ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Education
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th June 2019, 01:03 AM   #41
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
My first grade experience (Dick and Jane and whole words) was in the school year of 1953-54. It would not surprise me if the faculty there were filled with new ideas, and truly believed they were at the forefrongt of something.

I could write a lengthy essay on how awful the Detroit public school I went to was. Among other things, the classes were arranged so that students had to troop from room to room for different subjects. So we spent much of our time in the halls, where we were strictly enjoined to travel in single file and to take every corner at a precise 90 degrees! We had no arithmetic at all, but did have "science" which was mostly movies. I remember a really inspiring depression-era movie about malaria, and another rouser about rural electrification. We had frequent assemblies where movies were shown about the nuclear threat, and air raid drills in which we would go to the basement to "duck and cover." Hell was paid if you ducked and covered with the wrong arm on top. The school was large, and the basement, to a five or six year old, an awesome place filled with huge rumbling machinery, a veritable hell on earth. Along with the Dick and Jane books, they had huge easel-sized Dick and Jane books which the teacher would flip at the head of the class. We had a music class too in which we were required to bang on blocks. They were dedicated musical blocks and no doubt expensive. There was a lunch room, but students who lived within a mile were not allowed to bring their lunch and had to go home. We had an hour, so on a good day we had about ten minutes to slam down lunch at home before hurrying back. It remains a bit odd to think that a school dedicated to the welfare of children had no qualm about to find his way home and back again in the streets of urban Detroit. I once missed my trip home for some reason, and looked into the lunch room. It was nearly empty. They sent everyone home. There was a recess too, where we were essentially tossed out into a paved playground to stand there for a while or get into fights. When I entered another school in Massachusetts for second grade, I got into brief trouble because in Detroit we were required to write in huge print, the capitals about an inch high, and I was briefly taken for an idiot before the teacher realized that all she had to do was say " Here we write smaller,"which I was happy to do since I never wrote so ridiculously large except at school.

Crazy times.
This is a very informative post but one suggestion - include a few paragraph breaks for readability. Your experience is a pretty good primer on how not to teach.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2019, 05:08 AM   #42
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,797
Originally Posted by SocioThoth View Post
I have a younger sister, and she has been taught baby sign language, the usefulness being that she could tell us whether she wanted milk or water, things like that. However, as a long term thing it's utterly useless, she's not even two and now that she can say all of the words that she was taught in baby sign language, she has stopped using it entirely, because speech is more convenient. So it becomes a non issue something like 10 months after it's even possible for them to learn it. Garbage.
Wait. So for the period that the baby can sign but not talk -- maybe a year -- she is able to communicate her basic needs without crying and without parents trying to guess. That's hardly garbage. Nobody says simple signs are supposed to replace spoken language forever.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2019, 08:52 AM   #43
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Wait. So for the period that the baby can sign but not talk -- maybe a year -- she is able to communicate her basic needs without crying and without parents trying to guess. That's hardly garbage. Nobody says simple signs are supposed to replace spoken language forever.
Besides which - communicating is rewarding and why not set that experience up sooner rather than later? You're exercising the baby's brain, just the sort of thing that parents are urged to do to start building neural connections. IMO it's bizarre to see that as wasted effort.

Like anything newish it can be oversold as a fad. Your link claims a lot of benefits and I'm not sure how rigorously the claims have been evaluated. You also have a confounding effect - do studies prove these techniques "work," or is it just that parents who use it are making a more conscientious effort across the board?
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2019, 09:59 AM   #44
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,797
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Besides which - communicating is rewarding and why not set that experience up sooner rather than later? You're exercising the baby's brain, just the sort of thing that parents are urged to do to start building neural connections. IMO it's bizarre to see that as wasted effort.

Like anything newish it can be oversold as a fad. Your link claims a lot of benefits and I'm not sure how rigorously the claims have been evaluated. You also have a confounding effect - do studies prove these techniques "work," or is it just that parents who use it are making a more conscientious effort across the board?

I think everybody agrees that babies are always better off with conscientious parents, which, tragically, is not a universal experience.

