Improving the way kids are taught to read
61–70 of 103 posts
Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read
#62I'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?
Now, for why phonics and syllabic method had been replaced with the whole word method here in Brazil... that's another and long story.
EDIT 1: typo.
Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The one method that become very popular in Brazil since the 80s is the "whole word" method. The child is supposed to memorize the form of the word instead of decoding it. No need to say that's not efficient (as the latin letters allow the sound/sign conversions), it overloads memory, and in the end, the child takes longer to learn. The standardized tests in Brazil show that. Now, for why phonics and syllabic method h…
Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, how did she learn to read? I have no idea. It wasn't phonics. But I suspect she would have managed it no matter what instruction she received. 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 they're 12 you can't tell the difference. I met a man who was traumatized when his first grade teacher tried to force him to read, before he was re…
The amount of text that a person has read improves their reading speed. So someone who has a big head start like that is going to have an advantage for more than a few years. It's true that eventually other factors might average them out, but why would you want to be illiterate for years and then make everything else you're trying to learn more difficult for years more? It's much less stressful to learn to read early…
"illiterate for years" is of no consequence when we are talking about 5-8 year old children. The point was there was no discernible difference in children who learned to read a a variety of ages.
In factory schools, if one is "delayed", that classification/label is attached to the child and becomes a part of their identity. Few escape it. Similarly, one who reads well at age three is held up as "gifted", and placed on a social/academic pedestal.
People have a wide variance of ability and timing during normal development. saying "it's much less stressful to learn to read early" is arrogant and naive. It's extraordinarily stressful to a child to be told they are stupid/slow when they are simply not ready, and stereotyped and classified as a result.
Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)?
It uses the DISTAR method which seems to have the most empirical evidence supporting it. (The controversy over DISTAR appears to me to be that it's boring for the teacher)
Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read
#67"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…
I would bet that if looked the number of books in the kids household you would see a strong correlation.
Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read
#68I'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…
What is actually done is that teachers have children do tons of worksheets focusing on small aspects of reading. This allows teachers to check the boxes showing that they've covered the relevant standards, because this is what's supposedly covered on standardized tests. The standards are difficult to turn into lesson plans (even if that was a good idea), so often they use the clip-art encrusted crap available on the…
Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read
#69I'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…
What is actually done is that teachers have children do tons of worksheets focusing on small aspects of reading. This allows teachers to check the boxes showing that they've covered the relevant standards, because this is what's supposedly covered on standardized tests. The standards are difficult to turn into lesson plans (even if that was a good idea), so often they use the clip-art encrusted crap available on the…
One reason we sent our daughters to (private) Montessori school was to have teachers and lessons completely free from Common Core.
Note that Bill Gates also sent his children to a private school that never adopted Common Core, although he was instrumental in pushing and forcing Common Core requirements across the public schools of the country.
Re: Improving the way kids are taught to read
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)?
I'm currently using "Teach your Child to read in 100 Easy Lessons." with my 3 year old. He hasn't had trouble with the reading, but a few of the exercises were too long for him. It uses the DISTAR method which seems to have the most empirical evidence supporting it. (The controversy over DISTAR appears to me to be that it's boring for the teacher)