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

111–120 of 168 posts

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#111

Post by mkagenius »

Nobody teaches to picture the story though. Mostly what we read are some actions, almost always. Actions need to mentally pictured to get involved and have a superior understanding. Without lack of this skill, we are distracted by our vision.

Half the time my brain is thinking of other things while I am reading something. There is too much distraction in your while you are reading something. Even your own eyes will give you unnecessary visuals like "wow look at the font and the color and how the corners of the phone is rounded, the url of chrome changed to a new round url bar" "https is just a symbol of lock in black color"

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#112

Post by shkkmo »

teilo wrote: post #12

I came from a big family, and I have 6 children. I have taught all my children to read using McGuffey. I helped many of my siblings learn to read. Much of the discussion around phonics is missing the point. It is a caricature to say that "phonetic" reading is completely phonetic to the exclusion of sight reading. This is binary thinking. Nobody teaches it that way. The goal is not and never was to read phonetically e…

Reading the article, the thought I kept having was: "But I do all of these!".

It seems to me we should be teaching all of these tools. It makes no sense to give people just one. Some tools work better in some situations, and some tools work better for some people.

Phonetic reading is very useful when learning many foriegn langues.

Contextual reading is always useful for learning new vocabulary and knowing when to look up a new word or skip and back-fill meaning as you get more context.

Sight reading seems like it should be the goal, so why not also teach it directly alongside those first two techniques for when the going gets tough?

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#113

Post by Avamander »

ajuc wrote: 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…

Now imagine having a language like Estonian (or Finnish) as your first language, basically every letter has one sound corresponding to it, the length of any vowel is signified by how many there are and stress is always on the first syllable.. Exceptions are incredibly rare, one can count them on a single hand.

The concept of a spelling bee made literally 0 sense to me until I had to actually learn English.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#114

Post by buckminster »

calf wrote: post #88
DanBC wrote: 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.

What is pre-phonics? My grandparents were to taught to read by sounding out the words more than a century ago. I was also taught that way decades ago. Then it became controversial.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#115

Post by neilkakkar »

shkkmo wrote: post #112
teilo wrote: post #12

I came from a big family, and I have 6 children. I have taught all my children to read using McGuffey. I helped many of my siblings learn to read. Much of the discussion around phonics is missing the point. It is a caricature to say that "phonetic" reading is completely phonetic to the exclusion of sight reading. This is binary thinking. Nobody teaches it that way. The goal is not and never was to read phonetically e…

Reading the article, the thought I kept having was: "But I do all of these!". It seems to me we should be teaching all of these tools. It makes no sense to give people just one. Some tools work better in some situations, and some tools work better for some people. Phonetic reading is very useful when learning many foriegn langues. Contextual reading is always useful for learning new vocabulary and knowing when to loo…

According to the article, because teaching them together negates the effects. Phonics seem difficult at first, and given an easier option, the children wouldn't develop this, leading to losing this ability.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#116

Post by eljefe900 »

MaximumYComb wrote: post #21
eljefe900 wrote: post #19

This article buries the lead. TLDR: Phonics works, Current strategies don’t. What actually works is the shortest part of the article. It’s infatuation with what doesn’t work puts what does work more than halfway into the article. I would have appreciated the article to be structured as “Phonics works, MSV Doesn’t and here’s why they’re different”

I wasn't aware of the methods used in the US. Here in Australia, we have phonics at my daughters' school and she's coming along really well. My 6.5-year-old daughter is able to read basically anything I put in front of her by sounding through words.

My US centric bias is showing. Thanks for the reminder!

I suppose that a phonics lesson in Oz probably sounds a bit different than in the US. And they’re both effective. That’s fun to think about.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#117

Post by skolsuper »

dmoy wrote: post #57
mxcrossb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if phonics are not used when reading, they still have an advantage for writing. Rarely in my adult life have I found myself sounding out a word in a book unless it is deliberately ridiculous (as your example). But I definitely sound out words when trying to spell a word.

I still occasionally sound out words (incorrectly) when I stumble on a word that I finally realize I've gotten wrong in my head. Like I'll know the word, know what it means, but have imagined the wrong pronunciation in my head, only to have it suddenly dawn on me that "Hey, that synonym for this word you know that sounds a bit different, what if it's a actually the same word ". Then I'll go look it up in a dictionary…

Quinoa Cliquey Segue ... I had the exact same experience with these three and probably more. I'd love to see more examples if you have any

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#118

Post by skolsuper »

Avamander wrote: post #113
ajuc wrote: 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…

Now imagine having a language like Estonian (or Finnish) as your first language, basically every letter has one sound corresponding to it, the length of any vowel is signified by how many there are and stress is always on the first syllable.. Exceptions are incredibly rare, one can count them on a single hand. The concept of a spelling bee made literally 0 sense to me until I had to actually learn English.

Thai also: there are 19+ vowels but they all sound only one way wherever they appear. Sometimes if I don't know how to pronounce a brand name, I'll try to find their Thai packaging and read it there.

Unfortunately they do have some loan words from Sanskrit that are irregular, and the system for writing tones is needlessly arcane (there are 3 arbitrary classes of consonants that you just have to memorise, and the tone markers change meaning depending on class)

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#119

Post by taneq »

ianbicking wrote: post #43

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…

> Consider a simple work like “back”: kids sound out buh-ah-kuh which is a completely crazy version of the real word.

It doesn't sound the same but there's a clear pathway from "buh-ah-kuh" to "buahkuh" to "back", and it's one you can follow from arbitrary words.

Sesame Street was teaching kids to sound out words like this back in the 80s. Has everyone in the U.S. education system forgotten these guys? https://youtu.be/chHz3bo3f1U

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#120

Post by taneq »

rossdavidh wrote: post #2

So, it all makes sense, but by this theory, it seems like the english words "through" and "tough" and "benign" should be really hard to learn, compared to "true" and "stuff" and wine". Also, English ought to be harder to learn to read than, say, German or Spanish. But I don't know of any evidence that English-speaking countries have lower literacy than Spanish- or German-speaking countries. I don't mean that phonics…

> the idea that having multiple strategies can kill your ability to read sounds fishy.

That's not the idea. The idea is that not understanding the basic building blocks of your language can kill your ability to read. I find it mind-boggling that this is at all controversial.

Post reply on HN