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

Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

features.apmreports.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 524 posts

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#451

Post by analog31 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #346
javajosh wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many examples of bad definitions: German[1] electron charge[2] music notation[3]! But in the end, I think we have to largely give up the struggle against bad notation, of which spelling is just a part. If it really bothers us we can create our own notations and methods to translate between the old and new, but then you get splitting and fracturing. You can't play together. But if you invent such a notation, and ma…

Music notation is pretty much the archetypal example of something designed by power users for power users. As someone who has done some orchestra conducting and composing, it's incredibly powerful and expressive, and the fact that you can usefully conduct an orchestra on an unknown piece with nothing but a score (no recordings) is amazing. Music notation hits a very powerful level of abstraction, and is so informatio…

I'm a part time jazz bassist. I play in a so called "big band," so most of what we play is scored like orchestral music, albeit with improvisational portions.

I think "designed by power users for power users" nails it. Another way of putting it, is that there's a symbiosis between writers and players, if both are skilled in the same notation system, whatever it is. If you can read, you can find work. If you can write in standard notation, you can find people to play it. This creates a huge dis-incentive to explore new notations, except as an academic exercise.

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#452

Post by sn9 »

lr4444lr wrote: post #2

As someone who's both worked as a teacher and as a software engineer, my feeling is that what happened in reading education is roughly what engineers' jobs would be forced by their CTOs to use software methodologies and languages that came from their university professors who've never really spend much time (at least not in well over a decade if at all) doing actual salaried software development where code had to be…

Fans of "Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons" might wish to check out "Let's Read: A Linguistic Approach" [0]. It uses a similar phonics approach but uses basic pattern matching to teach kids in a much simpler format. Be sure to check out the reviews for the original and newer edition.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814311156?psc=1

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#453

Post by germinalphrase »

nemo44x wrote: post #103
bradleyjg wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if it’s utopian or dystopian but in 20 years we may have the majority of education being done by AIs. That’s the only practical way of getting to 1:1.

I'm cautiously optimistic that it's utopian-ish. If we do it right and supplant it with human interaction and assessment then kids will be better off. They'll be able to learn at their own pace with content that is built around their interests and style of learning best. They can learn when they feel like learning instead of having to use the typical rigid and regimented structure of today's classroom. I'm not trying…

I taught for about ten years at the high school level, but I work as a consultant in the tech industry now. While the curricular piece might seem like the natural starting point, the nut to crack would be increasing the trustability of in-class assessments as accurate data on a student's knowledge/abilities are required for that kind of curricular individualization. Good teachers do this kind of assessment, of course - but it's difficult at scale. It's easier for curricular content that is hierarchical in nature, but a great deal of content is not. Assessment is a pretty mature research space (and AI advances to help generate/curate assessment content could be game changing), but there is a block - for some reason - preventing assistive instructional tools for teachers becoming prevelant. It remains, largely, an analog process. That said, I would love to leverage my teaching experience to help design and build such a tool.

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#454

Post by gnicholas »

sn9 wrote: post #452
lr4444lr wrote: post #2

As someone who's both worked as a teacher and as a software engineer, my feeling is that what happened in reading education is roughly what engineers' jobs would be forced by their CTOs to use software methodologies and languages that came from their university professors who've never really spend much time (at least not in well over a decade if at all) doing actual salaried software development where code had to be…

Fans of "Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons" might wish to check out "Let's Read: A Linguistic Approach" [0]. It uses a similar phonics approach but uses basic pattern matching to teach kids in a much simpler format. Be sure to check out the reviews for the original and newer edition. [0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814311156?psc=1

Whoa, this book appears to be $50-$500?

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#455

Post by Khaine »

setgree wrote: post #355
Khaine wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a free speech issue. This is a matter of fraud. Claiming you have methods of teaching literacy when you don't is fraud. Lying or pressuring congressman to get government grants is equally fraud.

Fraud is generally defined as intentionally deceiving others for personal or financial gain. I think it’s pretty clear here that these people were wrong , and arguably deceiving themselves, but certainly not intentionally deceiving others (which implies knowing true facts and withholding them). And I also think their main aim was to improve the lives of children, not personal enrichment. Again, not everything that’s…

Either they were negligent or they were incompetent. In either case, these people should in no way be in positions to advocate for teaching methods or teachers themselves.

Yet, no one has been held accountable. There has not been any reckoning for that teacher who ignored best practice because 'fuck bush', and all the others who advocated for cueing. Lucy Caulkins has made millions peddling techniques that have ruined the lives of 1000s of kids. If this were a drug, you would be demanding the company be out of business.

