is systematic synthetic phonics generating neuromyths?

A recent Twitter discussion about systematic synthetic phonics (SSP) was sparked by a note to parents of children in a reception class, advising them what to do if their children got stuck on a word when reading. The first suggestion was “encourage them to sound out unfamiliar words in units of sound (e.g. ch/sh/ai/ea) and to try to blend them”. If that failed “can they use the pictures for any clues?” Two other strategies followed. The ensuing discussion began by questioning the wisdom of using pictures for clues and then went off at many tangents – not uncommon in conversations about SSP.
richard adams reading clues

SSP proponents are, rightly, keen on evidence. The body of evidence supporting SSP is convincing but it’s not the easiest to locate; much of the research predates the internet by decades or is behind a paywall. References are often to books, magazine articles or anecdote; not to be discounted, but not what usually passes for research. As a consequence it’s quite a challenge to build up an overview of the evidence for SSP that’s free of speculation, misunderstandings and theory that’s been superseded. The tangents that came up in this particular discussion are, I suggest, the result of assuming that if something is true for SSP in particular it must also be true for reading, perception, development or biology in general. Here are some of the inferences that came up in the discussion.

You can’t guess a word from a picture
Children’s books are renowned for their illustrations. Good illustrations can support or extend the information in the text, showing readers what a chalet, a mountain stream or a pine tree looks like, for example. Author and artist usually have detailed discussions about illustrations to ensure that the book forms an integrated whole and is not just a text with embellishments.

If the child is learning to read, pictures can serve to focus attention (which could be wandering anywhere) on the content of the text and can have a weak priming effect, increasing the likelihood of the child accessing relevant words. If the picture shows someone climbing a mountain path in the snow, the text is unlikely to contain words about sun, sand and ice-creams.

I understand why SSP proponents object to the child being instructed to guess a particular word by looking at a picture; the guess is likely to be wrong and the child distracted from decoding the word. But some teachers don’t seem to be keen on illustrations per se. As one teacher put it “often superficial time consuming detract from learning”.

Cues are clues are guesswork
The note to parents referred to ‘clues’ in the pictures. One contributor cited a blogpost that claimed “with ‘mixed methods’ eyes jump around looking for cues to guess from”. Clues and cues are often used interchangeably in discussions about phonics on social media. That’s understandable; the words have similar meanings and a slip on the keyboard can transform one into the other. But in a discussion about reading methods, the distinction between guessing, clues and cues is an important one.

Guessing involves drawing conclusions in the absence of enough information to give you a good chance of being right; it’s haphazard, speculative. A clue is a piece of information that points you in a particular direction. A cue has a more specific meaning depending on context; e.g. theatrical cues, social cues, sensory cues. In reading research, a cue is a piece of information about something the observer is interested in or a property of a thing to be attended to. It could be the beginning sound or end letter of a word, or an image representing the word. Cues are directly related to the matter in hand, clues are more indirectly related, guessing is a stab in the dark.

The distinction is important because if teachers are using the terms cue and clue interchangeably and assuming they both involve guessing there’s a risk they’ll mistakenly dismiss references to ‘cues’ in reading research as guessing or clues, which they are not.

Reading isn’t natural
Another distinction that came up in the discussion was the idea of natural vs. non-natural behaviours. One argument for children needing to be actively taught to read rather than picking it up as they go along is that reading, unlike walking and talking, isn’t a ‘natural’ skill. The argument goes that reading is a relatively recent technological development so we couldn’t possibly have evolved mechanisms for reading in the same way as we have evolved mechanisms for walking and talking. One proponent of this idea is Diane McGuinness, an influential figure in the world of synthetic phonics.

The argument rests on three assumptions. The first is that we have evolved specific mechanisms for walking and talking but not for reading. The ideas that evolution has an aim or purpose and that if everybody does something we must have evolved a dedicated mechanism to do it, are strongly contested by those who argue instead that we can do what our anatomy and physiology enable us to do (see arguments over Chomsky’s linguistic theory). But you wouldn’t know about that long-standing controversy from reading McGuinness’s books or comments from SSP proponents.

The second assumption is that children learn to walk and talk without much effort or input from others. One teacher called the natural/non-natural distinction “pretty damn obvious”. But sometimes the pretty damn obvious isn’t quite so obvious when you look at what’s actually going on. By the time they start school, the average child will have rehearsed walking and talking for thousands of hours. And most toddlers experience a considerable input from others when developing their walking and talking skills even if they don’t have what one contributor referred to as a “WEIRDo Western mother”. Children who’ve experienced extreme neglect (such as those raised in the notorious Romanian orphanages) tend to show significant developmental delays.

