Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How I Taught My Kid to Read

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#91

Post by js2 »

glandium wrote: post #41
a-saleh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't envy native english readers, as my teacher said, "I wouldn't be surprised if one day English write Manchester and read Liverpool". I am not sure of all Slavic languages work best with phonics, but one I learned seems it does. Like if you just read the sound of each letter fast after the other, you are 80% saying the word :)

I can't resist linking this video: https://youtu.be/A8zWWp0akUU "What if English were phonetically consistent"

Gallagher used to do this as part of his routine. Second half of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfz3kFNVopk

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#92

Post by swsieber »

mapcars wrote: post #54
helloguillecl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a native Spanish-speaker I'm astonished to learn that phonics is not the only way to teach reading in English. It makes sense, since phonics are way more difficult to follow in English than in Spanish (written Spanish maps 1-to-1 to the phonetics)

I know a little Spanish still I would argue about 1-to-1: at least you do not pronounce `h` and there are two different ways to pronounce `g`.

From what i understand the 'g' pronunciation is entirely dependent on the vowel following in, in a completely regular manner. So still a lot better than English.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#93

Post by kingofpandora »

helloguillecl wrote: post #63
mapcars wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a little Spanish still I would argue about 1-to-1: at least you do not pronounce `h` and there are two different ways to pronounce `g`.

Yes. But they are very few and consistent rules. The sound of "H" will be consistent, unless it is actually a "CH", which is another letter phonetically speaking (some dictionaries would treat it a a separate letter).

England has rules - albeit not simple ones - such that about 85% (IIRC) of never before seen words can be pronounced correctly.

Obviously I'm paraphrasing someone else's study here and may be getting it slightly wrong but the gist is that English is more decipherable than it first appears.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#94

Post by jnty »

technothrasher wrote: post #61

Did my daughter, as the child of two hyper-literate people with doctorates, have some kind of leg up? I doubt it. Some kids pick up reading with minimal guidance as early as 3; she wasn’t one of them, nor had she given indication of any impending breakthrough. Besides, Engelmann’s book is designed for kids of average intelligence and has worked with legions of them over the decades. In a word, yes, she likely had a l…

Yes - this definitely reads a bit naively, like people saying they "don't have an accent". She almost certainly had a leg-up compared to other kids, even if it was just related to how much she overheard her parents talk or having them make an active effort to chat to her. Other kids have to make do with much less. To realise that sounds link together into certain words, you have to know the words in the first place.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#95

Post by fatnoah »

WA wrote: post #38

On a side note: Please remember that teaching your kid to read should come from a place of curiosity from the kid itself. There is likely no advantage from learning how to read at an earlier age (than school) [1]. [1]: https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006408.html

>Please remember that teaching your kid to read should come from a place of curiosity from the kid itself.

So much this. My son was content to led mom and me read to him for a long time. On a recommendation from a friend, we got "Bob Books" (Stages 0-3) and it opened the world of reading to him. There was a natural progression, it made it seem easy to him, and he developed immense pride in being able to read more and more challenging material.

Fast forward a couple years, and interest in reading was waning and getting him to read at all was difficult until we found a series of books that he loved (gothic mysteries by John Bellairs) and that kindled his love of reading. We went from no reading to staying up late to read just one more chapter. He now stays on the lookout for interesting new books.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#96

Post by saint_fiasco »

jacobolus wrote: post #89
saint_fiasco wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just within reach of the audience" is very hard when there are 20+ children in a class who have very little in common except age. If the children were carefully separated by ability it might work.

It doesn’t have to be perfect. If kids don’t understand every word or every abstract theme of a book that’s okay. If kids aren’t maximally challenged by every sentence, or if the teacher interjects a definition of a word they already knew for the benefit of less prepared students, that’s also okay. Kids who are a bit ahead or a bit behind will still generally stay engaged if the story is interesting.

The smarter students can just tune out, read ahead, and enjoy the book. That's not too bad.

The other way around is much worse. The slower students get frustrated as they fall further and further behind until they feel it's impossible to catch up and give up.

Unfortunately most teachers teach at the level of the more advanced students, not at the level of the slower students. I don't know if they mean to do this, it might be unconscious, but they definitely do it.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#97

Post by pavel_lishin »

laumars wrote: post #75
mruts wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, is this even true? I love programming for example but love it a lot more when I’m being paid a lot of money.

I think the previous poster meant learning should be incentivised with rewards; rather than a behaviour forced because the alternative is punishment.

> withdrawal of rewards is also punishment

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#98

Post by pfarnsworth »

jacobolus wrote: post #35
lonelappde wrote: post #4

For the child of average intelligence or higher, simply spending time reading aloud while the child looks and listens and eventuate tries to lead is sufficient to teach how to read. It takes hundreds of hours, but it's not rocket surgery.

Time spent listening to hard books is for most children also more marginally useful than time spent trying to learn to read very simple books independently, especially at the earliest ages. Kids who grow up in supportive and highly literate households are going to learn to read sooner or later, without needing any excessive focus on drills. There’s nothing inherently wrong with spending some amount of time on phonics…

> Time spent listening to hard books is for most children also more marginally useful than time spent trying to learn to read very simple books independently, especially at the earliest ages.

I disagree about introducing hard books, especially at an early age. Young children will simply ignore things they don't understand, they don't attempt to understand it. If they are inundated with words they don't understand, they will simply move onto another activity. My son started reading at 2, but as his reading improved, it was challenging finding books that weren't too hard for him, with the right word density and vocabulary so that he remained engaged in reading.

Now he's 5 and he's reading at a grade 8 level, and still he will ignore some words but now he's old enough to occasionally ask me what a particular word means.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#99

Post by ksdale »

barry-cotter wrote: post #48
Iv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ultimately she benefitted from patient teachers and a nurturing environment All of the calls to alternate education methods fail to recognize the weakest link in the education system: teachers. Teaching methods are not designed just for kids but also for teachers. Almost any method will work wonders with good teachers who know when to wait, when to push, who are competent and empathetic. Methods need to be tested a…

The great strength of child centred instead of teacher centred methods is in realising that it doesn’t matter whether a child learns to read at four, or nine, or twelve. Once you really understand that Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development means you can teach it to a four year old in 100s of hours, a six year old in tens of hours and that a nine year old has a decent chance of picking it up more or less by osmosis…

I didn't know there was a term for this! My children are just starting to enter the education system and I constantly find myself thinking, "Why are we devoting so many hours to learning this (something like the alphabet) when we could just spend a few minutes on it here and there and in 6 months or a year they'll be able to pick it up with minimal effort?"

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#100

Post by tomatocracy »

lordnacho wrote: post #14

I've got school aged kids in the UK, and I've never seen anything other than phonics as the way to teach reading. Seems to work just fine, never came across a kid who couldn't read quite soon after they started being taught. But of course that may just be my particular environment.

I do too (albeit they are in the private system not the state system). While mine are/were taught phonics, reading is taught separately to that, and we're lucky enough to have teachers who recognised that they learned better with whole words. As others have said, it's about going with what works for the individual child, not one size fits all.
Post reply on HN