The Speech Sound Pics (SSP) Approach. Practice to Theory/ Research or

Research to Practice?

Teacher/ Parent Teaching and Learning Site www.WiringBrains.com

The Speech Sound Pics (SSP) Approach is a complete program for teaching students to read, write and spell in the early years (3-8) and as an RTI for older struggling students.

Why is an effective ‘teaching reading and writing’ program so important?

“The links between literacy, the ability to read and write the printed word, school

performance, self-esteem and adult life chances have been widely documented … poor literacy skills are associated with generally lower education, employment, health and

social outcomes as well as being linked to high rates of welfare dependence and teenage parenting.” (Centre for Community Child Health, 2004).

Young people who enjoy reading very much are nearly five times as likely to read above the expected level for their age compared with young people who do not

enjoy reading at all. Children’s and Young People’s Reading Today, National Literacy Trust, 2012

Other benefits to reading for pleasure include: text comprehension and grammar, positive reading attitudes, pleasure in reading in later life, increased general knowledge

(Clark and Rumbold, 2006).

The Australian school curriculum includes a clear focus on the reading of a range of texts, with the underlying purpose of engaging students in reading and reflective discussion.

However this, quite simply, is not happening consistently or effectively within Australia. For children to read a range of texts, they need to be ABLE to read.

According to the ABS almost half of Australians between the ages of 15 and 74 are

functionally illiterate. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Chapter6102008

(PISA), is a study conducted by the OECD every three years, with the aim of providing a

comparable measure of the achievement of 15-year old students in a range of core capabilities. 14% of Australian students aged 15 had failed to reach the baseline level of reading proficiency considered essential for future development in a number of areas of

knowledge acquisition. Another 20% were functioning at the minimum baseline proficiency level (OECD, 2011)

Australia and New Zealand languish at the bottom of English-speaking nations in the 2011 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)

Therefore, for children to read for PLEASURE the way in which we teach Australians to read needs to change, in the majority of schools.

Who is doing well?

Finland leads the way! http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/the-finland-phenomenon-inside-the-worlds-most-

surprising-school-system-588.php

In the latest round of PISA testing, Australia was outperformed by six countries in reading and scientific literacy, and 12 countries in mathematical literacy. The majority of

countries that outperformed Australia are located in East Asia.

Read this interesting article, about what China is changing to be in line with Finland. http://thediplomat.com/2012/05/what-finland-can-teach-china/

Australia will lag even further behind if things do not change, quickly. Join our Campaign!

Food for thought, at a time when ‘explicit teaching’ is a buzz word across Australia…and often then used to mandate ‘direct’ (scripted) instruction.

Traditionally, a person who can answer a given question is said to "know" the answer.

We say that person has explicit knowledge. It is content that is easily identified, articulated, transferred, and testable. But it's not the only kind of knowledge there is.

The twenty-first century, however, belongs to the tacit. In the digital world, we learn by doing, watching, and experiencing. Generally, people don't take a class or read books or manuals to learn how to use a web browser or e-mail program. They just start doing it, learning by absorption and making tacit connections. And the more they do it, the more they learn. They make connections between and among things that seem familiar. They experiment with what they already know how to do and modify it to meet new challenges or contests. In a world where things are constantly changing, focusing exclusively on the

explicit dimension is no longer a viable model for education. (p76) http://www.thedailyriff.com/articles/conversations-with-john-seely-brown-1062.php

We also learn far more when we are interested.

Consider the tired, out dated method of teaching ‘high frequency’ words and then look at how I do it, and other teaching are doing this now if using SSP. We ‘get’ what kids want

and need in order to shine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRUiI73X58M

Let it Go (Frozen)? How about 'Let It Glow' (Minecraft) instead https://vimeo.com/121659344

My Story

All of my life I remember being fascinated with education, and having a passion for children. My Grandmother and Mother were both teachers are I used to go and help

them in class, even though I was often only a few years older than their students. I loved to see them having fun, and to this day still sing the same songs and rhymes they both

used. They were both so loved by the children, and I knew that this was the kind of teacher I wanted to be, although I can look back now and realise that was the person I

wanted to be. Being a teacher is not what I do, it is who I am.

My mother and grandmother would tell you that they did not teach ‘programs’, they would tell you they ‘teach children’. They were born teachers, and their priority as early years teachers (3-8 year olds) was that they could read, write, spell and count. If you

asked them how they would tell you that this would depend on the child. Even ten years later, after specialising in ‘the Early Years (3-8) while undertaking a

Bachelor of Education (with Honours) this was very different for me. I remember my first year of teaching and having to tick boxes for each child, for example to confirm if these 5

year olds understood that ‘the Earth, Moon and Sun are separate spherical bodies’. (Statement of Attainment for Science AT4 Stand, 1991). I was frustrated by how much of

my time was spent on things like this, and not working with the children. Also that the work was not focused on ‘the 3 Rs*’ so that teachers in Year 2 and onwards could focus

on teaching science to children who could read and write.

* THE THREE R'S OF “READIN','RITIN', and 'Rithmetic” were late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century creations, geared to the needs of a developing industrial society.

I could write a whole paper on the way in which ‘administrators’ have impacted on classroom teaching, but the main focus needs to remain why, and how, I created the

Speech Sound Pics (SSP) Approach. In many ways it actually is to get teachers back to child centred learning, while also satisfying the demands of administrators and a National

Curriculum’. But it is not a program that has been developed to put ‘research into practice’ it is a program that started from practice, and reinforces research findings.

There is some interesting research being conducted by at the moment, exploring the idea that teachers are born rather than being ‘made’ as such, and I am a firm believer in this idea. I believe that, when looking for change within the field of education we need to

start by talking to teachers. Not those who study teachers, and teaching practice.

“The human brain has been designed to learn,” Rodriguez said. “What I’m saying is that it’s also been designed to teach.”

She’s also adamant about what teaching is not: unscrewing a student’s empty head and pouring in knowledge. Likewise, teaching is not just a set of best practices that can be

poured into a teacher’s empty head. http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/teaching-is-a-natural-human-ability-that-starts-

developing-in-childhood-author-says/

I have always been a teacher. Going through a degree (Undergraduate and Masters) were simply elements of my personal journey, but I do not believe that this impacted on my

teaching ability, and in many ways it confused me. Much of what lecturers would tell me did not correlate with what I instinctively, knew, with regards to teaching.’ Indeed, when I had to employ teachers I paid little attention to their qualifications, as I first wanted to see if they had the gift of teaching. So I would tell them what I wanted them to explore with the children, and stand back and watch. Their piece of paper was, to me, simply a

legal requirement and used to allocate the appropriate salary band.

What is teaching? This seems a reasonable overview…

The range of professional duties performed by teachers is wide and extensive. At the heart of a teacher's role is the promotion of learning for all pupils.

What skills do teachers need?

• know how to employ the most effective teaching and learning strategies to enable children and young people to make progress

• be able to assess what their pupils know, understand and can do, and then use this assessment to plan future teaching and learning activities

• have high expectations for all their pupils, of whatever class, race, gender or ability

• know how to motivate their pupils - to do this, they need to be effective role models for the pupils they teach.

http://www.healthcare.ac.uk/schools/education/teaching/

But how much of this is something ‘born teachers’ do naturally, and how much is really developed through training?

Can we expect that even the best training will transform a significant number of teachers into the pedagogical equivalents of Kobe Bryant?

It's important to honour the fact that teaching, as in any other profession, has its geniuses. Better training could certainly make many mediocre teachers competent, but it’s

less likely to make competent teachers extraordinary. But what if they are given support, mentoring and a program that is extraordinary? This was my reason for creating SSP, which is my way of replicating what I do so

successfully. Indeed, this gift, of being ‘born to teach,’ is what led to the creation of the Speech Sound Pics (SSP) Approach, finally launched in 2014 after testing it out with real teachers in real

classrooms for 2 years prior. It is not just about ‘what’ to teach but ‘how’.

I did not look to ‘research’ to develop a ‘program’ I thought about what I did with the wide variety of students I had taught, and set out to replicate that for others.

I learnt so much from the delinquent teenagers I was asked to work with. One had been in 62 foster homes and kicked out of each. He was interested in something called

‘Minecraft’. We started there. It has been a difficult journey, as so much of what I do is based on what the child has

done, as a reaction to what I have done….and the cycle continues. The cycle of teaching and learning! I could not record every response and activity choice, that came about as a

result of student responses, and so I had to be really specific and ensure that the approach allowed for other teachers to learn what I have learnt, and to be able to use

their own innate talents and ‘teach’.

Students are not robots to be programmed, and even if an adult has incredible knowledge this does not mean that can impart this knowledge to the child, as much of that is

dependent on their teaching ability, and the relationship they have with that student. However I felt that if I created quality resources for the teacher (or parent) to share with

students, they could learn alongside their students. I would take the burden off the teacher to understand what the students needed to understand ie the teacher did not

have to have a lot of training before getting started.

Luckily, with regards to the teaching of reading and spelling (and contrary to popular belief) there is a clear sequence of skills and concepts needed to ensure that difficulties are avoided and overcome, so that every child is able to learn to read and spell quickly and

easily. It is only by looking at research that I was able to see that these had been established, and that what I do naturally, to meet the needs of every learner, is in fact

supported by ‘academics’ who insist on experimental validation of scientific work.

But be very cautious with regards to ‘research’ in this field. Due to the nature of educational data, which is more difficult to interpret than most experiments in the

physical sciences, such data may present more ambiguities and is often based more on case studies than true “experiments.” We might describe education as being more like

medicine than physics, with a lot learned by trial and error and past experience. Like any other field, there is good research and bad. However, the best research tends to agree on

basic factors which show up again and again as influencing good teaching.

I ascertain that those looking for new ideas within education should look at what ‘works’ in real classrooms, and pick that part, rather than relying on research’ which has often only passed the ‘peer review’ process because so many of the variables were removed.

These variables are what makes teaching so difficult to ‘research’ and yet influence outcomes!

Imagine this.

‘Research data proves that sitting on hands while reciting times tables increases student achievement!

One class recited times tables while sitting on their hands, the other did not.

Really? Sitting on Hands?