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#456

Post by com2kid »

anon291 wrote: post #418
com2kid wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of those topics that people debate endlessly because what works "for most" does not work "for all". I learned full word reading, it works great for me. I was well into middle school before I learned I didn't know how to pronounce a lot of words, but by 5th grade I was reading at a college level. Pretty sure I didn't internalize "e at the end makes vowels long" until nearly high school. I read really fast,…

> I learned I didn't know how to pronounce a lot of words Taking words on a page and reading them out loud is a fundamental aspect of reading. The way you've written it here, you were not fully able to read until the fifth grade. That is ... problematic. From my perspective, the problem is this. Phonetic reading naturally encompasses whole word reading, because a child who starts reading with phonics, eventually read…

> This would be problematic if you were learning any new language for example.

But it is a benefit when it comes to technical papers, chemical names, and foreign loan words.

> This is not exceptional for an adult.

Really? I've met plenty of functioning adults who say they sound out words in their head when reading. Go to any one of the many online threads about reading methods and you'll come across plenty of people describing that they have a voice in their head pronouncing each word that they read.

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#457

Post by com2kid »

camgunz wrote: post #427
anon291 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I learned I didn't know how to pronounce a lot of words Taking words on a page and reading them out loud is a fundamental aspect of reading. The way you've written it here, you were not fully able to read until the fifth grade. That is ... problematic. From my perspective, the problem is this. Phonetic reading naturally encompasses whole word reading, because a child who starts reading with phonics, eventually read…

>> I was well into middle school before I learned I didn't know how to pronounce a lot of words, but by 5th grade I was reading at a college level. > The way you've written it here, you were not fully able to read until the fifth grade. That is ... problematic. I don't really think that's what they're saying here. They wrote "by 5th grade I was reading at a college level". They have the classic "I read a lot so I rea…

> They have the classic "I read a lot so I read words I don't know how to pronounce" issue.

I read a lot of fantasy literature as a kid, and I'll argue that not needing to bother with pronunciation is a huge boon when trying to go through a particular style of fantasy novel!

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#458

Post by aidenn0 »

ch4s3 wrote: post #449
camgunz wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Literally no one is suggesting phonics only, that’s just the language decoding step Well, part of the problem is that it's unclear what people are suggesting. Until pretty recently there was a big gap between "phonics works pretty well" and "here's how you build a phonics curriculum". Teachers actually need that gap to be closed. What happens in practice is someone hears this podcast, and shows up at meetings deman…

> Phonics works better but whole language works OK. The evidence suggest that whole language fails totally for low SES students. Again, phonics is just about decoding language. Comprehension require a lot of vocabulary exposure, cultural competency, and other adjacent things that help build a mental schema of the language. The study the Guardian is citing says exactly this. It's important to understand that the Guard…

> The evidence suggest that whole language fails totally for low SES students.

There's a genetic component there too; my children are adopted and had wildly differing outcomes from the same curricula (and often same teachers). My personal opinion from observation (N=4, plus a few kids of friends) is that some kids will teach themselves phonics even in a whole-language program. Other kids don't. And the kids who don't struggle to read until someone teaches it to them.

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#459

Post by oxfordmale »

TRiG_Ireland wrote: post #249
oxfordmale wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English is not phonetic. We do not always say a word the same way we spell it, unlike for example Spanish. According to your definition all spoken languages are phonetic.

People confidently stating as fact stuff they know little or nothing about. Ask any competent linguist: English has a phonetic script. (Not a very good one, perhaps, but phonetic nonetheless.)

https://www.teflcourse.net/blog/english-as-a-non-phonetic-la...

Re: Sold a Story: How Teaching Kids to Read Went So Wrong

#460

Post by carlosjobim »

bell-cot wrote: post #391
siftrics wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We were told" seems to always preface failure and disappointment. How do people blindly trust random figures of authority? It's mind boggling.

Not trusting authority figures tends to be extremely laborious, give little benefit, and gets you socially marked as an oddball. Trusting authority figures generally is easy and works out well. 'Till it doesn't. But that's an unknown ways into the future, and you'll have plenty of social acceptance & sympathy for your "perfectly reasonable" misfortune.

Not trusting authority figures is the #1 advice for success in life, and has been since the invention of "authorities".

The goal of "authorities" are always to harm you as an individual and the more you follow them, the more harmed you will be. There is really no limit to how bad they are willing to make your short existence on earth, including - but not limited to - putting you in a muddy trench to be slaughtered by the enemy's artillery.

Post reply on HN