The Mayo Clinic seems to have good words about it, with, of course, some reservations.
Quote:
Limited research suggests that baby sign language might give a typically developing child a way to communicate several months earlier than those who only use vocal communication. This might help ease frustration between ages 8 months and 2 years — when children begin to know what they want, need and feel but don't necessarily have the verbal skills to express themselves. Children who have developmental delays might benefit, too. Further research is needed, however, to determine if baby sign language promotes advanced language, literacy or cognition.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...e/faq-20057980

As I think about it, I wonder if baby signing would be especially useful for infants that go into day care, as many do. Conscientious parents might learn to understand the subtleties of their baby's whimpers, but for a baby in day care, being able to communicate "hungry," "thirsty," "wet," "cold" etc. to any caregiver could be powerful.

Last edited by Bob001; 8th June 2019 at 10:00 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2019, 10:40 AM   #45
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,974
Here is a fine example and reminder of how difficult it can be to learn reading, especially for those new to English and those with reading difficulties.

The reversal and poor quality are intentional. Read the story as is and answer the questions. You may enlarge it as needed.
You have 10 minutes.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg trogs - reading buddy program test challenge.jpg (42.4 KB, 38 views)
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2019, 10:41 AM   #46
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,645
Okay, so it's intentional.

What's the intent?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2019, 11:25 AM   #47
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,802
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm curious: is this a new attitude? My sister didn't want her kids being taught to read before they started real school. (They start kindergarten in fall.) But she and I are Gen X, born in the 1970s, and we both learned at age four. It wasn't unusual then, and it certainly didn't harm us any. Was there a change in attitude since then? What are the reaons for preferring a delay in reading?
Parenting fads change faster than fashion. On the one hand people think focusing on academics to get kids started early is best. On the other hand people think focusing on social development will pay off more in the long run. Both have research backing up their respective assertions. Both side's "research" boils down to a professional kid wrangler saying "yeah, I guess that makes sense." Unadmitted by either side, the strongest childhood indicator of future achievement continues to be being raised in a wealthy zip code where parents have the luxury of fretting about things like whether their kids learn to read a word or a syllable at a time.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2019, 11:42 AM   #48
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,532
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Okay, so it's intentional.

What's the intent?

***Shakes head*** Bluggy trogs!!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2019, 04:36 PM   #49
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,851
Originally Posted by alfaniner View Post
Here is a fine example and reminder of how difficult it can be to learn reading, especially for those new to English and those with reading difficulties.

The reversal and poor quality are intentional. Read the story as is and answer the questions. You may enlarge it as needed.
You have 10 minutes.
a, glob, c, a, a. Question 2 is a setup: Only globs are listed as catchable by stegs. It can HOLD orrets or little animals, but catching them is not specified.
Two minutes.

Yes, I flipped it.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th June 2019, 05:55 PM   #50
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 40,813
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm curious: is this a new attitude? My sister didn't want her kids being taught to read before they started real school. (They start kindergarten in fall.) But she and I are Gen X, born in the 1970s, and we both learned at age four. It wasn't unusual then, and it certainly didn't harm us any. Was there a change in attitude since then? What are the reaons for preferring a delay in reading?
I see that no one actually responded to the highlighted.

There was a study done sometime in the 80s or 90s that "proved" that early readers were likely to become axe murderers. Not really but that was the breast-clutching reaction of devotees of the topic.

The theory was that early readers were missing out on the most important parts of pre-school and kindergarten, the socialization. If Becky couldn't handle the pressure of trying to solve a relationship problem with Timmy and Rashad, or didn't want to be bothered, she could bury herself in a book, effectively avoiding the conflict and conflicted emotions. The kids who couldn't read were forced to work through whatever the problem was and learned the value of compromise and the transient quality of most disputes.

The belief (bias, when you get down to it) was that the quiet little reader-nerds were budding sociopaths. The upshot is that when they actually went and checked back on some of the subjects, the early readers caught up to the non-readers in social skills and the non-readers caught up to the readers in reading and cognitive skills... by about the 3rd or 4th grade.

