I have shared this video with thousands of teachers! Thank you for the research! Sue Lloyd, Sara Werham, Ruth Miskin, Jenny Chew and Debbie Hepplewhite, Authors of Systematic Synthetic Phonics methods, have been lobbying against the Education Advisors in UK. For the past decade!
You might enjoy reading The Number Sense - Stanislas Dehaene, or watching Dan Ansari's explanation for parents - please note though that these theories are central to an ongoing debate of maths researchers ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xUUj0cqYRQU.html
This video is so important. I'm a Brazilian researcher and I'd like to know if I can translate this video into Portuguese (voice) and show it in my RU-vid channel. I'm trying to teach teachers about the science of reading. I'll give you all the credits. Thank you
@@sandrapuliezi Bible was translated from Roman to English by Martin Luther and he was burnt on the stake. Nobody was burnt for translating God's work from English to any regional language - yet. 😅
Side note, besides all the kudos... It's ironic and funny how we people who adore words... can also be so distracted by words. Only two minutes into the video my brain was shocked by the pronunciation of "psuedo" - which I learned to say as "soodoe" - and I had to go and get a cup of tea to calm myself down. O how busy our brains are whilst we listen and read !
This makes sense for more transparent, phonetically regular languages like French and Spanish, but how does his research transfer to more opaque languages like English that aren't phonetically regular past first grade. Also, what's this " whole word" instruction he's talking about? Is it a French thing? The only whole word instruction I see in the U.S. involves memorizing phonetically irregular words like "are," "have," and "come" that can't be decoded.
I realize your comment is from 2 years ago, so you may already know this, but back then (and still today) many approaches still give children a word list to know (if you've heard of a "1st-grade word list, 2nd grade... etc.) or sight word lists. That's what he means.
The knowledge gained from brain studies is very important and useful, including the ones shown in this lab. But the approach used to reduce the process of learning of the child and other aspects of reading is very limited as put in this well-produced video of wrong perspective.
When a word is not in your phonological lexicon, the connections of letter-sound has to be based on experience and probabilities. I bet that the speaker there, not knowing that word, connected seud within the word to the word suede and realized (as he understood it) that the was "silent". I tell kids "all letters are silent" "humans make sounds; letters represent sounds". So if you haven't ever heard the word it is easy to make mistakes in letter sound correspondence.
@@Sara-jp8xo The simple answer to this is 'Look it up!' Even if you don't know the IPA there are enough examples online. And look up the etymology too. Anything else is laziness and make you look foolish if you are going to narrate over mutimedia. It takes seconds. The production values of this video are really high - sound; lighting; editing; fonts etc are superb. This just lets it down and detracts from the media. It's not pedantry to suggest this. A proper sound house would have picked up on this and edited it before the film going out. Ignorance is no excuse. John Morrison or his subeditors should have spotted this - viewers certainly did! The voice actor needs to up his game but it is the editors who should have picked it up and asked for a re-record.
@@L4LTVuk Completely outside of my area of expertise. I'll bow to your greater experience. I wasn't trying to suggest that it was okay from a production values perspective - just trying to connect it to the content of the video re: reading decoding mistakes.
The problem is that every letter makes more than one sound. There is no way to tell what sound a letter will make until you read the word. If you can read the word it is pointless to think about what sound each letter makes. In fact it is only my least efficient readers that pay attention to each letter. If and when they are confused by a word I want them thinking about context and meaning, and when they do look at the letters I want them looking at the biggest chunk of letters that is recognizable because those chunks have more predictable sounds. And even if you can pronounce the word it doesn't matter without the meaning. The converse is equally true: if I get meaning then I'm reading, regardless of incorrect pronunciation. So I really need more information on his research and premises. If anyone can direct me. Thanks
If it helps, I've found that contextual training makes all the difference. Students are never taught linguistics early... a thing that they know innately, but have some difficulty embracing or articulating. If you're moving into chunks too soon, you're forcing the right brain navigation that Dehaene is talking about: it's ineffective. However the brain understands variables: multiple sounds for a given meaning. What do we do with variables? We look at context, correlation, or affect.
Your computer narration didn't quite work as planned. In English, the word "pseudo" is not pronounced "SWAY-doe." It's best to review the work of AI, you know. And, I'd argue, best to use a human when you want your narrator to sound like a human.
