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

The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

apmreports.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 168 posts

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#31

Post by jdm2212 »

felipemnoa wrote: post #22
jdm2212 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdata: As long as I knew her, my ex had the difficulties described in the article. She blamed how she was taught to read in school -- specifically not having been taught phonics. I figured that was nonsense, and blamed a peculiar-to-her learning disability. At some point I read Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" (which is 20+ years old at this point!), which describes all the research on learning to read... a…

>>and which pretty conclusively proved to me that my ex was right I wouldn't make a conclusion on just one data point.

I ultimately agreed with her based on reading about the research, which is at this point 30+ years old -- and popularized 20+ years ago.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#32

Post by jumelles »

wallace_f wrote: post #29

>a third of fourth graders can't read at a basic level Academia/education in America needs to move past this "can't fail" philosophy. Bad schools need to fail. Good schools need to grow.

What does "fail" mean? What would happen to the children who attend a school that has "failed"?

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#33

Post by wallace_f »

jumelles wrote: post #32
wallace_f wrote: post #29

>a third of fourth graders can't read at a basic level Academia/education in America needs to move past this "can't fail" philosophy. Bad schools need to fail. Good schools need to grow.

What does "fail" mean? What would happen to the children who attend a school that has "failed"?

Same thing that happens with everything else. They patronize a different service provider.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#34

Post by voldacar »

>For example, a child who says "horse" when the word was "house" is probably relying too much on visual, or graphic, cues. A teacher in this case would encourage the child to pay more attention to what word would make sense in the sentence.

WTF? Wouldn't you just tell the child to slow down, look at the letters that make up the word, and speak the word out loud? This makes zero sense whatsoever

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#35

Post by jdm2212 »

voldacar wrote: post #34

>For example, a child who says "horse" when the word was "house" is probably relying too much on visual, or graphic, cues. A teacher in this case would encourage the child to pay more attention to what word would make sense in the sentence. WTF? Wouldn't you just tell the child to slow down, look at the letters that make up the word, and speak the word out loud? This makes zero sense whatsoever

Yup! And that sane approach (look at the letters that make up the word, and speak the word out loud) is phonics.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#36

Post by voldacar »

jdm2212 wrote: post #35
voldacar wrote: post #34

>For example, a child who says "horse" when the word was "house" is probably relying too much on visual, or graphic, cues. A teacher in this case would encourage the child to pay more attention to what word would make sense in the sentence. WTF? Wouldn't you just tell the child to slow down, look at the letters that make up the word, and speak the word out loud? This makes zero sense whatsoever

Yup! And that sane approach (look at the letters that make up the word, and speak the word out loud) is phonics.

It's staggering to me that something so simple and obvious even needs to have a specific name like "phonics". That's just called reading lol. It's so bizarre how these people get put in positions of power over our educational system

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#37

Post by tylorr »

voldacar wrote: post #36
jdm2212 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup! And that sane approach (look at the letters that make up the word, and speak the word out loud) is phonics.

It's staggering to me that something so simple and obvious even needs to have a specific name like "phonics". That's just called reading lol. It's so bizarre how these people get put in positions of power over our educational system

I believe there are some languages that are not phonetic, you cannot read them by sound out the parts of the word.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#38

Post by jdm2212 »

voldacar wrote: post #36
jdm2212 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup! And that sane approach (look at the letters that make up the word, and speak the word out loud) is phonics.

It's staggering to me that something so simple and obvious even needs to have a specific name like "phonics". That's just called reading lol. It's so bizarre how these people get put in positions of power over our educational system

According to my parents (who were actually alive then), there was a backlash against more traditional educational approaches (particularly anything involving memorization) in the '60s. Education reoriented towards teaching students to be creative and think critically rather than accept received wisdom. Whole language caught on as part of that -- teach kids to _think_ rather than just follow an algorithm. Unfortunately in this case the algorithm is a fundamental necessity needed for higher level work.

Edit: commenter below links to Tom Lehrer's New Math, and yeah the crap they made me do in math class ("write a paragraph reflecting on what you learned about multiplication") is also an instance of this 60s reaction against rigorously and uncritically learning foundational material so you can do meaningful critical thought once you've mastered the basics.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#39

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

jdm2212 wrote: post #38
voldacar wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's staggering to me that something so simple and obvious even needs to have a specific name like "phonics". That's just called reading lol. It's so bizarre how these people get put in positions of power over our educational system

According to my parents (who were actually alive then), there was a backlash against more traditional educational approaches (particularly anything involving memorization) in the '60s. Education reoriented towards teaching students to be creative and think critically rather than accept received wisdom. Whole language caught on as part of that -- teach kids to _think_ rather than just follow an algorithm. Unfortunatel…

Tom Lehrer's take on this matter:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#40

Post by csa »

jdm2212 wrote: post #38
voldacar wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's staggering to me that something so simple and obvious even needs to have a specific name like "phonics". That's just called reading lol. It's so bizarre how these people get put in positions of power over our educational system

According to my parents (who were actually alive then), there was a backlash against more traditional educational approaches (particularly anything involving memorization) in the '60s. Education reoriented towards teaching students to be creative and think critically rather than accept received wisdom. Whole language caught on as part of that -- teach kids to _think_ rather than just follow an algorithm. Unfortunatel…

> According to my parents (who were actually alive then), there was a backlash against more traditional educational approaches (particularly anything involving memorization) in the '60s.

Yeah. This was the cognitive revolution after a long period of (excessive, imho) behaviorism.

The pendulum swang too far in the other direction in some cases.

Post reply on HN