Live data from Hacker News

Improving the way kids are taught to read

npr.org

51–60 of 103 posts

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#51
post #39

> 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 th…

The scales are made up. Many of them are formulaic, counting sentence length or syllables or whatever and digesting that into a number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readability_test links various measures. I'd be curious to go back and see what and how much my grandfather read in ~1910, after he stopped school in the 8th grade.

When my grandpa got the news that he was going to ship out to the Pacific in WWII, the CO said to the men: "Gentlemen, there is a time and a tide." None of them had more than a sixth-grade education and they all knew what poem he was referencing.

Edit: it appears I have misquoted it myself, or I can't find the reference. It's probably the Shakespeare thing though.

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#52
post #28

I want to share the experience I had with my daughter Greta (now 5 yo). She learned to write and read independently. At 3 she was already able to write simple words (not memorized, you cold say "write "), and at this point at 5 she can fluently write. All this without spending more than, maybe a total of a few days once she were already capable of basic reading/writing. The question is, how she figured out how to wri…

Do you have more than one kid? One of mine learned reading super easily, the other struggled. Both of them do very well in high school now. I don't think one approach fits all and I'm certain teachers are sick of being told they are doing this or that wrong. My advice: leave the kids and teachers alone, they'll figure it out.

Yep, I've a son which is 17, similar experience. However the fact he was so gifted in almost everything made him extremely lazy and non interested in anything as a teenager... I hope this will change.

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#53

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…

My son is hyperlexic (and on the autistic spectrum) and he basically taught himself to read phonetically when he was 3 by watching youtube videos of phonics. I was not taught reading at a young age, it was considered bad to teach kids early where I grew up, but when I started school at 6 and we did the phonics I was almost immediately able to read well beyond my age. Hyperlexia is a bit like the opposite of dyslexia and I think it's is a bit of a spectrum where most people find themselves closer to the center. My son really struggled with receptive language, or language in general. Hyperlexic kids often only start to get the hang of receptive language (as in understand spoken language) and use language for communication (aka 'start talking') between the age of 4.5 to 5.5, so I suspect kids who are less on the hyperlexic side (aka most kids, and also 'early talkers') probably only start to get into the groove of reading after that age. Hyperlexia and dyslexia is just symptoms of a component of our brains that processes our environment and I think there's huge variation in humans when it comes to this and it's kind of independent from our intelligence (though it could affect our test scores, for sure)

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#54
post #25

It is amazing how irrational even smart people act about learning to read. Maybe specifically smart people. Please, read the current research. Kids learn to read best out of interest -- with reading material they are interested in and when they are ready to learn. And it makes them better. My parents fought not to teach me to read. I didn't learn to read until I was 11. When I was 12 I went to school for the first ti…

Are you saying the current research argues against teaching children the ability to read at a young age? While forcing children to learn is not ideal, sometimes intrinsic motivation doesn't flourish in the individual naturally. How would you deal with a child that never wants to learn how to read?

Early child education evidence is a whole complicated thing in itself, but programs shifting first reading instruction younger do not show benefits at older age, and school systems that put the expected literacy age much later than most Americans would expect don't underperform.

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#55
post #29

Easy fix: cash bonus to teachers based on average year-end score of their student’s reading comprehension.

That does usually prove to be a terrific way to improve scores. The hard part is a test that actually measures something like reading comprehension rather than preparation for the particular test.

Teaching to the test is so much work, the smart teacher will just lobby administration to get the weaker students removed from the class.

https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/03/29/why-selection-bias-is-t...

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#56

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…

I'm also confused here. Most definitions of "phonics" I've seen are just "teach kids how to connect written letters with speech sounds." What on earth would non-phonics reading instruction look like?

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#57
What I point out in the book is that in order to grasp the research, [teachers] need basic scientific literacy to be able to understand it....

The political solution was called "balanced literacy," which called on teachers to use the best of both approaches. But it left it up to teachers who had been trained to dismiss phonics and brush off the science.

There's the key. Teachers get their educational ideas from their education and spend the rest of their career defending them from parents, administrators, ideological "reformers," and other random bystanders who are mostly well-meaning but who are all convinced they have a magic trick to fix everything if the teachers would just stop being dumb about how they do their job. Everybody's got an easy answer, 99% of them are just arrogant bystanders, and teachers very quickly start tuning out. And the teachers are not scientifically literate, so they don't know the difference between a scientist who does research on reading and a random yahoo.

Plus the calls for educational "reform" usually have a partisan tinge. Republicans say just drill harder and longer and keep the desks separated in 90º grids instead of circles and other commie bullshit; Democrats say give kids books that connect to their unique cultural heritage and respect their cognitive differences and they will magically know how to read. All the more reason for teachers to ignore all outside input and assume they know best.

Not to mention the educational companies that have to manufacture excitement about new teaching fads every year so they can sell new classroom materials.

With all this bullshit going on, you can't blame teachers for being closed-minded and cynical. Most of them receive an idea of what progressive, smart teaching looks like in college, when they're still optimistic and open-minded, and cling to it for the next forty years. So I think this guy will be pleased by the response of teachers who are currently in college. They'll take in the current consensus and run with it.

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#58
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the current research argues against teaching children the ability to read at a young age? While forcing children to learn is not ideal, sometimes intrinsic motivation doesn't flourish in the individual naturally. How would you deal with a child that never wants to learn how to read?

> How would you deal with a child that never wants to learn how to read? All children will eventually come around to the idea that reading is useful. Some children are traumatized by do-gooders trying to force them to learn how to read before they're ready. As I said in another comment here, "I think John Taylor Gatto pointed out that some children learn to read when they're 2, some when they're 8, and by the time th…

There are adults who are illiterate and still resist the idea that they would be better off if they learned how to read.

I agree there's a level of proficiency that, once reached, seems to be sufficient to tackle most reading challenges.

If you can read at 2, then you've 10 years of reading experience on the 12 year old who just learned. It doesn't necessarily make you a better reader, but you've had access to a much wider range of information and knowledge that the 12 year old couldn't access.

It seems objectively better to encourage your children to learn to read at the earliest age possible.

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have more than one kid? One of mine learned reading super easily, the other struggled. Both of them do very well in high school now. I don't think one approach fits all and I'm certain teachers are sick of being told they are doing this or that wrong. My advice: leave the kids and teachers alone, they'll figure it out.

Which child performs better, the first born or second? When I was a child, my parents worked on phonetics with me, and encouraged me to work with my sister on hers. She didn't perform as well academically as I did, but now that we're in our mid/late thirties, that discrepancy is nothing but a footnote.

First one had a harder time reading. Once she discovered the "Warriors" series there was no stopping her, though.

Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read

#60
Once you get past phonetics, symbol/sound relationships - the only metric that really matters for basic literacy is # of words read.

Should it be challenging? Yea, sure - but ten short books or two long ones doesn't matter a bit. They just need to read more.

Source: I'm a k12 English teacher. The data that makes it into my hands almost always comes back to this point.

Post reply on HN