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

91–100 of 524 posts

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

#91

Post by patall »

bonthron wrote: post #59
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…

"Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons" is an amazing book. I taught my daughter to read before kindergarten. It works.

What does "before kindergarten" mean? In the mornings? Or before she was old enough to go there? I started kindergarten at age 2 (like described in Wikipedia) and I suspect that is not what you mean.

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

#92

Post by cratermoon »

tgv wrote: post #88
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Psychology works just fine in marketing, advertising, politics, media, and even in game design. If it's not being used in schools it's not because it's ineffective.

> Psychology works just fine in marketing, advertising, politics, Does it really? I think there isn't even good data on the effectiveness of marketing and advertising, let alone on the correctness of psychological theories used. Marketing and advertising run on common sense and FOMO.

> I think there isn't even good data on the effectiveness of marketing and advertising

Thinking that is a kind of proof that marketing and advertising work - to get people to believe they aren't being profoundly influenced by marketing and advertising.

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

#93

Post by Der_Einzige »

humean_being wrote: post #66

This is horrifying. If I understood this correctly, they are being taught effectively *next token prediction* instead of reading. The only children that will learn to read will probably be in spite of this system.

Well, I was taught using phonics, and then I wrote a paper that basically applied the idea to LLMs for constrained text generation. I'd say mission accomplished.

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

#94

Post by AlanYx »

humean_being wrote: post #63
bradleyjg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From friends that have suffered through education degrees, it doesn’t sound like the field sees itself as a part of the scientific community at all. There’s a disproportionate focus on, frankly, ideological indoctrination. Even if you agree with the underlying ideologies that doesn’t seem like an ideal system for producing excellent educators. The little methodological trainings that do take place are often grounded…

This was something that I and a friend found surprising when he was studying to become a primary school teacher in the UK. A lot of the education for teachers in the UK is effectively 18th century philosophy taught uncritically - the likes of Rousseau, etc... We both have a university background in philosophy (we both did the US equivalent of "majoring" in it, and I went to graduate level) and what we found disturbin…

In North America, Rousseau has given way to Paulo Freire and successors, but it's the same thing for the most part.

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

#95

Post by oxfordmale »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #85
oxfordmale wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UCL researchers are among 250 signatories to a letter which has been sent to education secretary Nadhim Zahawi, calling on the government to allow for a wider range of approaches to teaching reading, which would allow teachers to use their own judgment about which is best for their pupils. It doesn't say phonics doesn't work, it suggests phonics is only effective for a subgroup of pupils. Everyone has their own l…

> it suggests phonics is only effective for a subgroup of pupils If that subgroup is 90+%, is it worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater? (I don't know the % here, I'm making one up as a thought experiment.)

As the petition calls for, it should be left to the teachers to decide. Even if the succes rate is 90%, are you happy to throw the remaining 10% under the reading bus ?

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

#97

Post by bradleyjg »

KRAKRISMOTT wrote: post #89
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…

The issue is that many schools are expected to teach students at scale . If parents are willing to spend more time coaching their kids instead of outsourcing it, then the problem would be less severe. Good schools generally all have a low teacher to student ratio for a reason. Bloom's 2 sigma problem is very real, spend more time one on one with your kids and even poor pedagogy can yield results.

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.

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

#98

Post by kyrra »

mschuster91 wrote: post #13
kleiba wrote: post #4

I seriously doubt that 75% of fourth graders read as bad as the examples at the beginning. But what troubles me more is that people go to universities to study education, and yet after all these years, they still seem to have no clue about how to teach a diverse group of young kids. Yet, they're often very confident in their teaching methods. I'm not very familiar with the field, unfortunately, but it is my understan…

> I'm not very familiar with the field, unfortunately, but it is my understanding that there is not much of a scientific method applied to teaching theories. As in, not just armchair theorizing, but more like A/B testing. I know, it's a hard problem, but so are many science problems, and Rome doesn't have to be build in one day. But where is the progress? There isn't much, for a multitude of reasons: - teachers are o…

> there aren't many teachers in the first place, and the older ones often lack the motivation to further their own knowledge

I'd also say part of the cause of this are the teacher unions. When we don't do merit based promotions and raises, people don't care as much.

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

#99

Post by bonthron »

patall wrote: post #91
bonthron wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons" is an amazing book. I taught my daughter to read before kindergarten. It works.

What does "before kindergarten" mean? In the mornings? Or before she was old enough to go there? I started kindergarten at age 2 (like described in Wikipedia) and I suspect that is not what you mean.

She was 5. Most kids in the US start first grade about 6.

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

#100

Post by allknowingfrog »

bradleyjg wrote: post #10
kleiba wrote: post #4

I seriously doubt that 75% of fourth graders read as bad as the examples at the beginning. But what troubles me more is that people go to universities to study education, and yet after all these years, they still seem to have no clue about how to teach a diverse group of young kids. Yet, they're often very confident in their teaching methods. I'm not very familiar with the field, unfortunately, but it is my understan…

From friends that have suffered through education degrees, it doesn’t sound like the field sees itself as a part of the scientific community at all. There’s a disproportionate focus on, frankly, ideological indoctrination. Even if you agree with the underlying ideologies that doesn’t seem like an ideal system for producing excellent educators. The little methodological trainings that do take place are often grounded…

This was exactly my experience. I had to pass a review board before I began my senior year, and it was essentially an "ideological indoctrination" examination. I said what they wanted to hear. What else was I going to go with the 3 years of education that I had already purchased? I was fortunate to study at a college that emphasized field-based experience, because it was the only degree-related value that I left with.

In the end, I spent more hours earning my degree than using it. I work in software now.

Post reply on HN