What actually happened? An inspirational teacher who the students adore, asked the children to sit on their hands while learning times tables. She chants the times tables with a happy musical voice, and has the attention of all children. Painful, limiting, and has no direct relevance to learning times tables, but most of the children will enjoy the session. What happens when they are

enjoying their time? Better outcomes. Even while sitting on hands.

A grumpy teacher on the other hand, who the students find boring lets the children put their hands wherever they want, while reciting the times tables.

Is the data really as a result of where the kids put their hands?

We must be very careful about ‘data’, and carefully review variables. One would presume that this would be part of the researcher’s ground work. Never assume anything.

When people ask for the ‘research’ behind SSP, which only launched as a program in

2014, I ask them to come and watch SSP being used by real teachers (all very different!) and speak to the children themselves. Don’t just look at how I use SSP, talk to others.

But if you are interested in understanding why SSP is so effective, let us look at relevant

research, even though many of the elements are actually way ahead of ‘research’ BECAUSE I am a born teacher. When you use SSP you will actually end up saying ‘but this is so simple? It makes so much sense?’ Like anything, it does when you know more.

We only know what we know, and when great teachers are given SSP it is often the missing piece for them. They knew something was missing, but hadn’t quite worked out

what it was yet. I may have beaten you to it, but you would have reached the same point as me, if able to spend some much time working on this one element of ‘education’. I am fortunate in that I have not been restricted by classroom teaching of only 20+ students. I have been able to spend a lot of time with children of all ages and abilities, and worked

1:1, in small groups and within classrooms. When asked to work with the supposed ‘unteachables’ I experienced a really steep learning curve. Teaching young, enthusiastic,

uninhibited 4 year olds to read and spell is a very different ball game than teaching disengaged, delinquent teenage boys who have been permanently excluded from school for violent behaviour. SSP is my way of replicating what I do with those students, to get

them literate within weeks. If teachers don’t have a good rapport with them, then it will take longer. Does it matter if

the student ‘likes’ the teacher? What do you think.

I am now going to touch on the basics. In another article I will focus on the nitty gritty eg how visual prompts not only help to overcome phonemic awareness, but also enable the teacher to more easily connect with ‘Visual Spatial’ learners, and how the use of Duck

Hands, Lines and Numbers actually re-wires the dyslexic brain. For now I will focus on the basics of teaching reading and spelling, to meet the needs of the largest number of

students. Does SSP fulfil the ‘requirement’s out outlined by research?

Instead of spending hours on ‘research’ let us use a cheat sheet’ and go straight to the Rose Report (UK), the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (AU) and the

National Reading Panel (USA) These were commissioned, after all, for this very purpose ie why do children struggle, and what can we do to prevent this from happening (ie

intervention with children in the early years) and to overcome these issues with older students who have not learnt in the way they have been taught?

All three came up with the same findings, even though carried out in three different countries. So we can surely agree that any program adhering to their recommendations could be considered ‘best practice.’ I ascertain that, although SSP does tick all of the

boxes with regards to recommendations, it actually goes even further. The inquiries could only make observations about what was happening (or not) in schools during the inquiry

period. So as more and more schools start to use SSP, the goal posts will shift even further. What was considered effective practice then, would no longer be the MOST effective now. Students using SSP read and spell far more quickly and easily than

students observed within the inquiry period. Of course this will be the same for other innovative tools that have since been embraced by schools.

So we need to adhere to the recommendations but SSP actually far exceeds these

already. When collecting data we look at ‘how far travelled’ for each student not overall/ average gains, and strategies are so effective that ‘benchmarks’ previously set as guides

for each age group are being exceeded by years.

We need to raise our expectations, and not just aim for a ‘benchmark’ or meeting ‘minimum standards’ as shared by schools following published NAPLAN results.

This case study class from 2014 started using SSP in term 2. You can see them here using

the student poster, in week 3 of the program. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVB2oag-XDc

I consider this a perfect example of the result of what happens when you have an outstanding teacher and TA, involved parents, support from myself, and the SSP program. Even though only the basics of SSP were introduced, this ‘born teacher’ did what she was born to do- adapt activities to suit the needs of her students. This did not mean she was

not ‘following the SSP Program’, this meant she was fully embracing it! It is the combination of these elements that resulted in these ‘scores’.

When ‘benchmarked’ at the end of term 4 the average for these 5 year olds was PM 20.8. This is the ‘benchmark’ expected for 8 – 8.5 year olds.

Variables will change this year, and so will ‘data’.

This case study Year 2 student (6 in term 1) moved from the ‘beginning reader’ level – struggling to work out the word ‘spill’ in week 1, to reading with fluency and

comprehension at a Probe Level of 12. This is expected for a 10 or 11 year old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKnWknpY_3Y Again this was the combination of an exceptional teacher, support throughout the year

from me, involved parents, and the SSP Approach. Results could have been even better if the SSP approach to reading and spelling was more positively embraced by

‘administration’, however they were still pretty amazing.

Benchmarks Explained. http://web.ntschools.net/w/nakaraprimary/SiteAssets/Pages/Curriculum-

Overview/PM%20and%20PROBE%20Reading%20levels%20explained.pdf

Many would ask ‘how can they get those results?’? Even those two outstanding teachers had never had these results before.

Perhaps because, with this new style of teaching COMBINED with their natural talents, these benchmarks/ expectations are no longer relevant.

So can we train, support and guide all teachers in this way? I believe so. ALL teachers will get the best results from their class when using SSP.

Rethinking Benchmarks

http://www.rethinkingbenchmarks.com

I am a former OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) Inspector and have found that Australia is 5 – 10 years behind putting ‘research into practice’ even though I understand why. However certain practices clearly proven to be ineffective have been removed from

classrooms within the UK, and yet are still common place here in Australia.

For example the three-cueing system, still used in most Australian classrooms. It arose not as a result of advances in knowledge concerning reading development, but rather in response to an

unfounded but passionately held belief that centres around the ‘whole’ language (balanced literacy) approach. It is based upon notions of reading development that have been demonstrated

to be false, and will be outlined within this document.

Thus, as a basis for decisions about early reading instruction, it is likely to mislead teachers and hinder students’ progress. This has been made very clear within the UK.

In the Primary National Strategy (2006a), the three cueing model (also known as the Searchlight model) along with ‘whole language’ based readers (eg PM/ Funtas and Pinnell) is finally and

explicitly discredited.

Instead, the Strategy has acknowledged the value of addressing decoding and comprehension separately in the initial stage of reading instruction.

“ … attention should be focused on decoding words rather than the use of unreliable strategies such as looking at the illustrations, rereading the sentence, saying the first

sound or guessing what might ‘fit’. Although these strategies might result in intelligent guesses, none of them is sufficiently reliable and they can hinder the acquisition and

application of phonic knowledge and skills, prolonging the word recognition process and lessening children’s overall understanding. Children who routinely adopt alternative cues for reading unknown words, instead of learning to decode them, later find themselves stranded when texts become more demanding and meanings less predictable. The best route for children to become fluent and independent readers lies in securing phonics as the prime approach to decoding unfamiliar words (Primary National Strategy, 2006b,

p.9).”

It is important to realise that whole language based readers force young children to rely

on the very strategies outlined above, that we want to get rid of! See examples of this readers here http://www.pearson.com.au/educator/primary/browse-

resources-online/english/literacy-levelling-guide/

If you want every child reading with fluency and comprehension by the age of 6 (well before they enter Year 2) then these readers must be removed from classroom shelves

while students are in the ‘learning to read’ phase (we say to put them aside until the end of SSP Yellow).

Readers can then be used to develop build the automaticity and fluency required for reading for meaning. They are a means to an end. By the end of the SSP Blue Code Level

children are able to read chapter books of their choice for pleasure. For most students being taught using SSP this happens within term 4 of Prep/ Kinder.

There have been three main reviews undertaken to ascertain ‘best practice’ with regards

to the teaching of reading. The teaching of reading is a phase students go through so that they can read to learn.

Although there was a similar report in the UK (being actioned) http://www.ttrb3.org.uk/the-rose-report-independent-review-of-the-teaching-of-early-reading/

let us look at the AU Inquiry (http://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/5/) Unfortunately, a decade on, and the Australian Education Departments have either failed

to action recommendations completely, or are offering a very inconsistent level of education across each state.

Useful news article from Macquarie University. (2012) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/a-decade-of-lost-action-on-literacy/story-

fn59niix-1226542150781

Also see ‘Why Jaydon Can’t Read. (2013) https://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-magazine/2013-spring/29-3-13-jennifer-

buckingham.pdf

Australian Inquiry Into the Teaching of Literacy

Executive summary

Underlying this report by the Committee for the National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy is the conviction that effective literacy teaching, and of reading in particular,

should be grounded in findings from rigorous evidence-based research. The global economic, technological and social changes underway, requiring responses from an

increasingly skilled workforce, make evidence-based high-quality schooling an imperative. Nowhere is this more important than in the teaching of reading (a key element of literacy) since reading competence is foundational, not only for school based learning, but also for

children’s behavioural and psychosocial wellbeing, further education and training, occupational success, productive and fulfilling participation in social and economic

activity, as well as for the nation’s social and economic future.

The evidence is clear, whether from research, good practice observed in schools, advice

from submissions to the Inquiry, consultations, or from Committee members’ own individual experiences, that direct systematic instruction in phonics during the early years

of schooling is an essential foundation for teaching children to read.

Findings from the research evidence indicate that all students learn best when teachers adopt an integrated approach to reading that explicitly teaches

phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary knowledge and comprehension.

This approach, coupled with effective support from the child’s home, is critical to success.

See complete Summary at end of this paper.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phonemic Awareness

I cannot stress enough the importance of phonemic awareness, and the fact that

children cannot learn phonics (identified as essential) without this skill. If they cannot learn phonics, many will struggle to ever develop fluency and comprehension. Think of the domino effect ie the cumulative effect produced when one event sets off a chain of similar events. For many students they stand no chance, as they fail to set in place the

first piece.

It is my experience that very few teachers know what phonemic awareness is, how important is it within the sequential ‘learning to read and spell’ process, how to

identify deficits, and develop this crucial skill. A skill that 10 - to 30% of children do not have. Underdeveloped phonemic

awareness occurs randomly in the population without apparent linkage to race, sex, education or intelligence. Their brains need ‘wiring’ for this skill. It is not developed by

talking to children, singing with them or reading to them.

Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge have been identified in several research studies (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkerson, 1985; Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) as the two key indicators of how well children will master beginning

reading skills during the first two years in school. Because it plays such a vital role in forming the foundation of reading development, phonemic awareness is the first

‘domino’ in the process of learning to read (and spell).

Phonemic awareness is the ability to hear and manipulate phonemes, which are the smallest part of a spoken language. Phonemes are the element of language that

allows discrimination and make a difference in the meaning of a specific word. In the English language, it is generally accepted that there are anywhere from 41 to 51 phonemes in spoken speech. While there are words with only one phoneme such

as I or a, most words have more than one phoneme.

Phonemic awareness provides children with essential foundational knowledge in the alphabetic system. It is one necessary instructional component within a complete and integrated reading program. Teaching children to manipulate the sounds in language

helps all types of readers learn to read. Several additional competencies must be acquired as well to ensure that children will learn to read and write, however these

will be difficult to acquire without phonemic awareness.

It is so important that the SA Education Department also offers this as a guideline for their teachers, clearly stating that phonics should not be introduced before children

have phonemic awareness, and then be further developed alongside ‘phonics’ It is important to note that studies show that nearly all beginning readers can develop

phonemic awareness if given intensive systematic instruction.

Phonological awareness includes this ability, but it also includes the ability to hear

and manipulate larger units of sound, such as onsets and rimes and syllables. Phonemic awareness is the ability to hear and manipulate individual phonemes.

PA instruction is frequently confused with phonics instruction, which entails teaching students how to use letter-sound relations to read or spell words. PA instruction qualifies as phonics

instruction when it involves teaching children to blend or segment the sounds in words using letters.

However, children may be taught to manipulate sounds in speech without any letters as well; this does not qualify as phonics instruction. PA is also frequently confused with auditory discrimination, which refers to the ability to recognize whether two

spoken words are the same or different. The ability to hear phonemes and articulate them in speech are two different skills. Children hear and learn the more challenging speech phonemes, even if they cannot

pronounce them properly.

Quick Overview of SSP Orange – Green. What are Speech Sound Pics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRhuVY80whY

SSP Orange (Phase 1) is dedicated to the development of phonemic awareness

and articulation of speech sounds.

A wide range of activities are encouraged, using speech sounds outside of the SSP Green Level, and children encouraged to speak in speech sounds using ‘duck hands’

and puppets, to read to soft toys using speech sounds, and to identify words when the conductor (teacher) speaks in speech sounds.

However the speed at which children develop phonemic awareness and move to

phonics (Code Mapping) is due to explicit teaching using the SSP ‘Visual Prompts’

The following are examples of Green Level visual prompts, and created using only 6 speech sounds, and 6 linked speech sounds.

They will first be introduced to ‘pictures of speech sounds’ using phonics in the first Code Level within Phase 2 (Green). They will then learn to read and spell the words

associated with the visual prompts.

They learn to identify the speech sounds in the words, order and blend them orally into whole words. They ‘play’ the words orally.

Brain training videos for whiteboards introduce students to ‘Miss Emma’ and help teachers understand terminology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4IvKHBtbyU

The story of the Speech Sound King and the Magic Ant transitions the children from Phase 1 to Phase 2 ie phonics,

vocabulary knowledge, fluency and comprehension.

__________________________________________

Imagine how easy is it now for the children to listen for the speech sounds in green level words, and then make the right

choices, in the right order! Learning the code becomes meaningful. The dictionary is the King’s code book!

(ant nap pan)

Phonics

(An Element of SSP Phase 2)

Phonics is the understanding that there is a relationship between the individual sounds (the phonemes) of spoken language and the letters (graphemes) that represent those

sounds in written language. This understanding is sometimes referred to as the “alphabetic principle”.

As outlined above, an understanding of the alphabetic principle depends upon

phonemic awareness – it is impossible to relate a letter to a sound, if the sound cannot be perceived. The alternative to learning the alphabetic code is to learn every word by sight, which relies on good working memory. Some children do begin to read by memorising all words by sight, but very quickly the burden on the memory is so

great that the reading process stalls, often around the middle to the end of grade one. The number of words required to read age-level material rapidly increases. Without

alphabetic knowledge, independent reading is impossible.

The research evidence over the past five decades has strongly concluded that the teaching of letter-sound relationships should be part of beginning reading programs.

That particular debate appears to have been settled for most people in countries other than Australia, where the most commonly used approach is ‘whole language’ with

phonics being seen as a remedial approach. The fact that so many children are not reading fluently by the end of Year 1 shows that this is ineffective, but many seem reluctant to make those links. No child should need remedial work, if a preventative approach is taken – and this means phonemic awareness and phonics from term 1. Regardless of what schools in Australia claim to be doing, with regards to teaching

phonics, if ‘sight words’ are sent home to be learnt as whole words along with readers the child cannot even attempt to code (eg levelled readers from PM, ), then the school continues to promote the ‘three cueing system’ which arose out of necessity when the alphabetic code is ignored. There is quite simply no way for the student to work out what the squiggly lines on the paper represent other than through guesswork from pictures, or memorisng the words after a parent or teachers has read the book to

them.

‘Guided reading’ is rife across Australia, but not recognised as a way to develop higher order thinking of text the child can code. It is seen as a way to further promote

the three cueing system, as is clear when one looks at choice of books. In the beginning stages the quickest way for children to learn to read with fluency and comprehension is through the use of decodable readers. See free decodable readers to

support SSP on www.SSPReaders.com

These are specially constructed short texts made up of words that the children can decode and high frequency sight words that children have been taught simultaneously.

Within SSP these are introduced within ‘Duck Levels’ and are known as the King’s Helpful Words. They are also ‘Code Mapped’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRUiI73X58M

These readers give children the opportunity to practise many examples of words created using the sound pics in their level, and so reinforces their new knowledge.

These readers, and ‘Speedy Sentences’ are a short-term strategy to build the automaticity and fluency required for reading for meaning. Children do not find them

boring or meaningless and the focus is on enjoyment of skill development.

This skill development can be seen as follows, and this continues within the four SSP

Code Levels.

Teachers often look at these flimsy ‘readers’ with raised eye brows. This is a ‘reader?

However, in Louisa Moats’ (1998, p.6) words: “Adult distaste for decodable books fails to respect the child’s need to exercise a skill. Children want to be self-reliant

readers and are delighted when they can apply what they know”.

They also exercise these skills using the SSP workbooks, that are shared (you only need 1 or 2 per class)

Research convincingly demonstrates that phonics instruction contributes to comprehension. Because children learn to quickly code /identify words, they are able to hold on to the meaning of the text. They are also able to scan ahead more easily

even when asked to read aloud, and to do this with expression.

Within Australia this is directly opposed to the way in which most teachers have been, and are STILL trained. They are told that children simply needed to be in a print-rich environment and have high-interest stories read to them for the complex process of

learning to read to occur. The evidence however is that explicit and systematic teaching of alphabetic skills is more effective and more efficient than other forms of

phonics instruction (NICHD, 2000; DEST, 2005; Rose Review, 2006).

As SSP ‘Conductors’ will confirm, boys do equally as well as girls, and in many cases outshine them. This is due not only to the teaching approach, but also the often silly SSP resources. SSP is very much a ‘hands on’ approach which also appeals to boys,

and activities are often competitive, fast, and challenging. To read my article about SSP and boys please see

http://www.slideshare.net/ReadingWhisperer/boys-and-ssp-the-speech-sound-pics-approach-to-reading-and-spelling

The ‘code’ is taught rapidly, with every child working at their own rate. The SSP

student poster is used to develop the following skills, which are all a part of ‘phonics’. We refer to this as Code Mapping as it is more intensive than phonics, and allows for

coding of all words. Working memory is developed within virtually every activity.

Most activities are fast and fun ! They speed up ‘thinking speed’ and improve working memory.

Phase 2 allows for explicit, systematic teaching and also inquiry learning.

To learn more about each activity please

visit www.wiringbrains.com Within Phase 2 each activity introduces and

reinforces: oral language, vocabulary, phonemic

awareness, code recognition, blending, segmenting, manipulating of speech sounds and sound pics within meaningful context.

They read, write and spell using the sound pics from their level every day. Sound pics are

discovered through incidental learning, at the time most useful to the child, and also while

exploring the spelling clouds.

For example the activity ‘Brain Training Video’ activity shown here refers to pre-

recorded videos that you put onto the whiteboard or tablet, so that students work with others at their Code Level. As they graduate from a Code Level (assessment tools allow you to formally document this but the students themselves know when ready)

Students of all ages love the SSP Poster as they are again working at their own level and able to move through at their own page. Every student completes the same activity on the poster, but at their code

level. All are working at just above their own level, which

builds confidence. Many ask for these to use at home on the weekend!

The Spelling Strategy is clear, organised, and easy to use. They use this

throughout the day without all writing activities.

Explanation for Parents http://www.slideshare.net/ReadingWhisperer/ssp-spelling-cloud-examples

This strategy is used for ALL words in the English language, including those

traditionally taught as ‘sight words’.

The Spelling Clouds are displayed on walls from day 1 and students have their own keyrings!

They follow the explicit order of teaching the code (also used within decodable readers)

SSP ‘Rapid Writing’ Activity

SSP introduces children to writing in a unique way. The skills acquisition process starts much further back, and does not start with children copying sentences the adult has

written. Because of the way we teach children to write, they never need to copy sentences as they can write them independently.

So before they write sentences using words, they learn to write them using speech sound lines, and get used to the structure of a sentence ie where to start, how to show when a new word starts (finger space) and this increases working memory as they not

only create their own sentences orally, but are mapping them on paper. They fill in the sound pics they know, and the adult (or peer) help them with the rest. Very quickly they start writing sentences using the words they know, and do not need to ‘map out’ and with lines for the ones they are not sure of. They can ‘flow’ ie write

as they talk, and then go back to fill in the gaps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za516JPkB1Y

Grammar and Punctuation introduced from week 1 of using Phase 1.

VCOP Posters and other free resources are used to support teachers, from Big Writing.

The students love the fact that the Speech Sound Frog likes to eat full stops and

capital letters!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSBdqtpw6aE

Cracking Comprehension is an activity within Phase 2 and 3.

