Re: reading

Ericka Kammerer (eek@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> Learning to read in one manner or another
> doesn't preclude learning other reading strategies
> later.

I partly agree and partly disagree with you.
Another strategy can be learnt later. However,
unlearning something can be much more difficult
than learning something. The brain will never
be "wired" exactly as it would have been if a
different method had been followed. In most
cases, the result is fine -- the person reads
fine regardless of the method originally followed.
However, a few people run into problems such as
dyslexia. Apparently even dyslexia can be avoided
by following, from the
beginning, a careful method as in "Teach Your Child
To Read in 100 Easy Lessons".

For example: since "b" and "d" look similar,
many children tend to confuse them. If these two
letter are taught to the child on the same day,
or only a few days apart, the child may continue
confusing them for months or even years. But if
the person teaching the child is patient and
waits a couple of weeks after teaching "b",
giving the child practice on "b" every day, before
teaching "d", it may be possible to avoid that
sort of confusion. (Other letters can be learned
meanwhile. If the child asks about "d" I would
answer the questions; I just wouldn't actively
quiz the child on "d" or suggest to the child
to read a word with "d" in it, for those couple
of weeks.)

I think of it like this: if I meet two people
at the same time and place, I might get their
names confused with each other for years.
Meeting two letters too close together in
time can have a similar effect. Yes, it is
possible for the child to later learn to tell
them apart, but this process may be far more
difficult than simply waiting a couple of
weeks during the original teaching process.

> The only real time this is a problem is if
> the child is *not* learning to read fluently.

OK -- however, it is sometimes possible to
prevent problems before they occur. This is
analogous to wearing a seatbelt. Probably there
will be no collision, and you only need the
seatbelt if there is a collision, but you
don't have to wait to see whether there's a collision
before putting on the seatbelt. If the child
is not learning to read fluently, one might
use hindsight and decide that it would have
been better to follow a careful method from
the beginning such as in "Teach Your Child To
Read in 100 Easy Lessons." I certainly don't
mean everyone has to use this method or
a method as careful as it. But I believe that
doing so can reduce the chance of difficult
problems in learning to read. I encourage parents
of children who have not yet learned to read
to read this book, try to understand
the principles it uses, and consider using some or
all of its methods of gradually easing a child
over some of the possible hurdles of learning
to read. (See also suggestions on my website
about teaching children to read:
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html

> Most
> children learn by a mix of whole word and phonics
> anyway.

Yes; however, some children who try to learn
to read don't learn to read well. Some end up
as adults who don't enjoy reading books.

> If a precocious reader is reading well
> by any means, I don't think there is any reason
> to throw up a road block and say he or she shouldn't
> continue on that path because someday there might be
> a situation where that method won't be ideal.

If a child is learning to read by hirself, I wouldn't
interfere. I might just leave the child alone;
or I might offer suggestions, materials, and games
related to learning to read.

> The vast majority who learn by phonics don't spend their
> whole lives sounding out each word, and the vast majority
> who learn by whole word won't be incompetent at
> sounding out a new word. The only problem is if
> a child is *not* gaining mastery with the method
> by which he or she is being taught.

See above. That's the only time there's a problem;
but that is not the only time that it's possible
to take action to avoid having that problem occur.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Conscious vs. unconscious processes
    ... I am suggesting that human learning often starts without such data, ... you tie your shoelaces the laces are not exactly placed. ... I believe the child is given "rules", and probably also has a parent ... requires innate knowledge, then it really isn't learning at all. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
    ... > I wonder how our learning systems could be improved. ... child to exhibit some behaviour like the one desired, ... curricula imposed on teachers and students assume that behaviours ... without being prompted, so shaping this behaviour (eg, teaching chess, ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Conscious vs. unconscious processes
    ... to get data is innate. ... I agree it doesn't explain the learning process. ... I believe the child is given "rules", ... a shoelace didn't have a parent to make comments and ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Conscious vs. unconscious processes
    ... my assessment of how I believe a child learns to tie ... a shoelace didn't have a parent to make comments and ... of trial and error reinforcement learning. ... requires innate knowledge, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: reading
    ... doesn't preclude learning other reading strategies later. ... a careful method as in "Teach Your Child ... many children tend to confuse them. ... waits a couple of weeks after teaching "b", ...
    (misc.kids)