As to the general theme of the thread? I've gone through a "by-the-book" phonics program with my son. By the fourth grade he couldn't read. With a lot of work by his dad and convincing the school that they had to put in an hour or two (or more) of remedial reading, he was reading at fourth grade level by the end of the term (February this year.) (Heck, he was barely able to do Dick and Jane level stuff at the beginning of the term but was reading Harry Potter by the end.)

We had to glue the phonics lessons back together and get him onto whole word recognition. He still uses the phonics when he can't work out a word, but he no longer stumbles over the forty-something prepositions and other commonly used/seen words but assumes them from the first letter or two, the length and the configuration.

Looking back, I remember now having to constantly explain to him when studying his spelling words (they start with a weekly spelling test in the first grade here and continue through primary school) "Hey, that's English! We just like to **** with your head." There are so many exceptions to phonetics that the learning needs to be Pirates of the Caribbean --- uh, well, it's more of a code, really - not a rule.

If I had to choose, I'd go for a gestalt plan. Phonics as the play-group fun method to get some of the sounds understood, but tie-it-into word recognition at the same time. My son's first couple of years of phonics lessons had lesson after lesson of "sounds" but they didn't tie the sounds back into usable words.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

Last edited by Foolmewunz; 8th June 2019 at 05:56 PM.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2019, 11:03 AM   #51
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,418
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
It is to me. I was reading before starting primary at 4, and read Arran 18 year level when I was 10.
My niece was reading before 4 (she's 19) and certainly her mother, who's an educational psychologist, wasn't surprised or disapproving.
It wasn't formal teaching, but my mother was teaching me to read from the time I could follow a moving finger on a book, I have a fragmented memory of my nursery school teaching the very early stages of writing. I do remember getting in trouble when (having run out if assigned reading and invited to bring my own books in) I was called up to read out loud to the teacher and she found I'd brought 'Lair' by James Herbert. Mothers were called, conversations were had and suitable books were then provided. I would have been 9 or 10 I think.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 02:47 PM   #52
bytewizard
Master Poster
 
bytewizard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: In the woods
Posts: 2,018
32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can't read.

With kids learning to read at age 4, they surely are going to mess up these statistics.
bytewizard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2019, 03:35 PM   #53
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,111
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
It wasn't formal teaching, but my mother was teaching me to read from the time I could follow a moving finger on a book, I have a fragmented memory of my nursery school teaching the very early stages of writing. I do remember getting in trouble when (having run out if assigned reading and invited to bring my own books in) I was called up to read out loud to the teacher and she found I'd brought 'Lair' by James Herbert. Mothers were called, conversations were had and suitable books were then provided. I would have been 9 or 10 I think.
The most controversial book choice I gave my kid was "O, Jerusalem", a very dramatic, and balanced, story of the Israeli War of Independence. He was 11, I think. The reason it was controversial is that he attended a Jewish school. They weren't really into "balanced" when it came to Israel.

In kindergarten, they were encouraged not to read at all in the public school, which is one of the reasons he ended up at the Jewish school in the first place. The Jewish school encouraged him to read as much as possible very early. He was already a voracious reader. I think he read The Hobbit at age seven, although it might have been eight.

I don't know when the best time to teach someone to read is. I doubt that there is a truly "best" time, really, at least not within the range of prevailing opinions. (i.e. I've never heard any educator say that kids should wait until they are ten years old.) I doubt if there is any harm in teaching a four year old to read, if they can. I doubt there is any harm waiting until the first grade. Of course, phonics is the best method to teach. I can't believe there is any debate on that subject today.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 10th June 2019 at 03:36 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2019, 09:59 AM   #54
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,802
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
I think they used to do phonics and now they teach whole word. My guess is that there is no right or wrong way and everyone should steer clear of people who say their method is the best. But I hated phonics so what do I know?
My parents read to me from an early age and I pretty much picked it up and started reading before I was in school. I don't really remember how I learned it. I know I was taught phonics in school, but it was pretty much stuff I had already figured out for myself at this point.

