Blog

If you are looking for any business-writing course, UK specialists Emphasis can almost certainly help you.

Archive for the ‘Literacy and education’ Category

Reading test for six-year-olds to include made-up words

Posted by Catie Holdridge

The latest plan to boost children’s literacy levels involves a reading test for six-year-olds, which includes made-up words like ‘mip’, ‘fack’, ‘zort’, ‘koob’ and ‘glimp’.

The Government scheme is intended to provide a ‘light touch phonics-based check’, to either reassure parents of their child’s ability, or to identify the pupils falling behind. It would entail reading back a list of both real and made-up words, to ensure that none was just recited by rote.

Some of the words may be nonsensical, but the idea may not be quite as crazy as it sounds. Teaching with phonics – where words are deduced by recognising the sounds associated with letters or groups of letters – has been shown to help with individual word identification and spelling.

Nick Gibb, Minister of State for Schools, quotes academic research from Australia and the US that ‘points to synthetic phonics being the most effective method for teaching literacy for all children, especially those aged five to seven.’

And one can hardly fault the Government on their stated goals. ‘Too many children leave primary school unable to read and write properly,’ says Gibb. ‘We are determined to raise standards and the new phonics-based reading check for six-year-olds will ensure that children who need extra help are given it before it is too late.’

But it is the prospect of a test based solely on phonics that is causing consternation among education and literacy experts in the UK. Many think it is more likely to actually put kids off reading, by isolating the act from its own rewards: understanding and enjoyment. ‘The test is trying to control all the different variables so that things like meaning don’t get in the way,’ says president of the UK Literacy Association (UKLA), David Reedy. ‘We think this seems a bit bonkers when the whole purpose of reading is to understand words.’

And children cannot learn through phonics alone: ‘There is the context, the sentence itself, and whether they have that word in their spoken lexicon’, Reedy points out.

Professor Greg Brooks, from the University of Sheffield, has also questioned the term ‘light-touch’, saying the exam will ‘inevitably become high-stakes, with all the educational deformations that are known to attend high-stakes tests’, including ‘teaching to the test’ and ‘needless anxiety for children’. And, if the UKLA are to be believed, it would be needless.  They assert that the results wouldn’t be a good indicator of how well pupils would read connected text, or pick up meaning.

Perhaps the theory is sound enough, but the test itself is just a case of too much, too early. ‘Most children at that age are not ready to learn phonics, never mind be tested on them,’ says Professor Janet Moyles, an early years and play consultant from Anglia Ruskin University. ‘Children do not have formal teaching of reading in Scandinavian countries, for example, until they are six to seven years of age and do much better than our children in formal testing later.’

Reform school?

Posted by Catie Holdridge

Declining standards of English are still a big concern, judging by the anticipated content of a government white paper due out today.

The reforms are expected to reverse much of what the Labour government brought in; such as the modular approach to examining, where pupils take a series of shorter exams spread out over two years rather than longer, more in-depth ones at the end of their studies.

Also set to return is marking pupils down – by up to five per cent – for poor use of punctuation and grammar in exams. Labour’s decision to scrap this system in 2003 has, according to education secretary Michael Gove, directly contributed to a drop in literacy skills.

‘Thousands of children – including some of our very brightest – leave school unable to compose a proper sentence, ignorant of basic grammar,’ he said. ‘The basic building blocks of English were demolished by those who should have been giving our children a solid foundation in learning.’

The move seems particularly timely, given the recent pattern which has seen celebrities practically lining up to declare the English language is more abused than that cat that was put in a bin. Emma Thompson took against slang at her old school; while Marks and Spencer chairman Sir Stuart Rose has stated that too many school leavers are ‘not fit for work’.

Actress Penelope Keith last week lent her (rather cultivated) voice to the cause, decrying – for one – the detrimental effect of social media like Twitter on English usage. She told the Sunday Telegraph that ‘there are a lot of people you can’t actually understand’, thanks to their overuse of ‘tweets, and twits and texts’.

A renewed focus on the importance of these ‘building blocks’ of language is almost certainly worth celebrating. But before we all send a Twit of triumph to Penelope, a question: is this reform likely to be enough, or is it more of a cursory nod in the right direction?

The slang debate

Posted by Catie Holdridge

When actress Emma Thompson warned teenagers against using slang on a recent visit to her former school, she probably didn’t expect to spark a debate. But spark one she did.

It was, apparently, the ‘likes’, ‘innits?’ and ‘it ain’ts’ she heard bouncing around the Camden School for Girls, Thompson’s alma mater, which drove her ‘insane’. She told the students: ‘Don’t do it because it makes you sound stupid and you’re not stupid.’

