Live data from Hacker News

How I Taught My Kid to Read

theatlantic.com

131–140 of 176 posts

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#131

Siegfried Engelmann [0] (the author of Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons , referenced in the story), developed a pedagogical model he named Direct Instruction [1] in the '60s as a direct result of being focused on at-risk, low-performing children. Here is a video [2] from the 60s of him working with one of his initial kindergarten classes (doing complex math, etc), and using many of the hallmarks of Direct…

Is direct instruction at all similar to college lecture where the professor basically follows a script for 45 minutes while the students furiously try to keep up?

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#132
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UK: "Reading-g." (Really. Every BBC presenter does the double-G ing on everything-g.) I had a hard time believing this one. It's subtle to my ears, but I'm a believer now. For those who are curious, check out the clip below [1]. You'll hear "hunting" & "willing" shortly after the linked time [1] https://youtu.be/kngB7PzsDzM?t=48

My accent: "-ing" -> /ɪŋ/ Broadcast British: "-ing" -> /ɪŋg/ When I first hear the /ɪŋ/, my transcriber notes it as "ing", but then I hear the /g/, and it appends to get "ingg". When I switch accent modes, that /ŋ/ reads as just "n" instead of "ng", and the problem goes away. If you do not process audible speech in part by transcribing it back to letter symbols, you will not hear a second "g". It is an illusion. You…

I think the terminology is confusing people. There may be a ŋ + g, blended together. I guess you could call that "gg" in ASCII, but it's "gg" in the sense of "more than just a lone ŋ or g, or a long sound / mora not in the sense of "gig" or "ŋig"

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#133
post #120

My wife and I (mainly my wife) used the book mentioned in the article [1] to teach both our kids (now 5 and 7) to read prior to their entry to kindergarten. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is so intelligently organized, each day building on the last. If you just read the intro chapter on amazon, you will see how clearly they thought it through That said: 1. While teaching kids to read is good, I think the rea…

These are great points, and I'd take it even further and say the real goal of all education should be to get them to love learning.

The quantity of formal education 18 year olds receive is potentially dwarfed by the amount of stuff they can learn in their free time if they WANT to. On the flip side, if kids really hate participating in education, they pass out of the school system having learned astonishingly little.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#134
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of who are teachers and all of who state that kids who have been taught outside of the standard educational system are always behind kids who were not. Would you admit that your perspective then is heavily biased? I don't claim to be unbiased, but I myself come from a family of educators, and I chose a different direction (see also John Gatto). That is, I'm very unsurprised that traditional educators would thi…

Curious what you mean by a different direction? I'm a fan of John Gatto so I wonder what direction you mean..

I think Wikipedia explains it well:

> John Taylor Gatto ... was an American author and school teacher who taught in the classroom for nearly 30 years. He devoted much of his energy to his teaching career, then, following his resignation, authored several books on modern education, criticizing its ideology, history, and consequences. He is best known for his books Dumbing Us Down: the Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, and The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling, which is sometimes considered to be his magnum opus.

I.e. he was a former public school teacher who criticized public education and advocated for alternatives.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#135
post #21
post #15

You teach Russian or Spanish with phonics. You teach Chinese with whole-word. English needs a bit of both, since it is mostly phonetic. An on-demand approach to phonics works very well. The rules and exceptions are pointed out as mistakes are made. This avoids the boredom of drilling endless phonics rules and the long-term difficulty of whole-word. A common mistake with phonics is the accidental association of specif…

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 :)

Isn't that how Arabic and Chinese work? Vastly different spoken languages for the same writing? Chinese at least does, but of course they don't even pretend to have phonics, where English is on the fence.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#136
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Incentivizing human beings means treating them like the rats and birds Skinner-ian techniques were derived from. But we’re not rats nor birds and thus such attitude is not effective long term. Apart from being condescending, humiliating, degrading and destructive. Rewarding a child for reading makes them read for the external reward (for someone else) and makes them hate reading even more because of the humiliation a…

> Incentivizing human beings means treating them like the rats and birds

Not at all. Incentivising means to motivate. How many people work because they want money rather than because they like to work?

> Apart from being condescending, humiliating, degrading and destructive.

You're being a tad over dramatic :)

> Rewarding a child for reading makes them read for the external reward (for someone else) and makes them hate reading even more because of the humiliation and having to go against their own internal compass in order to get something they want.

The first part might be true in some cases. But the latter part certainly isn't. We might try to take the moral high ground but parents effectively bribe their children on an almost daily basis: "if you eat all your dinner you can have ice cream / chocolate for pudding"; "if you go in the bath now I'll pour extra bubble mixture in"; "if you're a good buy while we are shopping then I'll buy you a magazine / chocolate"; etc. Even just the process of potty training involves giving over-enthusiastic praise every time they use the potty / toilet instead of wetting themselves - effectively rewarding them with gratitude.