It seems to me that kids are individuals, and the teaching method that works best for one may not be the one that works best for all of them. The phonics vs. whole word debate has been going on for decades, and I suspect that if one method was clearly superior to the other it would have been settled by now.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 02:37 PM   #55
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,267
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
My parents read to me from an early age and I pretty much picked it up and started reading before I was in school. I don't really remember how I learned it. I know I was taught phonics in school, but it was pretty much stuff I had already figured out for myself at this point.

It seems to me that kids are individuals, and the teaching method that works best for one may not be the one that works best for all of them. The phonics vs. whole word debate has been going on for decades, and I suspect that if one method was clearly superior to the other it would have been settled by now.
The evidence is clear.
I wonder when a whole word only disciple will contribute to the thread.
Phonics works for everyone, and dyslexia no longer exists. Our children were taught phonics at age 4, and at school they were seen as freaks because they could read. I asked their one on one phonics teacher if she had experienced a failure and whether she considered dyslexia was a condition. She was adamant the answer to both questions was no.
80% of New Zealand prisoners are functionally illiterate.
Our education minister in 2000, Trevor Mallard, denied the use of phonics in schools despite being confronted by a delegation of 8 who had travelled the world and unanimously called for an immediate replacement of the failing methods with phonics.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 02:43 PM   #56
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,267
And right on cue because I introduced the subject to Kiwiblog nis this.

"I have to agree, dyslexia is one of the issues faced by people learning via the Whole Word system. When I entered school they had introduced whole word learning, and it was 5 years (when I was 11) before I actually learned to read, and I taught myself phonetically. In my day dyslexia was unheard of, but my Mum talked about the fact I would reverse words (like “saw” for “was”).
We home schooled 4 kids, using phonetics, and they could all read pretty much any book by the time they were 6. One had read The Count of Monte Christo (unabridged) multiple times by the time he was 10.
Phonics can lead into whole word learning, but not the other way around"

Q.E.D.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2019, 02:47 PM   #57
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,532
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
My parents read to me from an early age and I pretty much picked it up and started reading before I was in school. I don't really remember how I learned it. I know I was taught phonics in school, but it was pretty much stuff I had already figured out for myself at this point.

It seems to me that kids are individuals, and the teaching method that works best for one may not be the one that works best for all of them. The phonics vs. whole word debate has been going on for decades, and I suspect that if one method was clearly superior to the other it would have been settled by now.
It has to all the firstborn boomers, apparently.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 09:18 AM   #58
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,134
I started reading to my sons when they were infants, and never missed a day without books. By the time they turned 4 years old, they were reading. In their 40's now, they are both still prolific readers. How nice to be sharing books with them now.

The thing that is interesting, is noticing my sons early vocabulary, which is still profound.
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2019, 02:54 PM   #59
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
I started reading to my sons when they were infants, and never missed a day without books. By the time they turned 4 years old, they were reading. In their 40's now, they are both still prolific readers. How nice to be sharing books with them now.

The thing that is interesting, is noticing my sons early vocabulary, which is still profound.
A lot of people keep virtually no books in the house. I'm talking about the era when there weren't electronic options. They might have shelves full of DVDs, but no books. I grew up surrounded by hundreds if not thousands of books, plus frequent trips to the public library.

Kids who stop reading for the summer are going to have a hard time making gains in ability, whatever the favored method for teaching/learning.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2019, 10:10 PM   #60
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,856
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Phonics works for everyone, and dyslexia no longer exists.

What do you mean when you say that "dyslexia no longer exists"?
When I learned to read in school in the 1960s, they taught us the phonics way - corresponding to the Engelmann method mentioned in this article: How I Taught My Kid to Read (The Atlantic, June 6, 2019) - but still some of the children seemed to find it extremely difficult and a few never really got it.

