It takes a term or so of weekly lessons plus practice to put this basic framework in place for a primary class. Once it’s there, we have laid the basis for a personal repertoire of language, and can add to it in any direction we choose, limited only by our own knowledge of the language, and by the materials we can gather. The one thing we must beware of is overloading  the neural networks we are creating, either by going too quickly or by presenting too much new material at once. If we do, like any other electrical system, they cut out and learning stops. Provided we keep this in mind, and get the first lessons right, we can leave failure and tears behind us for good.

Six Steps to Eliminate Failure. Start with whatever the class or adult learners will find easiest to learn Make clear links with what they already know Present and explain written and spoken forms of the language together Extend basic knowledge gradually, with small steps, particularly at the beginning Practise as much as possible – try to visit the language in your head at least once a day We never copy – we hold items in our mind,  write them independently, and check.