You’re missing the point, the opposing side promptly retorted. The kids are all right. It’s the moaning adults’ attitudes that need to change. ‘Complaints about the standard of English [...] have gone on for hundreds of years,’ points out Raphael Salkie, a professor of language studies at the University of Brighton. ‘There never was a golden age when everyone used English properly.’

And, while Salkie admits Thompson and her critiquing ilk are in highly esteemed company – John Milton, Jonathan Swift and George Orwell to name a few – they are merely ‘middle-aged grumps’ who are ‘wallowing in nostalgia’. But they are, he says, pining for a time that never really existed.

Yet even taking this into account, another of Thompson’s points bears repeating – one on the importance of understanding the context in which you speak: ‘There is a necessity to have two languages – one you use with your mates and the other that you need in any official capacity.’

Well, that’s a different point entirely, isn’t it? Not just slashing a big red line through any and all slang, but knowing when to use a different language. And that’s something we all do every day. It’s unlikely you use the exact same vocabulary at home as you do in a board meeting, or when out on the town.

To many, the word ‘slang’ might have only negative connotations. But David Crystal, former professor of linguistics at the University of Reading, merely defines it as, ‘informal, non-standard vocabulary’, or ‘the jargon of a special group’. So slang is not just a way for young’uns to separate themselves from their elders; it’s also a way for them to show unity with their peers. And, of course, it can do this for any age – or even any class.

Problems could perhaps arise if the speaker couldn’t understand the line between social contexts – and the vocabularies that should accompany different situations.

Interestingly, a study by the Cambridge Assessment Group in 2005 found that GCSE pupil’s literacy was dramatically higher than it had been ten years before, despite the fact that they used more slang. Students used a wider vocabulary, more accurate punctuation and more complex sentences; but they also used more colloquialisms, text message symbols and non-standard English, like double negatives. This was the case even among those receiving the highest grades.

Of course, the perception in the world beyond the classroom is often that using non-standard English is sloppy and a sign of poor literacy. While a teacher may award a high grade in spite of the use of slang and suchlike, it is likely someone using similar language in the workplace would do less well. Potential employers probably wouldn’t read beyond the first ‘gr8’ in a CV, and the rest of the content – however impressive – would be lost.

Cambridge Assessment Group ran another study on teenagers’ ability to recognise non-standard English in 2010. It found that although GCSE pupils’ rates of identifying and correcting non-standard English were ‘quite high’, fewer than six in ten of them recognised that ‘off of’ and ‘she was stood’ were grammatically incorrect. Perhaps more worryingly, almost three in ten didn’t flag up ‘should of’.

But do we expect this to be something they’ll grow out of? Or should we bring back more rigidly taught grammar lessons in school?

The great slang debate may never go away – perhaps because it is endlessly recycled: yesterday’s teens could well be tomorrow’s curmudgeons. Or, is this in fact more than ‘middle-aged’ moaning? What do you think?

Literacy is key to success at work

Posted by Catie Holdridge

Poor literacy at work is still a major problem, new research has found.

The report, Literacy: State of the Nation, examined the UK’s literacy levels both in schools and in the workplace.

While a quarter of young people see no connection between reading and success, the research results made the link clear. Two-thirds of men and three-quarters of women with low literacy levels had never received a promotion.

The knock-on effect could be costing the rest of the country too, according to the National Literacy Trust, which published the report. The findings are ‘extremely worrying’, says Jonathan Douglas, the Trust’s director. ‘It is estimated that poor literacy costs the economy £2.5bn a year.’

Worrying indeed.

Don’t monkey around with fonts

Posted by Barbara Wilson

According to children’s literacy website Reading Rockets, when kids start to read, they like to mirror the writing they see around them. So, if they see you writing a list, they may well write one too.  If you’re writing in your diary, they’ll probably have a pretend one too.

Most parents will help their children get better at writing by practising forming letters with a variety of mediums: paper, sand, snow – or even in the air. It’s also good to read things which just happen to be around and might well catch the eye – like cereal packets, for instance. So, how confusing is the font for Kellogg’s Adopt a Monkey campaign?

As a marketing idea the Adopt a Monkey campaign is a cracker. It ticks all the boxes: cuddly animals, conservation and charity.

But who designed the font? With capitals D, N, H, P and G slung with gay abandon in the middle of words on both the Kellogg’s and Born Free sites, they’re making reading and writing just that bit harder for a major part of its target audience.

Do you baulk at, “KeePiNG WiLDlife in tHe WiLD”, or “BorN Free”, or is it just me? Do you feel this curious choice of script is designed to make a younger audience feel at ease because these are the kinds of mistakes kids make when they’re learning to write? In that case we could soon be going down the crumpled paper, smudge-infested route. Perhaps with the odd dribble or bogey on: that’s common in kids’ efforts too.

So: Adopt a Monkey – great idea, guys. But rein in those designers or you’re only making an already complicated system even more difficult for those just starting out.