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

61–70 of 168 posts

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#61

Post by AdieuToLogic »

gamedori wrote: post #58
AdieuToLogic wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While phonics certainly are important to reading comprehension, IMHO a teaching technique which the article does not address is described in: Reasons to Teach Word Stems and Roots[0] 0 - https://mrsrenz.com/reasons-to-teach-word-stems-and-roots/

That is a useful system for middle readers with limited volcabulary to jump into high school / professional reading, but not so good for very early readers. Note how all the grecoroman stems are defined in terms of germanic words, which are phonetic. The article is concerned with students who find words like "rabbit" challenging, not with students figuring out "neologism".

Point taken.

Perhaps this comment[0] I posted earlier more directly addresses the article's intent in how to help teach reading skills.

0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20791015

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#63

Post by [deleted] »

csa wrote: post #46
tylorr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can you name one that does not have a phonetic system as well? Note that Japanese has kana, and Chinese has pinyin and bopomofo/zhuyin. Other than that... ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics? Please let me know if you are aware of more.

[deleted]

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#64

Post by wallace_f »

xnyan wrote: post #48
wallace_f wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In America that idea is absolutely pointless. For almost all children, local property taxes are the source source of education funding. A local school board administers this money and has a huge amount of discretion in spending it with practically no oversight. They were responsible for hiring the previous school administration and will also hire the next, If you have any idea of how to get out of this situation I'd…

What is unique about education that it must be funded in such a particular "situation" in the first place, versus all other service industries?

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#66

Post by milesskorpen »

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

I think the point here is that reading & understanding what the text is trying to communicate is more important than any specific word. I think that’s reasonable.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#67

Post by ajuc »

It's very funny looking at this discussion from a mostly-phonetic writing system POV.

In Polish the system is regular (even the exceptions) and nobody considers trying to teach kids not to exploit that. You just remember how each letter sounds and then the dozen of so special combinations (which are still mostly regular). And you can read.

Yes you learn to read slow at first, and then you develop fast reading by yourself, it's natural and comes with reading a lot. I don't know anybody reading sound-by-sound past the age of 10, and usually kids learn to read whole words after they read their first long book (traditionally it's "Kids from Bullerbyn" here).

I wonder how much longer it takes to teach kids reading such complicated writing system like English. Here it takes about 1 year, usually when they are in the first class of school.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#69

Post by adrianN »

csa wrote: post #46
tylorr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Can you name one that does not have a phonetic system as well? Note that Japanese has kana, and Chinese has pinyin and bopomofo/zhuyin. Other than that... ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics? Please let me know if you are aware of more.

at least in classic chinese the pronunciation of the script differed by region. several mutually incomprehensible languages shared identical textforms,as far as i understand it.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#70

Post by vackosar »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #13
momokoko wrote: post #10

The reason for this debate is that different IQ levels require different techniques. Higher IQ students will be more able to apply patterns and systems from phonics to words seen for the first time. Lower IQ students tend to struggle with mapping systems onto new material. So the more brute force systems, like memorizing whole words, tends to have more success. We see similar things in learning mathematics.

> The reason for this debate is that different IQ levels need different techniques. "IQ levels" are almost impossible to measure objectively, excluding medically identified learning disabilities. Reading comprehension difficulties are less a function of fluid intelligence (commonly called "IQ"), and more so environmentally induced. Examples of this are, but not limited to: - Instability at home - Lack of parental inv…

Even if they are environmentally caused, isn't it still better to personalize to the kids ability at the time of teaching? That is every now and then remix the students into groups for which you would have some optimized strategies to teach?
Post reply on HN