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

Improving the way kids are taught to read

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#31

Post by dgritsko »

book_mentioned wrote: post #17
asimeqi wrote: post #13

I think this is the thread where I should recommend the best book to teach reading: Let's Read, a Linguistic Approach http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Read-A-Linguistic-Approach/dp/081... I got the recommendation here in HN and I used the book with my 2 daughters. I started with my first daughter when she was 4.5 years old. I started with my second daughter at an older age because she was showing a slight case of dyslexia.…

I would appreciate links to similarly helpful tools for early childhood education for any subject (or language). "Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons" has been recommended ancedata-ly to me.

I've also anecdotally heard good things regarding "Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons" -- does anyone have direct experience with both that book and "Let's Read: A Linguistic Approach" (and if so, a recommendation for one over the other)?

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#32

Post by zellyn »

mixedmath wrote: post #19

I'm disappointed that nowhere in this interview is there any actual indication of what is done badly, or what teachers should do to improve how kids are taught to read. I get that there is apparently a gap between how kids are taught to read and the science behind how kids should be taught read. I would much prefer a single understandable, actionable insight. Without it, this interview seems rather hollow. From this…

The interview is clearly about a book; I assume they focused on the story around the writing of the book, rather than recapitulating the contents of the book. If you want to know what is done badly, and how to improve, I imagine the best thing would be to read the book.

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#34

Post by IIIIIIIIIIIIIII »

wccrawford wrote: post #30
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One thing that we found that actually increased his lust for reading (he definitely would rather play soccer, Minecraft or Rayman) is to give him a Kindle which has a kids app with achievements and daily reading goals. That sounds so strange to me. I was an avid reader for as long as I can remember - and my motivator were interesting stories . I also had parents and grandparents who themselves loved to read. Of cou…

I am also a life-long avid reader. I didn't really understand what makes learning to read so hard. At least, until I started learning Japanese. After a few years of that, I realized that the pain I was feeling while reading Japanese kids' books is what all kids feel when learning to read initially. It's just been so long ago that I've forgotten it. In short, reading slowly is very painful. You know that others can re…

Does it matter? Even if I don't remember the feeling, it must have been as hard for me as for everybody else. So with that variable being about equal we are back to the discussion. Why would some people need "tricks" and/or pressure when others do it all on their own?

Also, I learned one other language - English - (I'm a German speaker) when I already was an adult, and pretty late too. I didn't have enough proficiency for daily life until I was almost 20, and even from there I had a decade of learning (example: no problems reading Stephen King - then I started The Lord of the Rings and for the first fifty pages had to consult the dictionary at least a few times per page; same with the jump from a newspaper like the SF Chronicle to The Economist, the same thing happened, again). But I never needed - or got - external motivation.

I'm not trying to make the (useless) point that everybody should have that kind of intrinsic motivation, I'm just saying this in response to what I think is your misunderstanding of the direction I took in my original comment. Remember my original reply was specifically about the use of "gaming" style of learning, make everything a goal and award points and use an app for that (which has become a popular topic in a much wider context over the last decade, it's even suggested for corporations).

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#35

Post by wccrawford »

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII wrote: post #34
wccrawford wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also a life-long avid reader. I didn't really understand what makes learning to read so hard. At least, until I started learning Japanese. After a few years of that, I realized that the pain I was feeling while reading Japanese kids' books is what all kids feel when learning to read initially. It's just been so long ago that I've forgotten it. In short, reading slowly is very painful. You know that others can re…

Does it matter? Even if I don't remember the feeling, it must have been as hard for me as for everybody else. So with that variable being about equal we are back to the discussion. Why would some people need "tricks" and/or pressure when others do it all on their own? Also, I learned one other language - English - (I'm a German speaker) when I already was an adult, and pretty late too. I didn't have enough proficienc…

We don't need to do more than put a book in front of anyone for them to learn things. But it's hardly the best way to do it.

If gamification helps a kid learn to read faster and happier, why not do it?