Resources enable the children to focus on comprehension at their Code Level. The aim

is that they can independently code the text (at least 90% of it) They can pick it apart, and develop ‘higher order thinking.’ We also do this within

Speedy Sentences (Speed Reading activity)

Snap and Crack is the SSP method of taking a photo of a page, putting it onto the whiteboard, labelling the lines, and then doing a quick fire reading

comprehension and speed reading activity. We also have many already prepared for you in the Wiring Brains.com

Member Area.

As early on as possible we use books the children are interested in and reading as their home readers eg SSP Blue, as shown below.

.

Teacher guide to questions

Every session finishes with Silly Rhyme Time and this is an ideal time to investigate the Spelling Cloud Poems, as well as ‘Miss Emma’s Silly Poems’

There is a poem for every spelling cloud. Examples shown below.

When children discover a sound pic we have missed, I write them a poem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkD-uX2gSG0

Technology is used throughout the SSP Approach.

___________________________________________________________________

Even though not included in recommendations, I consider early letter formation to be a crucial part of the ‘learning to code’ phase. Not only because knowing how to

quickly form letters means they can put their thoughts to paper more easily (we aim that by the time they enter Year 2 they can write as quickly as they speak) but also as

this particular strategy (RWI letter formation phases) enables the children to more readily link the speech sounds with their most common ‘picture’. They may know the ‘t’ needs to go on the number 3 line when spelling the word ‘sat’ in the Green Code

Level, but be unable to visualise the sound pic. They recall the phrase ‘down the tower, across the tower’ and are able to ‘draw the sound pic’ straight away.

In the early stages they may look at ‘n’ and say ‘down, Nobby up and over his net’ which shows us they are already linking, and so we refine by asking ‘and what it it a picture?’ ie the speech sound nnnn. Cards are used with the children so that they say

the associated speech sound (for that Code Level) when they see the letter/ letter strong and then the phrase when they look at the RWI image.

This actual ‘style’ of pre-cursive is also ideal for small hands, and the easiest way to transition to the mixture of cursive and pre-cursive that is in line with the child’s personality and style. There is a reason people analyse handwriting to ascertain

personality traits, and no amount of trying to get children to all write in the same way (as with Education Department styles) will work. It isn’t natural. The way children sit, hold pencils, their handedness also all play a part in the best ‘style’ of writing for

them. So we give them phrases, and round flowing shapes so that they can write quickly from the start, and need no formal ‘handwriting’ lessons later on, unless they

choose this as a hobby. Children who are forced to learn ‘cursive’ after writing in print (no exits) will regress around 18 months with regards to the speed in which they write (and neatness). I find it bizarre that many Australian schools move students from their Education Department calligraphy style to cursive in year 2 or 3 as this is around the time when they are to be ‘tested’ for writing skills? However NAPLAN will soon be

online, and children can type. It is now VITAL that we not only teach children how to write quickly by hand in Prep, but also to type, to be in line with our technological

society. When did you last write an article or letter by hand?

Handwriting/ Letter Formation

Letter formation is taught quickly and easily using the RWI phrases which further

reinforce the speech sound to sound pic links (phonics) in addition to helping children get the direction right, because of the multisensory approach. They are introduced to

all 26 letters even when on the Green Code Level.

You might be interested to read why the Finns are binning the teaching of handwriting in 2016, and focusing more on direction than calligraphy, and also

promoting fast typing. http://www.slideshare.net/ReadingWhisperer/teaching-handwriting-in-australia-

queensland-qcursivecasey-caterpillar

This video shows young children first being introduced to this skill. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUJeRc3vz1g

So when people ask if SSP is ‘research’ based I can categorically tell them YES! As you can see, it fulfils all recommendations as offered within every government report, and goes further. We also take into account individual differences ie not just what to teach but how, and recognise that different people, when presented with exactly the same

information in exactly the same way, will learn different things.

The Australian Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy Recommendations are shown below, and should put your mind at rest when choosing SSP as a whole school

approach to the teaching of not only reading, but also writing and spelling.

We also address issues relating to current practice, and constantly ask school administrators to consider change regarding a wide range of issues in order to

facilitate good emotional health.

SSP is not just a reading, writing and spelling ‘program’ it is an approach to ‘Piagetian’ child centred learning, and the recognition of teacher fabulisciousness!

Born teachers will do this naturally. SSP facilitates this.

Please support SSP Schools !

If you have teachers who are not just ‘qualified’ but are ‘born teachers’ then listen to them, respect them, and learn from them. Ask about becoming an SSP School, where other teachers can come, watch in awe, and talk to your teachers and students

about their own learning stories.

SSP is a hands on, multisensory approach that meets the needs of all learners. It is a

‘one size fits all’ approach, but this works as the approach itself centres around purposeful learning, that is meaningful to each child. They become excited by learning, and by

helping others to learn. Teachers recognise their own learning journey.

The process allows teachers to instantly

recognise when more time/ reinforcement is needed, and how to extend each student.

Students are fully involved in their own

learning. Listen to these children talk about SSP, fully aware of their own ‘code level’ and that

of others. They are proud of their achievements, and of their peers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwZnfA_vGmY

Peer mentoring is a HUGE part of the SSP Approach. Watch these Year 2 students

supporting Kindergrten students. The best way to learn something? Try to teach it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBnmkjLBIIE

Listen to a Year 2 teacher talk about the Speedy Six, and how she plans it according

to her observations and discussions with students. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpiDoH__rJA

If you have time, look at the work of John Hattie ‘Visible Learning’ and you will see that SSP also ticks all of the boxes for ‘teaching and learning’ ie how to teach, and

not just what to teach (as outlined within the Inquiry)

Please follow our new ‘reality show’ where I show real teaching, with real children, to a live studio audience. Classes of pre-school children, ‘unteachable’ teens, and adults

who have had a lifetime of hiding the fact that they cannot read and spell.

Not only does this mean that we can share this approach to learning with the world, but it also offers a unique way to train pre-service and qualified teachers, and to

empower parents and case workers. Adults can come and watch, and the stay for a workshop to explore what they observed.

Over the next five years we will also be mentoring schools across Australia, and

teachers can visit those schools to see ‘Conductors’ in action, and talk to the students themselves.

“SSP allows me to put into practice what is recommended within the ‘Visible Learning’ book.

Whereas our administrators talk about doing it, the SSP program actually supports me to DO it. As an approach it has helped me to understand my students as individuals, and develop

relationships that will be held dear to us all, for life. I cannot tell you how much it has changed not only the way I teach, and will teach forever, but how I value myself. Regardless of what I am TOLD to do, or what I hear from those who think they understand teaching and learning, I now have an inner confidence that what I am doing in my classroom when I am using SSP is right for my students, families and also myself as a unique

individual.”

Grade 2 Teacher, Gold Coast QLD.

Parents Aboard !

Reading for Pleasure

We must focus more on what students learn than what teachers teach, more on 'doing' than listening to information...more on educating the heart as well as the mind...

We seem obsessed with 'levels' and 'data' and yet we know from the country that GETS the best outcome, that this is not effective...students in Finland don't even get

'grades' until around Year 3. There are certainly no reading 'levels' or 'guided reading' sessions. What matters is authentic, differentiated learning... the rest pretty much

takes care of itself because they then read to learn as well as for pleasure.

When children read for pleasure, when they get “hooked on books”, they acquire, involuntarily and without conscious effort, nearly all of the so-called “language skills” many people are so concerned about in Australia: they will become adequate readers,

acquire a large vocabulary, develop the ability to understand and use complex grammatical constructions, develop a good writing style, and become good (but not

necessarily perfect) spellers- but don't worry, the Speedy Six takes care of that!

Although the cornerstone for lifelong reading is laid in the early years, we also know that it is never too late to start reading for pleasure (Sheldrick-Ross, McKechnie and

Rothbauer, 2005).

Using SSP, ALL children develop fluency and comprehension quickly and easily as we set it up so that children not only CAN read independently by 6 (you don't need to

read text for them, before they can even start on comprehension questions!) but they WANT to read, whenever they can, for pleasure.

So no 'guided reading' as directed by most education departments. In fact we get rid of just about anything that PRVENTS the vast majority of children reading to

themselves with comprehension...

Want change? Want to help 100% of students? Carefully anaylse even the most widely accepted practices...you'd be amazed at how much time is spent doing things that are not only of little use, but can actually slow down the learning to read with

fluency and comprehension phase.

Every child reading chapter books of their choice, independently, fluently and with comprehension by 6.

A non negotiable, if we aim to fail no-one....but the HOW to do this may be a very uncomfortable reality for many, and go against everything taught, or used previously.

PM Benchmarking, and whole language readers, must go. As in Finland, the focus becomes on reading for pleasure and to learn, and teachers proactively develop an intrinsic desire to do so, which means a big part of reading becomes not only about reading to learn, but about what the student chooses to read... The struggle at night

becomes getting them to switch off the light and stop reading..not getting their 'levelled reader' out in the first place.

Reading for pleasure is more important for children’s educational success than their family’s socio-economic status, says the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD), Reading for Change, Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

According to Nell (1988), reading for pleasure is a form of play that allows us to experience other worlds and roles in our imagination. Holden (2004) also conceived of

reading as a “creative activity” that is far removed from the passive pursuit it is frequently perceived to be. Others have described reading for pleasure as a

hermeneutic, interpretative activity, which is shaped by the reader’s expectations and experiences as well as by the social contexts in which it takes place (e.g. Graff, 1992).

But reading for pleasure is so much more than just a form of play or escapism – it is also a way of connecting with text. According to Pullman (2004), writing on the

features that make reading pleasurable: Consider the nature of what happens when we read a book…. It isn’t like a lecture: it’s like a conversation. There’s a back-and-forthness about it. The book proposes, the

reader questions, the book responds, the reader considers. And we are active about the process… We can skim or we can read it slowly; we can read every word, or we can skip long passages; we can read it in the order it presents itself, or we can read it in any order we please; we can look at the last page first, or

decide to wait for it; we can put the book down and … we can assent or we can disagree.

