The spelling of more complex, compound words, or words spelled according to an unusual, historical derivation, may be learned through meta-linguistics - considering derivations, roots, relations and so on. This is, though, not to consciously consider the item or its constituent parts. They are almost incidentally learned as mere exemplars, relatively trivial details, while consciousness is occupied deploying meta-linguistic analysis; thinking about the language and how it has developed, how words come to be constructed, thinking about roots and relationships and how to explore these, and thinking about all this thinking and how interesting it is.

It is worth quoting extensively, here, from the intimidatingly titled ‘Effective teachers of literacy’ (Medwell et al 1998). They say that:

‘Technical aspects of literacy ... tended to be approached in quite different ways by the effective teachers ...’ (p. 77) and ‘The key difference in approach was in the effective teachers’ emphasis on embedding attention to word and sentence level aspects of reading and writing within whole text activities which were both meaningful and explained to pupils.’ (p. 77) and ‘... skills were developed ... with a clear eye to ... awareness of their importance and function.’ (p. 77) and ‘... teaching of language features was contextualised ... and the children understood the purpose of this teaching.’ (p. 78) and ‘Language features were taught and explained ... as a means of managing shared text rather than as a set of rules or definitions to be learnt for their own sakes.’ (p. 78) and [effective teachers] ‘... foregrounded the creation and recreation of meaning ... they tried, wherever possible, to embed their teaching of the crucial technical features of literacy (how to do it) in a context where the children could see why they were learning about such features.’ (p. 80)

Finally, the authors say that their ‘most significant finding’ was precisely that ‘effective teachers of literacy’ used this ‘functionalist approach’. (p. 85) I think they are, possibly without (consciously!) knowing it, pinpointing the appropriate direction of conscious attention towards meaning by the effective teacher. The mind of the child seems to have little problem with data. If pattern and purpose can be understood, then mere facts appear to slot in without difficulty or pain. Effective teachers make the meta-cognition and meta-linguistics clear, directing consciousness at these aspects of the process. The rest they allow to follow naturally and effortlessly - and unconsciously.