Forging the link between symbol and sound

I ended the previous blog laying stress on the fact that teaching aksharjnan (knowledge of letter-sound correspondences) is only one part of the PSS approach. The early primary language classroom has to have a rich mix of talking, listening to and telling stories, looking at books, singing, drawing, painting and play of all kinds. The structured lessons for explicitly teaching the script must be understood as being embedded in this mix of language activity. The first letters to be taught, you may recall, are those needed to write emotionally charged words, like मामा (mother’s brother), and मामी (mother’s brother’s wife). The word for ‘mother’ – आई– is treated as a sight word. (a word to be learned as a whole, without breaking it down into its component parts). I want you to keep these things in mind as you read the following discussion. Otherwise, you might feel that I am advocating a dry, decontextualised approach.

Once we have developed a set of lessons based on the approach I described in my last blog, we might think that our work is done; from here on teachers can take up the material and use it successfully in the classroom. But that is not the case. Given a set of about four moolaksharas and a couple of abbreviated vowel signs, how does a teacher go forward?

 One of the most common strategies I have seen proceeds in the following way. The teacher writes the symbols on the board and reads them aloud a number of times. Then she asks the children to repeat (shout!) the sounds after her. After that she asks each child to go to the board, point at each akshar and say its sound. This might go on until every child has had a turn (which could mean 30 or more). Finally the teacher asks the children to write the symbols on their slates.

At this point, the teacher feels she has done her job: the children have made the link between symbols and the sound. And in some cases, she may be right. There are children who are able to make this link very quickly. But for many, this strategy is not adequate.

Before I talk about the inadequacy of this strategy, I want to say that this teacher has understood some things, and has done some things right. She understands, first of all, that the children have to link the visual symbol with the sound. She also understands that for the majority of children, this linkage does not happen instantaneously; it needs repetition. She also realises the need for children to learn to write the symbol soon after it has been introduced.

Having conceded all this, why do I argue that this strategy is inadequate? First off, it is boring, and many children quickly cease to pay attention. But more importantly, it does not do justice to the cognitive task at hand. Forging a link between symbol and sound is not quite as simple as it may seem. For the first couple of lessons at least, the teacher probably has to concentrate for a while on a single akshar. Within the constraints of this blog, let me deal with just one sub-question: how does a teacher help the children learn one akshar – that is, how does she help them forge the link between symbol and sound? Once the children grasp the rationale behind what they are doing, they can proceed at a much faster rate.^[1]. (Of course, it is impossible to imagine that all children reach an understanding at the same time using the same method.)

As I have said above, forging a link between sound and meaning is not as simple as it seems; and the teacher must have conceptual clarity about what is involved. This means that, first of all, children have to become aware of the sound units of the language. As I mentioned in my previous blog, the fact that children can speak the language means that they have knowledge of the sound system. But to forge a link between symbol and sound, they have to be able to turn their gaze (or ears?) inward and think about the sound units.

The next step is for the learner to cognise (perceive/become aware of) the visual symbol. In some cases, there are substantial differences between one symbol and another—for example, the Devanagari moolaksharas म and ह. In other cases, the difference may be minimal, as in: ब and व. Thus in introducing a symbol, one of the things the teacher can do is write 15-20 symbols on the board, including four or five instances of the symbol she wants to focus on. Then she can ask several children to take turns coming to the board to circle one letter. She might also ask the children to look around the room to find objects whose names are written using the letter in question. Or she could also ask children working individually or in pairs to find the letter in newspaper cuttings and circle it.

Though some practitioners feel that it is not necessary to teach the writing of an akshar immediately, I would argue that the visual and tactile experience of drawing the letter helps fix it in the child’s mind. Preferably, this should be done on a slate. A slate is ideal for writing a jumbo -size letter. (The fact that it can be erased innumerable times is an added bonus.) In addition to using the slate, a child can run his finger over a large letter cut out of polish paper, or a letter made from a fairly thick cord. In classrooms where children sit on the floor, the teacher can write the letter in front of each child, and have him trace it with a piece of chalk, or simply with their finger. The children could also do the letter ‘“n the air’, or walk it. Tracing a letter on the hand – or, even better, the back— of a classmate is a favourite technique. Whatever tool is used, the important thing is that the children keep saying the sound of the letter.

Note that I have said ‘the sound of the letter.’ One of the biggest mistakes teachers make is to teach a letter by associating it with a single tag word— for example: ग, ग गणपतीचं (‘g, g, as in Ganpati’). This is an instance of what I call ‘cognitive clutter’^[2]. In doing reading assessments, I have found that many children identify the letter with the tag word. In other words, seeing the letter ग, they will just say गणपतीचं.

Another common mistake teachers make is to assume that once they have presented a letter and the children seem to have grasped the link between shape and sound, this particular learning task is finished. We must never forget that learning to be literate is entering a new, completely unfamiliar territory. (This, of course, pertains particularly to those children who have not been exposed to books and other reading material at home, and have not attended pre-primary school.) Learning new information of any kind requires reinforcement.

It is not possible to go into detail about techniques of reinforcement here. But I would like to make a few comments. The discussion above suggests the importance of forging the link between letter and sound by engaging the senses of hearing, sight, touch, and body movement. The teacher can use her imagination to devise ways this can be done. The children can also write one neat page in their notebooks, taking care to follow the time-honored sequence of strokes. After they know 8-10 letters, they can play games like Bingo and simple versions of Rummy^[3]. On the playground, they can draw letters in the sand, or form them by using flowers, pebbles, seeds.

The suggestions given here should not be understood as prescriptive. We know that children differ in learning style and pace. Even the same child needs a mix of learning experiences that complement each other. The more a teacher can tailor reinforcement activities to the needs and interests of individual children (or small groups) in her class, the better.

Finally, I want to reiterate that this systematic teaching of sound-letter correspondences, important as it is, must not completely take over the language period. Time has to be given to discussion, storytelling, story read-alouds, looking at books, drawing painting, craft, drama, songs, riddles, play. At the beginning, children have much to say, but cannot write. However, the teacher can write a sentence or two from something a child has said, and have him copy it (the language experience approach.) Alternatively, if children have been encouraged to use inventive writing, they can write first, and the teacher can rewrite it in conventional script.

In short, our language instruction requires a core of rigour, but it must contain a variety of activities and approaches that touch on the lives of the children we work with, and as far as possible, take cognisance of the variation in their needs and interests.

Note: Reader can also watch videos of the PSS approach to teaching literacy here. 

^[1] When I first conceived the PSS approach, I assumed that from Lesson One each lesson would require about a week to teach. However, my colleague Datta Ahivale, an experienced and intuitive teacher of young children, quickly realised that the first lesson needed about three weeks.

^[2] In her book What Did You Ask at School Today? (2009). New Delhi: Harper Collins) Kamala V. Mukunda talks about the limits of the working memory (p. 64). The implication of this is that a person has only a few seconds to hold onto a new piece of information. Thus, if a child has learned to identify ग as ग, ग गणपतीचं he has probably reached or surpassed the limits of his working memory. Later, if he has to read a word with several moolaksharas and matras he gets so distracted by the clutter that he cannot hold onto the word.

^[3] A quick Internet search will give an overview of some of the possibilities for using Bingo and Rummy.