The third assumption is that learning to use technological developments requires direct instruction. Whether it does or not depends on the complexity of the task. Pointy sticks and heavy stones are technologies used in foraging and hunting, but most small children can figure out for themselves how to use them – as do chimps and crows. Is the use of sticks and stones by crows, chimps or hunter-gatherers natural or non-natural? A bicycle is a man-made technology more complex than sticks and stones, but most people are able to figure out how to ride a bike simply by watching others do it, even if a bit of practice is needed before they can do it themselves. Is learning to ride a bike with a bit of support from your mum or dad natural or non-natural?

Reading English is a more complex task than riding a bike because of the number of letter-sound correspondences. You’d need a fair amount of watching and listening to written language being read aloud to be able to read for yourself. And you’d need considerable instruction and practice before being able to fly a fighter jet because the technology is massively more complex than that involved in bicycles and alphabetic scripts.

One teacher asked “are you really going to go for the continuum fallacy here?” No idea why he considers a continuum a fallacy. In the natural/non-natural distinction used by SSP proponents there are three continua involved;

• the complexity of the task
• the length of rehearsal time required to master the task, and
• the extent of input from others that’s required.

Some children learn to read simply by being read to, reading for themselves and asking for help with words they don’t recognise. But because reading is a complex task, for most children learning to read by immersion like that would take thousands of hours of rehearsal. It makes far more sense to cut to the chase and use explicit instruction. In principle, learning to fly a fighter jet would be possible through trial-and-error, but it would be a stupidly costly approach to training pilots.

Technology is non-biological
I was told by several teachers that reading, riding a bike and flying an aircraft weren’t biological functions. I fail to see how they can’t be, since all involve human beings using their brain and body. It then occurred to me that the teachers are equating ‘biological’ with ‘natural’ or with the human body alone. In other words, if you acquire a skill that involves only body parts (e.g. walking or talking) it’s biological. If it involves anything other than a body part it’s not biological. Not sure where that leaves hunting with wooden spears, making baskets or weaving woolen fabric using a wooden loom and shuttle.

Teaching and learning are interchangeable
Another tangent was whether or not learning is involved in sleeping, eating and drinking. I contended that it is; newborns do not sleep, eat or drink in the same way as most of them will be sleeping, eating or drinking nine months later. One teacher kept telling me they don’t need to be taught to do those things. I can see why teachers often conflate teaching and learning, but they are not two sides of the same coin. You can teach children things but they might fail to learn them. And children can learn things that nobody has taught them. It’s debatable whether or not parents shaping a baby’s sleeping routine, spoon feeding them or giving them a sippy cup instead of a bottle count as teaching, but it’s pretty clear there’s a lot of learning going on.

What’s true for most is true for all
I was also told by one teacher that all babies crawl (an assertion he later modified) and by a school governor that they can all suckle (an assertion that wasn’t modified). Sweeping generalisations like this coming from people working in education is worrying. Children vary. They vary a lot. Even if only 0.1% of children do or don’t do something, that would involve 8 000 children in English schools. Some and most are not all or none and teachers of all people should be aware of that.

A core factor in children learning to read is the complexity of the task. If the task is a complex one, like reading, most children are likely to learn more quickly and effectively if you teach them explicitly. You can’t infer from that that all children are the same, they all learn in the same way or that teaching and learning are two sides of the same coin. Nor can you infer from a tenuous argument used to justify the use of SSP that distinctions between natural and non-natural or biological and technological are clear, obvious, valid or helpful. The evidence that supports SSP is the evidence that supports SSP. It doesn’t provide a general theory for language, education or human development.


12 thoughts on “is systematic synthetic phonics generating neuromyths?

  1. Your blog is like groundhog day. Is there any point here that people haven’t answered before?

    The continuum fallacy is the fallacy of saying that if we cannot draw an exact line between two things, then there is no distinction. So, if we cannot say exactly how many hairs somebody can have before they cease to be bald, then there is no such thing as baldness.

    This comes into the natural/artificial distinction because while it is not always easy to define the distinction, there is no reason to think that some activities are not vastly more natural than others. Walking is far more natural than riding a bicycle. Talking is far more natural than reading. It seems impossible to deny these things, but it may not be easy to draw the line in all cases.

    Now instead of demanding definitions and distinctions, why not just provide examples of historical human societies where people did not talk or walk? If you can’t, then there is something about those activities that, in some clear sense, comes naturally to human beings.

    • It’s like groundhog day because people keep propagating the same errors.