Research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2002) showed that reading enjoyment is more important for children’s educational

success than their family’s socio-economic status. Reading for pleasure could therefore be one important way to help combat social exclusion and raise educational

standards. According to Krashen (1993, p. 85), who is a major proponent of the value of reading

for pleasure: When children read for pleasure, when they get “hooked on books”, they acquire,

involuntarily and without conscious effort, nearly all of the so-called “language skills” many people are so concerned about: they will become adequate readers, acquire a

large vocabulary, develop the ability to understand and use complex grammatical constructions, develop a good writing style, and become good (but not necessarily

perfect) spellers. (but don't worry, the Speedy Six takes care of that!) Although free voluntary reading alone will not ensure attainment of the highest levels of literacy, it will at least ensure an acceptable level. Without it, I suspect that children

simply do not have a chance. Although the cornerstone for lifelong reading is laid in the early years, we also know that it is never too late to start reading for pleasure (Sheldrick-Ross, McKechnie and

Rothbauer, 2005).

The National Literacy Trust cites overwhelming evidence that literacy has a significant relationship with a person’s happiness and success. A deep engagement with

storytelling and great literature link directly to emotional development in primary children, according to The Rose Review, 2008 Independent Review of the Primary

School Curriculum.

There is a strong association between the amount of reading for pleasure children reported and their reading achievement, reports the Progress in International Reading

and Literacy Study (PIRLS) (National Foundation for Educational Research, 2006, Twist et al. National Report for England)

But the academic benefits of a strong leisure reading habit are not confined to improved reading ability. Leisure reading makes students more articulate, develops

higher order reasoning, and promotes critical thinking, says the National Endowment for the Arts in "To read or not to read", 2007.

So let us break it down - it is clear that children should be able to read for pleasure, not a level, but how do we ensure that children CAN read for pleasure?

There is a ‘preparing the brain to be ABLE to read’ phase, a ‘learning to read’ phase and a ‘reading with higher order thinking, to excite the heart and soul’ phase.

Within SSP students go through the first two phases in class, together, using

differentiated teaching, so that they ALL enter Year 2 already in Phase 3 and are on a more even

playing field. The focus is then on reading for pleasure, curriculum content, and further

developing higher order thinking, and high level writing skills. The two go hand in hand.

So in Prep and Year 1 teachers confirm what parents already know – ie your child is on the

Yellow Code Level – they know what this means. Students work through Green, Purple, Yellow and Blue Code Levels, and this means rapid coding and comprehension

at that code level. Everyone speaks the same language. Students understand their own learning

journey.

For Australia to really move forward, and no longer send students into year 2 in the ‘learning to read’ phase, simply use SSP, so that the whole code has been taught

explicitly and discovered using inquiry learning. But also use it so that children are not just able

to read, but CHOOSE to read. They go through the 4 Code Levels in the learning to read

phase, and are then known as Clever Clouds ie ‘readers’. You can Probe test them for a

‘level’ if you have to, but during the year there are no ‘reading levels’ and children choose

what they want to read for silent and shared reading times. The National Curriculum dictates

what they read to learn. The teacher also chooses books to share with the class, as a way to

evoke oral comprehension.

‘Australia could become a country obsessed with ‘reading for pleasure and not a 'level'’, which

would change everything with regards to our academic outcomes across the curriculum.’

Recent Research - reading for pleasure boosts maths results..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Reading-for-pleasure-boosts-pu…

Reading was found to be more important for children’s cognitive development at secondary school than the influence of their parents.

The combined effect of regular reading, visits to the library and ready access to newspapers at 16 was four times greater than the advantage children gained from

having a well-educated parent with a university degree, it was claimed. Dr Sullivan added: “It may seem surprising that reading for pleasure would help to

improve children’s maths scores. “But it is likely that strong reading ability will enable children to absorb and

understand new information and affect their attainment in all subjects.”

Please read and share

this http://pennykittle.net/…/…/Reports/Reading_pleasure_2006.pdf and help change our focus.

Let us also consider the bigger picture, as it relates

to teaching and learning in general. Not just what needs to be taught, but how.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is the Speedy Six so vital not only as a stand alone spelling program but also for working memory and attention

deficit? (only costs $57 per class...!) Order at www.wiringbrains.com

You can do so much more in the 45 minutes per day some schools allocate to ‘spelling programs’ – that often need another program to fill in the gaps for children who do not learn using the first program – and then another program when that one isn’t

effective! You can not only ensure that every child learns to spell ,you improve their learning skills and working memory. Also far more fun for the teacher..

Shana is now working with Prep (you can see her here using the Speedy Six with Year 2 students last year (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPHXpqbvhrI ) and I have

asked that she have her children independently assessed for working memory in term 4. You will be amazed by the results.

You do not need to spend thousands, as a school, on separate working memory programs when you use SSP. You do not need to use other programs to fit the gaps

of spelling choices.. etc. You only need one approach - 'Wiring Brains'.

Spend the TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars saved so that next year every student can have their own ipad, as we are developing personalised programs to load, that meet

the needs of individuals - not just with regards to reading and spelling, but also working memory, verbal intelligence, mindfulness and emotional resilience.

These personalised ipads will be invaluable in schools with high turn over teachers eg in remote areas, and for distance education students.

The Speedy Six is a vital part of your two hour literacy block, as it dramatically improves student engagement, working memory..as anyone knows, who saw Mary

grow in confidence last year at Broadbeach SS, where I spent a year supporting the school on a voluntary basis.

The student poster is also vital as this is based on the 'spaced repetition' approach to 'wiring brains' for coding information, long term. See this in action in Prep

here https://youtu.be/uiHkQp1Usg0 This develops long term memory of the ‘code’.

We are addressing multiple memory systems within the daily SSP routines.

It is important to know that we have two types of memory – (1) long term memory

and (2) short term memory (also known as working memory).

Working memory, located principally in pre-frontal cortex, is what occupies immediately and consciously our mind at any moment of the time. One could imagine

it as a combination of computer processor and RAM memory. Working memory actually isn’t very good– it has limited ‘storage capacity’ and it stores information only for a limited amount of time. In order to keep the information in the working

memory, we need to repeat thoughts about it (for example a phone number). Currently it is believed that working memory has a capacity of four ‘chunks’ of

information at a time (1). Sleeping is from large part erasing the short term memory.

Credit:http://memorisingmusic.com/2013/03/03/music-and-long-term-memory/

Long term memory is distributed in different parts of brain. According to Dr. Terrence Sejnowski , there are actually multiple memory systems for different types of learning. We could imagine it as computers’ ROM memory. Capacity of our long term

memory is theoretically unlimited. The main constraint on recall is actually accessibility rather than availability. The new information introduced to the long term memory through the process called ‘consolidation’ that is happening in hippocampus. That process can take long time and that information/piece of memory needs to be

‘revisited’ several times in order to increase the chance that it will be possibly to locate and use it later when needed. Moving effectively information from working to long term memory takes time and practice. The long term memories can remain dormant for a long time until the memory is retrieved and “reinstalled”. It is important to note

that memories are not fixed. They are changing over the time. Why and how? Whenever we recall some old memory, it is “reinstalled” in the working memory, in the

new context which may alter the old memory and be ‘saved’ through the process called ‘reconsolidation’. Like consolidation, also process of reconsolidation occurs

during sleep.

If you talk to teachers who have just started term 2 of Prep they will tell you how surprised they are by how much has been retained during the school vacation….and

many say that they seem to have learnt even more! This is not the ‘norm’ when other approaches are used, as all memory systems are not being addressed.

Article about Working Memory and ASD.

Working memory is part of executive function. Working memory refers to a “mental workspace” where information is stored and used for a short time. “A short time”

means just a few seconds. When we need to do something that takes sustained effort, working memory helps us

to: control attention resist distraction

Working memory is different from short-term memory: Short-term memory involves storing information for a short time and then repeating it.

For example, we use short-term memory when we hear and repeat a telephone number.

Working memory involves storing and manipulating or changing the information to reach a goal. For example, to do mental addition, a child must read or hear the

numbers, hold them in mind, and add them to get the answer. When playing a card game, a child must keep track of who just played and what he needs to do next based

on the changing situation in the game. Working memory can only hold a certain amount of information. If children need to keep a large amount of information in mind while working on a task, they may make

more mistakes

Working memory weaknesses are linked to: ADHD

learning disabilities problems with spoken language Working memory and attention

Working memory and the ability to control attention are linked: People who do poorly on tests of working memory also do poorly on tests of attention

control.

When people are asked to do something that puts high demands on working memory, they find it harder to ignore distracting information.

The “Cocktail Party Phenomenon”

The “Cocktail Party Phenomenon” is an example of the link between working memory and attention control. In a recent study, researchers asked people to:

repeat a message that they heard in one ear ignore irrelevant information (their name) that they heard at the same time in the

other ear People with lower working memory scores were three times more likely to hear their name, the message they were supposed to be “tuning out.” This suggests that people

with poor working memory have trouble controlling their attention when they are distracted.

Working memory and ADHD

Children with ADHD have weaknesses in working memory. These weaknesses may be moderate to severe.

Compared to their peers without ADHD, children with ADHD do worse on verbal and non-verbal working memory tasks. These weaknesses cannot be explained by reading

disorders or other disorders. Recent studies show that working memory weaknesses are more strongly related to

inattention than to hyperactivity/impulsivity. This means that children with the Inattentive or Combined subtype of ADHD may have more trouble with tasks that

need working memory. In children with and without ADHD, working memory problems are linked to:

behaviour problems academic problems

This suggests that even small weaknesses in working memory can make it harder for a child to do well in school.

Also, children whose kindergarten teachers felt they were at risk for literacy and numeracy weaknesses score lower on tests of working memory and executive function.

Teachers also said they showed more behaviour and attention problems than other children. These findings suggest that there is a very early association between working

memory, executive function, behaviour, and academic achievement.

Medication for ADHD does not address working memory weaknesses. Children with ADHD may need extra support at home and at school to help them compensate for

poor working memory, even if they are taking medication for ADHD.

Peter Chaban, MA, MEd Rosemary Tannock, PhD

http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/en/resourcecentres/adhd/aboutadhd/adhdandbrainfunction/pages/adhd-and-working-memory.aspx

Also consider this..as it relates to the classroom.. to understand why SSP is so effective. How many children do we know that have developed great strategies for

avoiding school work?

