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

121–130 of 168 posts

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#121

Post by nyCA »

williamDafoe wrote: post #25

My brother in law was taught to sight-read (recognize words on sight and not to analyze phonemes) and he always struggled and regretted it!!! Phonics is the #1 advantage of ALL western languages. The idea that teachers would not leverage the #1 advantage of the entire language just shows how foolish our teacher education system can be! Don't let teachers screw up your kids with educational FADs! We didn't! We taught…

How about giving kids books instead of a stupid app? Talking about damaging kids...

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#122

Post by learnstats2 »

I'd say the pathway to fluent reading is:

1. no concept of reading, context is not helpful

2. start to read, use context to cover any weaknesses and gaps

3. become fluent reader, no longer need context to cover weaknesses and gaps.

As an experienced educator, I would say there is no process of learning (anything) that doesn't follow this path, whether using context is formally taught or not.

It's an important part of teaching to understand where weaknesses are being papered over and support fixing that. It may be that one teaching method or another makes certain weaknesses easier to identify or fix, but in the end, enough dedicated practice is going to sort out these weaknesses either way.

The article presents this as though context is bad - but you need context to bridge from the start to the end of the process.

The article repeatedly says "poor reader" when it is really talking about a stage of learning to read (the anecdotes describe people stuck on this stage).

In my opinion: This is a really dangerous way of representing the problem of educating people, which denies agency to learners.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#123

Post by rayiner »

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…

It’s more like giving kids a proper, but hard to use tool, plus a crutch.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#124

Post by CarVac »

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.

Imagine a spelling bee of all the European languages where you have to determine what language a word is and then spell it...

That's an English spelling bee.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#125

Post by em-bee »

learnstats2 wrote: post #122

I'd say the pathway to fluent reading is: 1. no concept of reading, context is not helpful 2. start to read, use context to cover any weaknesses and gaps 3. become fluent reader, no longer need context to cover weaknesses and gaps. As an experienced educator, I would say there is no process of learning (anything) that doesn't follow this path, whether using context is formally taught or not. It's an important part of…

does the teaching method provide a way to get beyond that stage? while the anecdotes are about people stuck in this stage, the article strongly implies that the teaching method stops at that stage and does not help readers to get beyond it. in other words, it suggests that according to this teaching method this stage defines a good reader.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#126

Post by scotty79 »

Such a long article on reading and teaching and no mention of syllables. Is this completley unrecognized concept in eanglish reading teaching?

Teaching kids to read in polish goes like this: letters -> syllables -> words -> sentences (with an overlap of the steps).

Known words and sentences are used throughout the process to illustrate the things you are learning at the moment and sort of tease what you will be able to do when you master current step.

I imagine in language where same letters can have so many different sounds the concept of syllables should be even more useful.

Teaching kids to read sentences before they can recognize what sound which letter bunches mean seems like telling kid to swim before he learns to float or tread water.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#127

Post by ajuc »

jfk13 wrote: post #96
ajuc wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Sorry I misunderstood the previous post I thought it disagreed with me about Polish. We do have spelling tests in Polish too, but only one way not both ways like in English.

We have tons of Latin, Greek, German, French, Italian, English loan words but we transcribe them consistently with the rest of the language: inżynier, wiktuały, donżon, jacht, komputer, opcja, pałac, skwer, hipermarket.

Kids don't need to know which language it came from, the pronunciation rules are the same.

You might say English is late-binding and Polish is early-binding language when it comes to phonetics - we decide how the word is pronounced and change the spelling when we adopt a word to out language, you do it each time you use the word :)

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#128

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #109
jfk13 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

> Except when it isn't. Colonel? Yacht? Victuals? Boatswain? None of those are Polish words.

[deleted]

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#129

Post by praestigiare »

learnstats2 wrote: post #122

I'd say the pathway to fluent reading is: 1. no concept of reading, context is not helpful 2. start to read, use context to cover any weaknesses and gaps 3. become fluent reader, no longer need context to cover weaknesses and gaps. As an experienced educator, I would say there is no process of learning (anything) that doesn't follow this path, whether using context is formally taught or not. It's an important part of…

This article is discussing the transition from #1 to #2 in your pathway. It cites multiple studies showing that the method being criticized is not effective.

Re: The flawed three-cueing system for teaching reading

#130

Post by mabbo »

scotty79 wrote: post #126

Such a long article on reading and teaching and no mention of syllables. Is this completley unrecognized concept in eanglish reading teaching? Teaching kids to read in polish goes like this: letters -> syllables -> words -> sentences (with an overlap of the steps). Known words and sentences are used throughout the process to illustrate the things you are learning at the moment and sort of tease what you will be able…

The danger here is that many of the patterns that go from letters -> syllables are completely messed up in English. (Come to think of it, the entire darned language can be like that).

I remember in grade 3 having a teacher give a lesson on syllables. We would clap along with each syllable in the word. She asked me to do this for "Fire". I clapped twice, as there is clearly an audible Fy-er" two syllables in Canadian English. She told me I was wrong, clapped once, and said "Fire" quickly. She "knew" that a word with "consonant - vowel - consonant - vowel" pattern makes a single syllable. Never mind that my ears, and the rest of the students' ears, can hear that she's wrong.

The end result was her confusing the class about what syllables are. I remember the lesson well, because what I really learned was that teachers mean well but aren't always right.

Post reply on HN