In 2014 or 2015, I visited a literacy centre in Cuba with a group of Danish high school teachers. The Cubans are very proud of the Cuban Literacy Campaign (Wikipedia), for good reason, in my opinion. We heard about the campaign and about how they teach children to read nowadays, but what surprised me the most was that when I asked about dyslexia, they seemed to be surprised by the concept, and when I google "dyslexia in Cuba", this is what I get:

Quote:
Based on the true story of her grandmother in turn of the century Cuba, this historical fiction title for upper elementary school readers is told in verse. Engle’s grandmother, Fefa, has a condition known as “word blindness”. The novel tells the story of Cuban poetry; the history of Cuba (including the brutal Spanish war against Cuban insurgents); and the saga of a young girl learning to write despite her dyslexia, thanks to her mother’s wise approach.
The Wild Book (Zinn Education Project)

By the way, the Danish word for dyslexia is also "word blindness", ordblindhed.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 02:27 PM   #61
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,362
Originally Posted by dann View Post
By the way, the Danish word for dyslexia is also "word blindness", ordblindhed.
I don't know if this makes any difference, but Spanish is almost perfectly phonetic. If you pay attention to how a word is said you will know how it's spelled, and vice versa. The syllables are easy to break down into perfect little phonetic units. I wonder if dyslexia resolves itself differently in such cases. So many words in English, even simple words, become a confusion of bristling consonants and dueling vowels: "height" and "eight," for example. They don't even rhyme, although they are spelled alike except for the first letter. The "ei" sound is different in each. The "g" and the "h" are pointless. It may cause a kind cognitive overload.

Kids are tested so much these days that they're largely exposed to a bunch of reading-comprehension exercises as schools try to prepare them for tests. Reading becomes associated with a limited aspect of life, not something they'd necessarily do outside of school for pleasure or information.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 08:47 PM   #62
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,462
My kids were taught whole-word at school. At home we used phonics. We were told not to. We ignored that.

The kids didn't really start reading for real until we stopped reading the video game menus for them. That gave them the incentive.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th June 2019, 09:11 PM   #63
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,994
When my wife and I were studying to be teachers, 30 or so years ago, the big thing then was “Whole Language.” It was an approach that was a bit more than what people are calling “Whole Word,” here. WL was actually a mix of sight reading and phonics. Kids are encouraged to recognize words on sight. It starts with logo recognition, then moves on to simple word recognition and so forth. But at the same time, phonics was still part of the WL curriculum. The idea was to give kids as many tools as possible to approach reading. They learn to see words as symbols and recognize them as such; however, they still have the skills to sound out a word if they get stuck

One of the biggest things was teachers modeling reading behavior as a part of everyday routine. In the early grades, in every subject, teachers had big books that they could read aloud and point to each word as they read it. As the kids progress, each kid takes a turn reading from textbooks. If they get stuck, they sound it out and repeat it a few times to reinforce it. The teacher corrects pronunciation as they go. Every subject exposes kids to reading, all the time. I thought it was brilliant but I believe they phased this out rather quickly in favor of some new approach -but I had already moved on from teachingnso who knows what it was.

In the everyday world, it is so crucial to expose kids to books, other reading materials and just overall good use of language. Too much of their time is spent staring at a screen/texting/tweeting consuming mindless drivel that does not model proper speech, grammar , etc. They need to hear people speak properly. They need to be exposed to words. They need to be confronted with language as much as possible.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 05:21 AM   #64
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,267
Churchil Park School in Auckland New Zealand has banned paper from the classroom to abate climate change, the students must use only digital devices to record their learning.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 12:25 PM   #65
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,532
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Churchil Park School in Auckland New Zealand has banned paper from the classroom to abate climate change, the students must use only digital devices to record their learning.
Will they be taught phonics or whole word on those digital devices?
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 06:01 PM   #66
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,462
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Churchil Park School in Auckland New Zealand has banned paper from the classroom to abate climate change, the students must use only digital devices to record their learning.
A coincidental side effect of the move to the digital-only classroom will mean that kids will have fewer back and shoulder problems from carrying books around. I remember what that was like, and it was not pleasant, especially after I was diagnosed with Scheuermann's disease.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2019, 08:40 PM   #67
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,532
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
A coincidental side effect of the move to the digital-only classroom will mean that kids will have fewer back and shoulder problems from carrying books around. I remember what that was like, and it was not pleasant, especially after I was diagnosed with Scheuermann's disease.
In a way, I think making the kids go all digital is a combination of scholastic terrorism and edgelord humor.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Education

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.