Procrastination – what to do about it? While reading this, think how it relates to our students... and how the short, timed, SSP routines fit with this...with the reward being

intrinsic ie they have achieved more than the day before..

Procrastination https://clobrda.wordpress.com/…/procrastination-what-to-do…/

Who didn’t procrastinate at some moment of time? And why do we fall into procrastination trap?

Procrastination is an automatic habit, and we often aren’t even aware that we have begun to procrastinate…

According to research, when you are getting ready to do something you would really rather not do, area in the brain associated with pain is activated. Naturally the brain tends to stop such negative stimulation by switching your attention to something else. The more you are procrastinating (postponing what you need to do), the stronger is

the negative stimulation.

According to Dr. Barbara Oakley (1), there are four parts of the habit of procrastination:

The Cue – trigger that launches the habitual mode (‘automatic behaviour’)

Cue by itself is neither helpful nor harmful, it’s the routine. What we do in reaction to that cue, that’s what matters.)

Most common cues – 1) location; 2) time; 3) how you feel….

The Routine – the routine habitual mode that the brain is used to falling into when it receives the cue. Response can be useful, harmless, but also harmful. We need to re-

wire our old habits.

The Reward – every habit develops and continues because it rewards us = it gives an immediate little feeling of pleasure.

Procrastination is an easy habit to develop because the reward (i.e. moving your mind’s focus to something more pleasant) happens so quickly and easily.

The belief – habits have the power because of our belief in them. To change a habit we need to change our underlying belief.

So, what can be done to change the habit of procrastination? Researchers discovered that not long after we might start working out what we didn’t like, that ‘neurodisconfort’ disappeared. Therefore you need to focus on 1) recognizing

the cue, 2) re-writing the routine, and 3) rewarding the new, positive habit and (4) have a ‘can do’ philosophy!

When approaching the task that you would rather not to do; it is important to FOCUS ON THE PROCESS, not the product, which may be too far to reach. Thinking of the product may be the trigger that leads to your procrastination. Processes relate

to habits. Create a setup that minimizes distractions – especially at the very beginning of the process. When some distraction arises (and it always happens), just let it flow by.

Start the day with the most unfavorable tasks – having the highest energy and fresh mind will help you to finish these tasks easier.

One doesn’t need to feel excited when starting the ‘disliked’ task. Important is to start. Try not to exercise the willpower.

Pomodoro http://pomodorotechnique.com/

One very effective method and well-known technique to address the procrastination is POMODORO:

Use some device (e.g. kitchen timer) that will measure your 25 minutes of focus steady concentration with no interruptions (workout)

At the end of the 25 minutes REWARD yourself with a minute of surfing, coffee or brief chit-chat and then back to another 25-minutes period.

Reference: (1) Oakley, B. (2015). Learning How to Learn: Powerful mental tools to help you

master tough subjects, Lecture videos & presentations. Coursera, UC San Diego. https://class.coursera.org/learning-003

Accessed on January 28, 2015

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask !

Miss Emma X

National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy.

Executive summary

Underlying this report by the Committee for the National Inquiry into the Teaching of

Literacy is the conviction that effective literacy teaching, and of reading in particular,

should be grounded in fi ndings from rigorous evidence-based research. The global

economic, technological and social changes underway, requiring responses from an

increasingly skilled workforce, make evidence-based high-quality schooling an

imperative. Nowhere is this more important than in the teaching of reading (a key

element of literacy) since reading competence is foundational, not only for school based

learning, but also for children’s behavioural and psychosocial wellbeing, further

education and training, occupational success, productive and fulfilling participation

in social and economic activity, as well as for the nation’s social and economic future.

The evidence is clear, whether from research, good practice observed in schools,

advice from submissions to the Inquiry, consultations, or from Committee members’

own individual experiences, that direct systematic instruction in phonics during the

early years of schooling is an essential foundation for teaching children to read. Findings from the research evidence indicate that all students learn best when teachers adopt an integrated approach to reading that explicitly teaches phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary knowledge and comprehension. This approach, coupled with

effective support from the child’s home, is critical to success.

The attention of the Inquiry Committee was drawn to a dichotomy between phonics

and whole-language approaches to the teaching of reading. This dichotomy is false.

Teachers must be able to draw on techniques most suited to the learning needs and

abilities of the child. It was clear, however, that systematic phonics instruction is critical

if children are to be taught to read well, whether or not they experience reading difficulties.

Members of the Committee found it a moment of awe to observe an effective teacher,

with a full range of skills to teach reading, working with a whole class and having each

child productively develop their literacy skills. Such teaching is highly skilled and

professional. Teachers require a range of teaching strategies upon which they can draw,

that meet the developmental and learning needs of individual children. The provision

of such a repertoire of teaching skills is a challenge for teacher education institutions,

and to practicing teachers as they assume the responsibility for the literacy learning

of a whole class.

12 Teaching Reading

The Inquiry found strong evidence that a whole-language approach to the teaching of reading on its own is not in the best interests of children, particularly those experiencing reading difficulties. Moreover, where there is unsystematic or no phonics instruction, children’s literacy progress is significantly impeded, inhibiting their initial and subsequent growth in reading accuracy, fluency, writing, spelling and comprehension.

Much curriculum design, content, teaching and teacher preparation seems to be

based, at least implicitly, on an educational philosophy of constructivism (an established

theory of knowing and learning rather than a theory of teaching). Yet the Inquiry found

there is a serious lack of supporting evidence for its effectiveness in teaching children

to read. Further, too often emphasis is given to the nature of the child’s environment

or background rather than on how a teacher should teach, resulting in insufficient

attention being given to both ‘what’ and ‘how’ teachers should teach children to read

and write. Whereas the ‘starting’ levels of children from less advantaged backgrounds

is lower than those from more advantaged backgrounds, findings from a large body

of evidence-based research consistently indicate that quality teaching has significant

positive effects on students’ achievement progress regardless of their backgrounds.

The Committee came to the view that since the effective teaching of reading is a

highly developed professional skill, teachers must be adequately prepared both in

their pre-service education and during subsequent years of practice, if children are to

achieve at levels consistent with their potential. The quality of teaching provided is

fundamental to children’s success in reading, and several of the recommendations

are directed to this end. Indeed, this report places a major emphasis on teacher quality, and on building capacity in teachers towards quality, evidence-based teaching practices

that are demonstrably effective in meeting the developmental and learning needs of

all students.

The Inquiry found that the preparation of new teachers to teach reading is uneven

across universities, and that an evidence-based and integrated approach including

instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary knowledge and text

comprehension needs to be adopted. The Inquiry also found that systematic support

for classroom teachers to build the appropriate skills to teach reading effectively, is

clearly inadequate.

Teaching standards and student achievement standards are two interlocking

issues fundamental to the determination of reading outcomes. The first refers to those

standards to be reached by a new teacher by the time they graduate, as well as to those

that a teacher requires if they are to be described as an accomplished teacher of reading.

These matters are dealt with in some detail in the report, and a way forward is proposed

so that teacher education institutions are clear about the teaching standards that should

be met in their courses, and in establishing standards for teachers of reading. The second

refers to standards to be reached and the levels of accomplishment of students at

various stages in their development.

The Inquiry Committee came to a view that the assessment of all children by their

teachers at school entry and regularly during the early years of schooling is of critical

importance to the teaching of reading, and in particular, to identify children who are

at risk of not making adequate progress. The early identification of children experiencing

reading difficulties means that interventions to provide support for these children

can be put in place early. This early assessment should be a key element of responsible

system and school literacy planning and monitoring.

In addition, the reading growth of individual children should be closely monitored

by ongoing assessment to inform parents, as well as provide feedback information

that can be used to guide teaching and learning. Information gathered from these

formative assessments may then be used to shape improvements and to adjust teaching

strategies that meet individual students’ learning needs.

The Inquiry Committee supports the current assessment of students’ literacy

achievements against national benchmarks and proposes their extension so that the

results for individual children are available for diagnostic and intervention purposes.

The Committee noted that data from external assessments are already provided in ways

that schools can evaluate, review and develop their overall teaching programs. Timely

and reliable diagnostic information about the progress of individual children in reports

to parents and to other teachers are essential. To assist the transfer of achievement

information as students move from school to school and from state to state, mechanisms

are also proposed to make this process a long-overdue national reality.

The Committee notes the fundamental importance of literacy in schooling and

the recommendations it proposes are designed to make effective evidence-based

practices accessible to all teachers and so influence positively all children in Australian

schools. Health professionals draw attention to the overlap that is often evident between

students’ under-achievement in literacy (especially in reading) and their poor behavioural

health and wellbeing. Dealing with reading problems early, as outlined in this report,

should assist in the alleviation of this seemingly intractable problem.

14 Teaching Reading

Evidence-based approaches to the teaching of reading

The Inquiry found that many teaching approaches used in schools are not informed by

findings from evidence-based research, and that too many teachers do not have a clear

understanding of why, how, what and when to use particular strategies. This has important implications for pre-service teacher education, ongoing teacher professional learning, and for the design and content of literacy curricula. This leads to the Committee’s first two and most important recommendations, both of which are designed so that teachers are provided with knowledge and teaching skills that are demonstrably effective in meeting the developmental and learning needs of children from a diverse range of backgrounds during their first three years of schooling, and thereafter where necessary.

1. The Committee recommends that teachers be equipped with teaching strategies based on findings from rigorous, evidence-based research that are shown to be effective in enhancing the literacy development of all children.

2. The Committee recommends that teachers provide systematic, direct and explicit phonics instruction so that children master the essential alphabetic code-breaking skills required for foundational reading proficiency. Equally, that teachers provide an integrated approach to reading that supports the development of oral language, vocabulary, grammar, reading fluency, comprehension and the literacies of new technologies.

Such instruction arising from these two recommendations must be part of an

intellectually challenging literacy environment that is inclusive of all children.

While the evidence indicates that some teaching strategies are more effective than

others, no one approach of itself can address the complex nature of reading difficulties.

An integrated approach requires that teachers have a thorough understanding of a

range of effective strategies, as well as knowing when and why to apply them.

3. The Committee recommends that literacy teaching continue throughout schooling (K- 12) in all areas of the curriculum.

Literacy must be the responsibility of all teachers across the curriculum, to provide an educationally sound program meeting the specific skill and knowledge needs of individual

children from diverse backgrounds and locations.

