Live data from Hacker News

The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

apmreports.org

91–100 of 168 posts

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#91

I sometimes wonder if we need a better phonics. Doing it by letters feels crude, it requires a big gestalt moment when the kid puts the sounds together, and overemphasizes our very malleable vowels. Something based more on syllables would seem better to me. Consider a simple work like “back”: kids sound out buh-ah-kuh which is a completely crazy version of the real word. You can’t say a B without a vowel, but instead…

> You can’t say a B without a vowel, but instead of using the actual vowel (a) consonants usually get an “uh” added to them.

Sure, but you can do better than a long buh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwTkcfKRj00

Note that this short-b sound is only introductory. Children soon move past that to pairs with the other letters.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#92
post #88
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think literacy rates were in 1550 - 1600?

Was Albert Einstein or Richard Feynman taught phonics? Obviously we don't have to be restricted to a specific era as long as it is pre-phonics.

I'm not sure why pointing to literally geniuses helps us understand how to teach a population how to read. For some people it doesn't matter what method you use. They'll have been taught at home and they will have self-taught the rest.

But, again, what were literacy rates like in 1890 or 1960?

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#94
post #67

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 your…

Same here. This whole discussion is funny and absurd. Finnish is really phonetic in its spelling (there are about three exceptions that come to my mind right now). There's also not that much historical baggage, so reforms have been possible.

We rote-learned French spelling at and early age and I can still read French.

English, on the other hand, has one of the most difficult alphabetic spelling systems. I have used English for tens of years and I still have problems pronouncing a word now and then. One of the problems being that English doesn't indicate stress (which native speakers automatically know).

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#95
post #92
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was Albert Einstein or Richard Feynman taught phonics? Obviously we don't have to be restricted to a specific era as long as it is pre-phonics.

I'm not sure why pointing to literally geniuses helps us understand how to teach a population how to read. For some people it doesn't matter what method you use. They'll have been taught at home and they will have self-taught the rest. But, again, what were literacy rates like in 1890 or 1960?

The point is that people before phonics were capable of becoming literate without phonics. The article is saying that phonics is necessary, which is stronger than saying phonics improves literacy rates. If phonics were necessary then people pre-phonics would not have written English literature of all sorts. That is the argument.

In other words:

> For some people it doesn't matter what method you use

This is a theory cop-out. If people figured out how to read and write well without phonics, that's worth investigating too. And it's unlikely that they also succeeded just because they were geniuses or had some secret unknowable method.

Also, replying to someone asking a genuine question with totally different question is bad manners, and I'm going ask that not be done here.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#96
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That we have spelling tests and spelling contests through secondary school is indicative that it takes roughly forever.

That's only about writing, not reading. And it's exactly because our system is only simple one-way (letters->sounds), but not the other way (1 sound can be represented with many letter combinations so you have to learn rules and exceptions to write correctly). You never ask kids "read this word" or "how is this word pronounced" because that's always obvious. I would prefer if we fixed our system the other way as well…

> You never ask kids "read this word" or "how is this word pronounced" because that's always obvious.

Except when it isn't. Colonel? Yacht? Victuals? Boatswain?

Of course, we shouldn't forget Mark Twain's proposal: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/resources/humor/spelling-in-th...

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#97

Phonetic spelling is probably the greatest invention in written languages since paper. I am constantly amazed that teachers on the front lines fail to recognize this. I'm saddened that UI designers keep replacing phonetically spelled words with icons and emojis.

> Phonetic spelling is probably the greatest invention in written languages since paper. Paper dates to about 100 AD. The Greek alphabet, which is the first full alphabet (that records both vowels and consonants), dates to about 800 BC. Therefore, phonetic spelling predates paper by at least 900 years. Possibly older, if you want to count later cuneiform (which is mostly a syllabary) or Egyptian or Phoenician (abjads…

Papyrus dates back much further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#98
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not the parent, but the ancient sumerian cuneiform script comes to mind. Egyptian hieroglyphics did have a set of phonetic glyphs as well as the more complex logographic ones

Yes. Egyptian hieroglyphs have a full set of consonants, so you could write it that way. They just didn't because of historical spelling.

As you said Sumerian could be an example of totally "three step cue" system.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#99
post #60
post #17

The flawed idea in question are the following strategies: > memorizing words, using context to guess words, skipping words they don't know Personally I think the phonics vs. sight words debate in English pedagogy misses the point entirely. The problem is that English divides words sentences into "words" and not morphemes. This way words like 'disambiguation' or 'boustrophedon' appear as a hard to parse blob regardles…

Word roots are the key strategy for the next step after phonics: figuring out the meaning of what you're reading. But in order to do that, you first have to have the skill of matching what's written on the page with the speech system in your brain, and that's what phonics is for. You learn to speak by making sounds; phonics matches what's written on the page with the sounds you learned to speak. Just as children can…

I'm not sure sounds are needed to link to the language system in the brain. I remember as a child that there were certain words that I never bothered assigning sounds to until long after I internalized them. Even if sound is needed, I don't understand why the author couldn't just assign the sound of the letters in a word being read out in order for words she didn't know. I'm sure we all do that for certai n bash commands. I do admit though that I don't know much about developmental psychology so it's just my two cents.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#100
post #44

A lot of education experts (teachers, and worse, education academics and bureaucrats) are intelligent, white, upper-middle class people who are interested in academic stuff. They remember how BORING it was to be forced to memorise times tables and phonics in primary school like the low socio-economic kids. Their parents had taught them to read and do basic arithmetic long before the rest of the class, and they might…

I feel like a step got skipped here. 1. Covering the times tables in school is pointless when you already know the times tables because you learned them at home. 2. Therefore, people shouldn't learn the times tables? Saying something shouldn't be taught is a completely different idea from saying that schools shouldn't teach it because incoming students are expected to have learned it already.

There's a Romantic (Rousseau was a major perpetrator) view of education that seems to be based mostly on just whistful thinking and novels.

But I think there is a grain of truth to it.

Emile, or On Education (by Rousseau) proposes an idealistic goal in which a boy is educated by a tutor (a class size of) without being 'denatured' (losing the innocence and good moral quantities that the romantics think small children naturally possess). I'm not sure how realistic this is - Rousseau had five children but he dumped them all in orphanages as soon as they were born, but I think it rings partly true as something that works if you have sufficient inputs. If you have one really good tutor / parent you can raise a child to really understand things without cold but efficient methods like drills.

Imagine you want to teach times tables without using times tables. You can keep track of what the child knows, and work out fun activities that lets them figure these out themselves, and guide them when they have a misunderstanding. But it's going to be labor intensive (for both the child and the tutor) and can't scale. Maybe computer teaching systems will turn drill work into a more fun system for teaching these fundamentals, since it can personalise at scale, but I suspect the opponents of drill will the complain about how soulless machines are pumping lifeless low-level skills into the heads of children who should instead be learning more high-level things in a more humane way. After all they didn't need a computer to teach them how to read, they just picked it up after their parents read with them every night for half a decade.

Post reply on HN