      The continuum *fallacy* might be a fallacy, but that doesn’t mean that continua don’t exist. There clearly are distinctions on a continuum. Some people on the height continuum are taller than 6ft and others shorter than 5ft. Area of hair cover on the head is also a continuum but it’s harder to measure. The fact that one can’t make a clear categorical distinction in some cases (is this person bald or not? is this person tall or not?) suggests that the questions are the wrong kind of questions to ask about characteristics on a continuum. We regularly use the terms bald and tall as comparative terms even if we can’t make a draw a clear dividing line between bald/not bald or tall/short.

      The same principle applies to the natural/artificial distinction. I completely agree that walking and talking are more natural than riding a bike or reading, but I’m not someone claiming that there’s a clear distinction between natural and artificial and using it to justify the need for explicit instruction. That’s my point.

      How natural/artificial something is will depend on the complexity of the artefact as will the need for explicit instruction in how to use it. Few people will need telling how to use a stick or stone. Some people learn to ride a bike and read with minimal input from others. Most of us would need intensive training before being able to fly a jet fighter.

      I’m not saying the natural/artificial distinction can’t exist; I’m saying that if that distinction is based on whether or not an artefact is involved that introduces another challenge since not all artefacts require explicit instruction before people can use them.

      • Could you identify which paragraphs in your reply are responding to a point I actually made, and what you think that point was? I’m afraid I can’t find anything relevant. I may have missed it among all the parts of your reply that respond to points I never made.

      • What I’m asserting/not asserting

        I think that you think I’m saying:

        “Because one can’t draw a line showing where natural ends and artificial begins, then the natural/artificial distinction is an invalid one.” The reason I think you think I’m saying that is because you suggested a parallel in terms of a dividing line between bald/not bald.

        But that’s not what I’m saying. I am not saying;

        there is no distinction between natural and artificial things

        or that

        there are no degrees of naturalness or artificiality.

        What I am saying is that the use of technology isn’t a unitary construct; it’s not either natural or artificial. It’s not one or the other because it’s both. A natural thing (a body) and an artificial thing (an artefact or tool) are involved. There are also degrees of naturalness and artificiality involved.

        Naturalness and artificiality

        Using a stick to poke grubs out of a tree trunk involves a high level of naturalness and low level of artificiality; crows do it.

        Flying a jet fighter involves a low level of naturalness and a very high level of artificiality because using the technology is a highly complex task and places significant constraints on what pilots can do whilst at the controls.

        What about learning to read?

        Because reading involves an artefact (written language) you could certainly say it’s less natural than talking. What you can’t say is that it is not natural. It must fall on the naturalness continuum somewhere because it involves several natural functions (e.g. vision, audition, language, memory).

        But some SP proponents base their justification for using explicit instruction for reading acquisition, not on the complexity of using the technology (reading is pretty complex compared to a using a twig to poke out grubs), but on the fact that it’s a relatively recent invention and the brain couldn’t have evolved to do it. I’m saying that justification is a spurious one.

        Pencils are a recent invention but a baby can discover how to make marks with one. So are bicycles but very young children can learn to ride them simply by mimicking others. Some children learn to read simply through being read to – their brains automatically make the link between the printed and spoken word.

        It doesn’t follow that most children will learn to read without explicit instruction, nor that SP isn’t a good way of teaching reading.

        I’m sure you’ll say I haven’t responded to the point you made – again. That’s because I don’t think you’re raising the right point. And I think using a natural/artificial distinction to justify an approach to reading acquisition is misleading.

      • I can only respond to what I think you are saying, OA.

        I think you made two points; one about the dividing line between two constructs on a continuum and the other about comparing activities using that continuum. I addressed both points.

        If I’ve understood you correctly, you are assuming that naturalness and artificiality are opposite poles on a continuum and that all types of human functioning can be placed at points on that continuum. I can’t see how that can be the case for technology use, since using technology involves both the technology (which by definition is artificial) and parts of the human body (which by definition are natural). In other words two continua are involved, not just one. A 2×2 matrix would be a better way of representing the factors.

        Even if only one continuum (natural-> artificial) was involved, the fact that there isn’t a clear dividing line is irrelevant. The written word is obviously less natural than the spoken word, but it isn’t how natural a technology is that determines whether or not explicit instruction is required to learn to use it. A bicycle is highly non-natural and is a much more recently developed technology than written language, but few children need explicit instruction to learn to ride a bike.

        The artificial/natural/evolution of the brain argument is a red herring.

  2. Just to be clear here. It appears you have no problem with SSP being used to teach reading, it is some of the arguments used to support SSP that you have a problem with.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s