The role of parents

the best start to their literacy development. While it is the responsibility of schools to

teach children to read and write, there are many things that parents and carers can do

to assist in the development of their children’s literacy skills, such as regular adult child

and child-adult reading aloud activities. Supporting parents in endeavours of

this kind, particularly during the early years of schooling, leads to the following

recommendation.

4. The Committee recommends that programs, guides and workshops be provided for parents and carers to support their children’s literacy development. These should

acknowledge and build on the language and literacy that children learn in their homes and communities.

School leadership and management

The Inquiry came to a view from the evidence that successful teaching of reading

occurs best where there is a consistent and comprehensive whole-school approach

that is clearly specified in a literacy plan. Such plans give priority to the teaching of

literacy across the curriculum at every level of primary and secondary schooling.

Implementation of the plan should be the responsibility of all teachers under the

leadership and direction of the principal and senior staff. The outcome of the plan

must be that children and young people in primary and secondary schools have the

level of literacy that enables them to proceed successfully to the next stage of their

lives, whether it be further schooling, tertiary education or work.

5. The Committee recommends that all education authorities and school leaders examine their approaches to the teaching of literacy and put in place an explicit, whole-school literacy planning, monitoring and reviewing process in collaboration with school communities and parents.

This process should be comprehensive and recognise the learning needs of children

experiencing difficulty in learning to read and write, as well as extending successful

readers and writers, so that all children can proceed with every likelihood of success

to the next stage of their lives.

Effective leadership is an important factor in developing whole-school approaches

to the teaching of reading and to provide staff with the necessary ongoing professional

support. Without exception, the schools visited by Committee members for the Inquiry

demonstrated strong leadership from the principal and the school leadership team

that impacted positively on student literacy learning and teacher professional learning.

Findings from research, evidence from the consultations and site visits, as well as

many submissions led to the following recommendation.

6. The Committee recommends that all schools identify a highly trained specialist literacy teacher with specialised skills in teaching reading, to be responsible for linking the

whole-school literacy planning process with classroom teaching and learning, and supporting school staff in developing, implementing and monitoring progress against

individual literacy plans, particularly for those children experiencing reading and literacy difficulties.

Together with the leadership team, the specialist literacy teacher would be key

to identifying and providing professional learning for school staff. The specialist

literacy teacher would need to be resourced appropriately so that sufficient time is

dedicated to supporting staff in their professional learning.

7. The Committee recommends that specialist postgraduate studies in literacy (especially in teaching reading) be provided by higher education providers to support the skill base and knowledge of teachers, including the specialist literacy teachers.

Standards for teaching

Given the importance of literacy competence to children’s engagement in schooling,

and to their subsequent educational progress and life chances, the Inquiry Committee

received strong recommendations from peak stakeholder groups for the specification

of literacy teaching standards. To gain professional credibility and commitment, and

to acknowledge the highly professional nature of the teaching of reading, especially

during the primary years, such standards must be developed by the profession, serve

the public interest, and be applied nationally. The Committee was mindful of the work

currently underway both nationally and in the States and Territories in developing

standards. This work should be built on and leads to the following recommendation.

8. The Committee recommends that Teaching Australia –

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, in consultation with relevant professional associations, employers from the government and Catholic school sectors

and representatives of the independent school sector, together with relevant teacher institutes and registration bodies, develop and implement national standards for literacy

teaching, initial teacher registration, and for accomplished teaching, consistent with evidence-based guides for practice.

It is further recommended that these standards form a basis for the accreditation of teacher preparation courses.

Assessment

The Committee acknowledged the critical importance of assessment, if teachers are

to be in the best position to help their students. Assessment serves multiple purposes:

to diagnose and remediate essential skills, measure growth and monitor progress,

provide feedback to learners, and for reporting to parents and education systems.

18 Teaching Reading

The Committee is aware that issues surrounding student assessment and reporting

of and for learning are a high priority with State and Territory education jurisdictions

and schools. There are many examples across the country where teachers and schools

are being informed by assessment data. Such schools recognise the importance of frequent and ongoing monitoring of reading proficiency and growth in the early years.

The Committee discussed the advantages of further developing national approaches

to student assessment and reporting, particularly where the results of these assessments

could be used by teachers to guide their practice and be provided to parents to

inform them of their child’s progress. That is, the Committee identified a need for

nationally consistent diagnostic screening tools to be developed for use when children

begin school to identify their development of: auditory processing capacity; speech and

language; fine and gross motor coordination skills; letter identification; and letter-sound

correspondences. Findings from this objective assessment of specific skills would

form the basis on which to plan learning and measure individual reading development,

and should also be provided to parents. To address these issues, the following recommendations are made.

9. The Committee recommends that the teaching of literacy throughout schooling be informed by comprehensive, diagnostic and developmentally appropriate assessments of every child, mapped on common scales. Further, it is recommended that:

*nationally consistent assessments on-entry to school be undertaken for every child, including regular monitoring of decoding skills and word reading accuracy using

objective testing of specific skills, and that these link to future assessments;

* education authorities and schools be responsible for the measurement of individual progress in literacy by regularly monitoring the development of each child and

reporting progress twice each year for the first three years of schooling; and

* the Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 national literacy testing program be refocused to make available diagnostic information on individual student performance, to assist teachers to

plan the most effective teaching strategies.

The Inquiry identified the issue of mobility as one that needs to be addressed by

education authorities. Each year, approximately 100,000 students change schools across

State and Territory boundaries, sectors and regions. Mobility is an issue, particularly

for the education of children from Indigenous, newly arrived non-English-speaking,

and Defence Force backgrounds. A long-overdue mechanism to track individual

children throughout their schooling, so that a record of achievement and progress

can follow them wherever they attend school, is seen as essential. This would benefit

transient students, their parents and the schools to which they move. Such a mechanism

would need appropriate protocols to protect privacy.

10. The Committee recommends that a confidential mechanism such as a unique student identifier be established to enable information on an individual child’s performance to

follow the child regardless of location, and to monitor a child’s progress throughout schooling and across assessment occasions.

The preparation of teachers

The Inquiry Committee concludes that teaching practices and instructional strategies

per se are not independent of the teachers who deliver them, whether or not children

experience reading difficulties. Highly effective teachers and their professional learning

do make a difference in the classroom. It is not so much what students bring with them

from their backgrounds, but what they experience on a day-to-day basis in interaction

with teachers and other students that matters. Teaching quality has strong effects on

children’s experiences of schooling, including their attitudes, behaviours and achievement

outcomes (see Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).

Thus, there is need for a major focus on teacher quality, and building capacity in

teachers towards quality, evidence-based teaching practices that are demonstrably

effective in maximising the developmental and learning needs of all children. This is

the case for both teacher education and the ongoing professional learning provided

to teachers throughout their careers. Pre-service teacher education is the fi rst phase

of a teacher’s ongoing commitment to professional learning.

20 Teaching Reading

Responses to the national survey of primary teacher preparation courses undertaken

by this Inquiry indicate that in almost all of those nominated, less than 10 per cent of

time in compulsory subjects/units is devoted to preparing student teachers to teach

reading. They also indicated that in half of all courses, less than five per cent of total

instructional time is devoted to this task.

Although the Inquiry has concluded that there are significant opportunities for

improvement in teacher preparation, it is concerned that an evidence-based approach

be adopted in the implementation of the recommendations. Increasing the time on

reading instruction, improving the content of teacher preparation courses and school

practice arrangements, together with improvements in new graduates’ personal literacy

should all be examined to secure a firm evidence-base for teacher preparation. Also,

there is little evidence on the most effective way to prepare pre-service teachers to

teach reading. This must be given much more research attention by higher education

providers.

11. The Committee recommends that the key objective of primary teacher education courses be to prepare student teachers to teach reading, and that the content of course-work in primary literacy education focus on contemporary understandings of:

* evidence-based findings and an integrated approach to the teaching of reading, including instruction on how to teach phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary

knowledge and text comprehension;

* child and adolescent development; and

* inclusive approaches to literacy teaching.

12. The Committee recommends that literacy teaching within subject areas be included in the coursework of secondary teachers so that they are well prepared to continue the

literacy development of their students throughout secondary schooling in all areas of the curriculum.

13. The Committee recommends that significant national ‘lighthouse’ projects in teacher preparation and education be established to link theory and practice that effectively

prepare pre-service teachers to teach literacy, and especially reading, to diverse groups of children.

14. The Committee recommends that the conditions for teacher registration of graduates from all primary and secondary teacher education programs include a demonstrated command of personal literacy skills necessary for effective teaching, and a demonstrated ability to teach literacy within the framework of their employment/teaching program.

Ongoing professional learning literacy teaching (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005).

For the teaching of reading, quality teaching depends upon knowledge of how

students best learn to read, how to assess reading ability and growth, and how to use

assessment information to apply appropriate intervention strategies from a repertoire

of effective practices informed by findings from evidence-based research. It involves

knowing students and understanding their diverse backgrounds and learning needs

from observation and monitoring.

Ongoing professional learning is essential for teachers to teach reading. Opportunities

for professional learning can take many forms, including quality induction programs,

teachers’ shared and collaborative learning in school, work in professional learning

teams, mentoring, and professional learning for principals and school literacy leaders.

15. The Committee recommends that schools and employing authorities, working with appropriate professional organisations and higher education institutions, provide all

teachers with appropriate induction and mentoring throughout their careers, and with ongoing opportunities for evidence based professional learning about effective literacy teaching.

There is strong evidence that professional learning focused on subject matter

knowledge and knowledge about how students best learn, when coupled with a clear

understanding of contextual issues faced by teachers in the classroom, improves

teaching and learning. Research findings also indicate the importance of linking professional

learning to curriculum materials and assessments.

16. The Committee recommends that a national program of literacy action be established to:

* design a series of evidence-based teacher professional learning programs focused on effective classroom teaching, and later interventions for those children

experiencing reading difficulties;

* produce a series of evidence-based guides for effective teaching practice, the first of which should be on reading;

* evaluate the effectiveness of approaches to early literacy teaching (especially for early reading) and professional learning programs for practising teachers;

* investigate ways of integrating the literacies of information and communication technologies with traditional literacies in the classroom;

* establish networks of literacy/reading specialist practitioners to facilitate the application of research to practice; and

* promote research into the most effective teaching practices to be used when preparing pre-service teachers to teach reading.