Children are wilful creatures and, as much as we promote independence, we still have lives we need to manage with chores and other stuff that isn't always fun. Even as adults we manage that by saying things like "if I tidy the kitchen now I'll chill with a glass of whisky and an episode of my favourite show" or "I'll go for a run 3 times a week then reward myself with an ice cream at the weekend"... etc. I used HN as a reward for some really dull work (eg I'll write 10 sprint tickets then read something interesting on HN).

Suggesting that the whole concept of a reward system is broken is a massive over-exaggeration. True, rewards can be a broken way of encouragement when used inappropriately but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water (proverbially speaking).

> You may say this prepares them for the “real world” of exploitation but maybe 1, truly successful people find ways to include their internal compass in their daily flow career-wise and 2., a society where almost everyone tolls at the whims and pleasure of a very few ought to be questioned (reference the insane levels of inequality worldwide, having a king emperor is not sustainable).

I think you're trailing off into a hugely philosophical tangent and one I don't really agree with. Capitalism is largely driven by financial reward - many of the greatest disrupters did so for financial gain (the whole "changing the world" meme is really a more dignified way of saying "we want this product to make us rich"). So you can work for personal rewards without being exploited.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not wanting to read books that parents would buy for 4-year-old kids Similarly, children's books can be great for learning a foreign language, except that they're children's books. It's hard to find simple language books to practice with.

Children's books are usually horrible for learning foreign language. They're full of all sorts of cutesy bullshit that's really strange. Some children's books aren't but if you read a lot of them you find they actually often contain quite bizarre language and scenarios.

They're fine if you can sample a large number at the library to find ones that currently work for you. It'd be an inefficient strategy ordering from, say, Amazon, before around the Harry Potter level.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, th…

We are talking about listening comprehension, not reading comprehension. Childrens’ listening comprehension is far ahead of their reading comprehension, and improves very quickly when they practice; if their school teacher reads aloud for 1+ hours per day, they’ll get a whole pile of practice. By “hard books” I mean that school-age students (age 5+) have no trouble listening to real chapter books (say Charlotte’s Web…

[deleted]

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

This is almost universally false. They target the least advanced students and let them more advanced students fend for themselves. In the US it's even more pronounced because of teacher evaluation by test scores, etc. Teachers are incentivized to ignore the smarter kids because their test scores are high already, and they get more bang for their buck by raising the scores of the kids at the bottom of the range.

Re: How I Taught My Kid to Read

#140
post #15

You teach Russian or Spanish with phonics. You teach Chinese with whole-word. English needs a bit of both, since it is mostly phonetic. An on-demand approach to phonics works very well. The rules and exceptions are pointed out as mistakes are made. This avoids the boredom of drilling endless phonics rules and the long-term difficulty of whole-word. A common mistake with phonics is the accidental association of specif…

You can, in contrast, say a "p" in isolation, as it is the unvoiced consonant. But the English "p" is actually two sounds-- there's the lips-puffing-air sound, and the lips-stopping-air sound. The same letter is used for both, because context allows them to be coded correctly (subject to accents). Usually, the puff is at the start of a syllable, and either one can be at the end. This is one case where the teacher might not be able to distinguish the two sounds, but the student might be able to recognize them as different, because they don't already have the association that they are both represented by the same letter in English.

"B" is the voiced equivalent, but as voicing comes from the larynx and not the lips, you need an additional symbol to characterize that part of the sound. In that sense, "b" is the combining symbol for "p" and an adjacent voiced sound.

This is why Greek codes English "b" sounds as "μπ". Their "β" is more like partway between "v" and "b" than an English "b". Doing this language hack leaves a mark, so if your name starts with a hard "b", you might be able to detect a native Greek speaker still voicing an "m" before your name, or mispronouncing a "b" in your name as an almost v-like beta. I'd be "Log from Mblammo", for instance, and you might be "Mburfog". If someone teaches the phonics incorrectly, it might leave a similar residue in the student's speech.

Since "b" is not an atomic mouth sound, I wouldn't teach it before "p". I'd introduce it with other voice-added sounds, and use whispering and yelling (for some reason, my kids thought it was fun to yell) or normally-voiced speech to help tell the difference. Like when you whisper "cup" and "cub", they sound the same, but when you yell them, they are different. The "p" stops the voicing at the letter boundary; the "b" lets it bleed through from either side. That's why the "b" can't be by itself--a lone "b" is just a whispered "b", which is actually a "p".

Practice voicing boundaries with "pop", "bop", "pub", "bub", "tot", "dot", "tad", "dad", etc. It might also help reinforce that the written symbols are encoded speech sounds, and that means they have to describe what the lips, tongue, cheeks, jaw, and larynx are doing.

And you might as well tell the student that accents happen when some of the encoding rules get changed. Play a video of someone with a tough-to-understand accent speaking, have the student read a transcript, and then watch it again. One that immediately leaps to mind as kid-friendly is Merida in "Wreck-It-Ralph 2", who essentially says, "May your hearth stay warm, and your pantry full. Come back soon.", but no one else can understand the dialect. Somewhat less kid-friendly is the scene in "Hot Fuzz" that translates a very Northern accent in multiple progressively less-Northern stages, until it can be understood by someone from London.

Post reply on HN