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#36

Post by jacobolus »

book_mentioned wrote: post #17
asimeqi wrote: post #13

I think this is the thread where I should recommend the best book to teach reading: Let's Read, a Linguistic Approach http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Read-A-Linguistic-Approach/dp/081... I got the recommendation here in HN and I used the book with my 2 daughters. I started with my first daughter when she was 4.5 years old. I started with my second daughter at an older age because she was showing a slight case of dyslexia.…

I would appreciate links to similarly helpful tools for early childhood education for any subject (or language). "Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons" has been recommended ancedata-ly to me.

Not quite the same kind of tool but you might enjoy http://www.msri.org/people/staff/levy/files/MCL/Zvonkin.pdf

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#37

Post by Confiks »

skywhopper wrote: post #26
mixedmath wrote: post #19

I'm disappointed that nowhere in this interview is there any actual indication of what is done badly, or what teachers should do to improve how kids are taught to read. I get that there is apparently a gap between how kids are taught to read and the science behind how kids should be taught read. I would much prefer a single understandable, actionable insight. Without it, this interview seems rather hollow. From this…

Yeah, agreed, there's really no substance to the interview that I can grab a hold of. The main thing that I would be wary of is the idea that there is a single approach or method that will work for every child. "Phonics" is mentioned a few times in the interview, ie, the connection between (English) spelling of written words and the spoken language they represent. I immediately found myself wondering how this relates…

If some rich and complex learning material doesn't immediately 'click', that doesn't mean it is ineffective. You might just be laying the groundwork to understanding those complex ideas later, for example when they are connected to other ideas or when the motivation to learn surfaces. Learning is sometimes too focused on 'understanding' and immediate results, while often very puzzled faces and proclamations of non-understanding are the best indication that real learning is going on.

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#38

Post by ThomPete »

jojoo wrote: post #16
ThomPete wrote: post #4

"The reasons are numerous, but one that Seidenberg cites over and over again is this: The way kids are taught to read in school is disconnected from the latest research, namely how language and speech actually develop in a child's brain." This is almost certainly wrong and even logically absurd. I am sure there are more optimal ways to learn to read but any kind with a fair IQ who aren't dyslexic can learn to read. M…

> The trick (as with almost any other field)? > Practice, practice, practice. That's it. There is no magic sauce there. Practice isn't the only ingredient to the magic sauce. The learning input also has to be in a form which the learner can understand. If i tell you to practice a backflip until you can do it you'll likely injure yourself - or walk away, frustrated - before you can do it. If i would analyze the and sp…

For most children it's practice. A few are so intelligent that they teach themselves and a few are left behind.

But to most people and to any extent we can talk about education, in general, I think my point stands but i agree there are of course also other things.

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#39

Post by tzs »

> Mark Seidenberg is not the first researcher to reach the stunning conclusion that only a third of the nation's schoolchildren read at grade level. The reasons are numerous, but one that Seidenberg cites over and over again is this: The way kids are taught to read in school is disconnected from the latest research, namely how language and speech actually develop in a child's brain.

I presume that at some point in the past most kids could read at grade level, because presumably when it was initially decided what grade level was it was based on how kids actually performed at the time.

So how was reading taught then? They certainly did not know today's latest research on language and speech development in a child's brain.

Did they just stumble into the right approach, and so a reading program based on the latest research would end up being similar to how reading was taught in, say, the 1920s?

Or was the 1920s (or whenever kids were at grade level) approach also flawed, and it is just that today's approach is even more flawed, and so if we based reading programs on the latest research most kids would end up above grade level?

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#40

Post by ThomPete »

wccrawford wrote: post #30
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One thing that we found that actually increased his lust for reading (he definitely would rather play soccer, Minecraft or Rayman) is to give him a Kindle which has a kids app with achievements and daily reading goals. That sounds so strange to me. I was an avid reader for as long as I can remember - and my motivator were interesting stories . I also had parents and grandparents who themselves loved to read. Of cou…

I am also a life-long avid reader. I didn't really understand what makes learning to read so hard. At least, until I started learning Japanese. After a few years of that, I realized that the pain I was feeling while reading Japanese kids' books is what all kids feel when learning to read initially. It's just been so long ago that I've forgotten it. In short, reading slowly is very painful. You know that others can re…

Kids don't learn if they start early enough they absorb (just like with your mother language) the problem is that the later we start the harder it becomes.
Post reply on HN