Given that significant funding is provided by the Australian and State and Territory

governments to support the ongoing professional learning of teachers, the Inquiry

concluded that there was a need for more effective coordination of funding and effort

in this area.

17. The Committee recommends that Australian and State and Territory governments’ approaches to literacy improvement be aligned to achieve improved outcomes for all Australian children.

18. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, together with State and Territory government and non-government education authorities, jointly support

the proposed national program for literacy action.

Looking forward

There was a clear consensus view among members of the Inquiry Committee to

emphasise the importance of quality teaching and teacher quality. These areas continue to be given strong financial support by the Australian Government, and recommendations

from this Inquiry will place added demands on resources if major improvements to

teacher professionalism in the area of children’s literacy and learning, behaviour, health

and wellbeing are to occur.

Quality literacy teaching is central to these outcomes, and especially for early

reading acquisition and subsequent development. This will not be realised until teachers

receive evidence-based knowledge and skill development in their pre-service preparation

and are supported via in-service professional development. The level of this support

must be commensurate with teachers’ invaluable contributions to the enrichment of

children’s wellbeing and life chances, as well as to capacity building for the nation’s

social and economic future.

For all children, learning to read and write effectively requires effort and commitment

from many stakeholders: education authorities, principals and their associations, teachers

and their professional associations, the deans of education, health professionals, parents

and parent organisations. Responsibility for achieving this ambitious goal at the highest

levels leads to the Committee’s final recommendations that -

19. The Australian Government Minister for Education, Science and Training raise these recommendations as issues for attention and action by MCEETYA, and other bodies,

agencies and authorities, that will have responsibility to take account of, and implement the recommendations.

20. Progress in implementing these recommendations, and on the state of literacy in Australia, be reviewed and reported every two years. http://research.acer.edu.au/tll_misc/5/

Learning to Read using the SSP Approach. A ‘Brain Based’ Skills Acquisition Process from Miss Emma, The Reading Whisperer.

Information for Parents. Think of learning to read using SSP as a 'skills acquisition' process that will allow ALL learners to develop reading brains quickly and easily. It also wires ‘spelling brains’ at the same time. When you use this process fluency and comprehension actually develop naturally. Guided reading becomes an activity within which text is used that the children can already code, and they pick it apart.

Only 6 sound pics (s,a,t,p,i,n) used, but higher order thinking already a focus.

No more 'whole language' guided reading which asks that children to look at pictures, guess, miss out words they can't code...these strategies slow down the learning to read stage. Binned in the UK around 10 years ago.

Use the SSP Skills Acquisition Process and the 'average' in term 4 when the mandatory benchmarking of ‘whole language skills’ is underway will mean at least an average PM 15

in Prep, PM 30 by end of Year 1, if your school is still having to use ‘PM Benchmarking’ as an assessment tool. All are authentically reading, and choosing what they want to read for pleasure before Year 2 when you use evidence based strategies. PM readers/ Levelled Literacy do not fit as 10 - 33% of every class will never learn to read in that way. (see research relating to the reading brain)

It is vital that home readers reinforce their 'code mapping/ phonics' learning at school. The SA education dept is perhaps the leading state with regards to evidence based advice, but many schools are still not 'getting' what they are saying. See image below. No phonics without phonemic awareness (ie teaching a letter sound a day/ 3 per week from day 1 of Prep along with ‘sight words’) no letter names without coding skills, and no readers that do not reinforce letter sound mapping with speech sounds. This counts out most phonics programs actually being used in SA.

Without going too far into neuroscience, the thing that separates children who find learning to read and spell difficult or easy relates not to intelligence, socio economic area etc but in ‘white area’ in the brain. Regardless of background, children with lower general verbal ability and those who have difficulty with phonetic processing seem to struggle. So what underlies those differences? How do we learn to translate abstract symbols into meaningful sounds

in the first place, and why are some children better at it than others?

Only one thing consistently predicts how well a child learns to read. That is the growth of white matter in one specific area of the brain, the left temporoparietal region. The amount of white matter that a child arrives with in kindergarten doesn’t make a difference, but the change in volume does.

What is white matter? You can think of it as a sort of neural highway in the brain—roads that connect the various parts of the cortex and the brain surface. Information, in the form of electrical signals, runs across the white matter, allowing for communication between the different parts of the brain: you see something, you give it meaning, you interpret that meaning. The left temporoparietal region is central in phonological processing, speech, and reading. This is where we do so much work in Phase 1 and Phase 2.

My work (think of Phase 1 especially) is when we proactively re-wire the pathways for children and ENSURE that oral language and phonemic awareness skills develop, which will increase the white matter and wire the brain READY to learn to read and spell. We then reinforce this in Phase 2. It is why no child is left behind. We are working with THEIR brains and not trying to teach them something the curriculum dictates, when their brains are not yet wired for it ! Further work in this area shows that brain scanned as ‘dyslexic’ later scan as ‘normal’ within 4 to 6 weeks by doing the same activities we cover in Phase 1 and 2 ie receptive language, memory, attention, processing and sequencing. eg See work by Temple et All as early as 2000 ! It is not new. It is just not being implemented (yet) as standard practice across Australia. Until SSP this has also not been inexpensive, accessible and fun to follow for teachers and students. You can see the gap in research / practice by looking at choice of ‘readers’ for example as directed by education departments

This image shows a PM Level 1 (which would be in our Advanced Code - regardless of number of words, the code in those words is too advanced for any other level)

All I have done is change the sound pics from letters to symbols.

You can see why children need to know what those symbols represent, to actually work out the word- can you work out the 3rd one when picture clue removed?

What happens, when there is a picture and the code is too advanced, is that that child no longer really focuses on the text anyway - they guess from previous, and use the image.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3b2nRYSAY8 Each sentence consists of 3 ‘sight words’ and one word that is made up of Blue Level code- and yet this is in a PM Level 1 reader I saw the other day. That would go into our SSP Blue level reader box. Those kids are almost ready to graduate to chapter books

That is not reading, and leaves at least 8 in every class struggling to EVER learn to read, and also puts them off wanting to learn to read (and spell). You can turn a child off reading for life by using PM readers and other whole language based (also called 'levelled literacy') readers in Prep as their brains are not wired to crack the code in those readers. So if these come home use them for paired decoding (you are the one following the sounds, they say the word as they point) and choose a reader they can code themselves

from www.sspreaders.com Just remember, PM/ Levelled Readers have probably been sent home regardless of what the teacher understands. A very tricky situation for SSP teachers.

Even our high frequency words are coded.

Pay careful attention to the skills acquisition process for the brain (see brain- eyes- information processing on left)

Apply the process of building on skills to reinforce and consolidate learning to reading, in the same way you would naturally do when teaching a child to swim, play golf, bake a cake!

While going through the four code levels (SSP Green - Purple- Yellow- Blue) and learning 90 of the 200 sound pics that represent the 42+ speech sounds in our oral language home readers should reinforce the sound pics they are focusing on in class. But BEFORE they can go through the four Code Levels brains MUST be wired for phonemic awareness. This is auditory and does not involve letters. When they are ready, they learn the code in a systematic and sequential manner. So a ‘Purple Level’ reader only has these…

Why? The brain needs to Code Map the speech sounds they hear in the word (phonemic awareness) with their ‘pics’ in an organised, scaffolded way.

Example Words using Purple Level Sound Pics are shown below. They can ‘code map’ all words by listening for the speech sounds and ordering the visual representations of those speech sounds – blending the sounds and sound pics into a whole word.

Spot the Duck Level Words (4) and weird ones ! (de ? woooheeee?)

So if looking at the first 24 or so (Green and Purple levels) they need to be able to read books with JUST those sound pics ie a Purple Level reader. ONLY the 24 sound pics and a few Duck Level words (also coded) will be in there. There are 7 Duck Levels covering 400 high frequency words. So in the Purple Level reader these words will be shown. See video example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1roBpDzT8Q The books ONLY using these, and a few duck level words (which they know are in there before they start)

www.sspreaders.com has hundreds of free 'decodable' books. It is vital that they only see sound pics they know in the early stages, to develop fluency and comprehension, and so the brain doesn't have to keep stopping and starting because it doesn't know the sound pics. Start fund raising if your school has no budget for decodable readers.

If your school is sending home readers with code the children do not know (and you must know their code level) then do 'paired decoding' with them, telling them that YOU will need to do the 'follow the sounds' part and they 'say the word' as the code is Blue Level (the hardest)

Use a skills acquisition process when teaching your child to read. They need to identify the speech sounds in the words, and be able to map these with their representation on paper for reading, writing and spelling! SSP Green- 6 speech sounds are the focus with an initial set of sound pics as examples of representations for those speech sounds. s a t p i n

(all representations will be discovered during the acquisition process in Prep and reinforced in Year 1)

It is vital that they can code every word used to reinforce the sound pic. So no ‘s’ for snake or ‘a’ for apple ! They don’t explicitly look at split vowel digraphs (a-e in snake) until SSP Blue (but in reality they investigate them within weeks of Prep) So look at the word linked with the sound pic cards. All made up of s,a,t,p,i,n.

The Green Level Rap.

When they can do this in 14 seconds or less they are generally ready to move up to Purple. Last line has 3 duck level words (has / of/ his ) and 2 purple level sound pics (l/o in the word ‘lots’)

If the readers at your school do not allow for this- eg if being sent PM readers, then make sure your child knows they could not possibly 'read' it themselves, as they have not yet learnt the code, as you would if sent home advanced algebra in Prep. You would tell them they couldn’t possibly work it out, and so there is nothing wrong with them for being

unable to crack the solution. The maths is too advanced. PM reader code?.. too advanced.

You will find that you can put PM readers in the Blue level box- so they can start reading them independently when they get to that level. This is when they can be tested using whole language testing eg PM Benchmarking. Not until.

Would we test Prep children on advanced algebra when they aren't at that level yet, just because district office asks us to? If your child’s teacher HAS to (most have no choice about things like this) then at least understand that this is ridiculous until the kids have the skills to code those books. And if they can't, they can't comprehend them authentically.

Always think… take away the pictures and can they code it on their own? If not, change the readers.

Miss Emma