6 ms·

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

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 interview, I'm led to expect that the real insight from the book is that "teachers should study behavioral science, congnitive science, and brain development," which is too loose a central thesis to capture my interest. I suppose what I've really gathered from this interview is two things: firstly, I would like to know a bit more about the gap is between how kids learn to read and how they should learn to read; secondly, I do not intend on reading Seidenberg's book (i.e. the book this interview is centered around) to find out.

skywhopper 9y ago
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 to how children learn to read in other languages whose written forms are either far more phoenetically entwined with their spoken forms (eg, Portugese and Finnish, as I understand it), or far less (eg, Mandarin or Arabic). (I'm sure I'm oversimplifying complex relationships and reality in the overbroad sentence I just wrote, but I'm happy to hear how my received CW is wrong about these languages.) Anecdatally: when my own daughter was about four, we had some friends whose son had learned to read from a Phonics book at four, and when we knew him at five, he could read pretty much anything you put in front of him (how much he understood, who knows, but he could translate the text into spoken language that we could understand). Both her mother and I were also reading at four, and so we expected our daughter would be able to do the same. We were inspired by this kid's example to get our daughter started early, and tried the same Phonics book with her. Unfortunately, she didn't take to it so well. She seemed to understand what was happening well enough, but it never clicked or became natural, and it was ultimately a frustrating experience for us and our daughter. So we eventually stopped the lessons, and let her learn at her own pace. She happily made it through kindergarten and first grade without really showing any interest in or being able to read with any proficiency. She was clearly smart, and her teachers told us not to worry about it. Then in second grade mid-year, something just clicked, and she started voraciously consuming books, with her reading ability testing well above grade level. Now at 16, she's still a voracious reader, and a writer who has completed NaNoWriMo three times, reads and writes every second of the day, and has an incredibly sophisticated grasp on storytelling, analyzing the writing behind books and movies and TV shows with a clarity that I personally have never had. 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 also doubt that she is really a meaningful example, other than to say that it's complicated, and humans vary in their learning styles, and we should focus on the goal of reading and comprehending, trying to discover all the ways that individuals can and do learn to read, and having our teachers focus on identifying and encouraging the best methods for each student and not so much on imposing specific mechanics of how the statistically typical student achieves reading proficiency.
- Confiks 9y ago
  If some rich and complex learning material doesn't immediately 'click', that doesn't mean it is ineffective. You might just be laying the groundwork to understanding those complex ideas later, for example when they are connected to other ideas or when the motivation to learn surfaces. Learning is sometimes too focused on 'understanding' and immediate results, while often very puzzled faces and proclamations of non-understanding are the best indication that real learning is going on.
- teslabox 9y ago
  > 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 ready. The lesson was put in front of him, and 1st-grade-him thought he was stupid for not being able to perform.
  - sp332 9y ago
    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.
    - jackhack 9y ago
      You're missing the point. "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.
dubya 9y ago
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 web (e.g. https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Browse/Grade-Level/First/PreK-12-Subject-Area/Literature https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Browse/Grade-Level/First...) Occasionally they will actually read short passages from readers. After they read anything they will have to fill in some sort of (standards aligned) paperwork. They will never have extended reading time in class. As an example, a 1st grade reading teacher needs to cover CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.1.(1-10) (reading literature); CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.1.(1-10) (reading information text); and CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.1.(1-4) (but actually 15 substandards) (foundational skills). Actual standards at http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/1/ http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/1/
- Kluny 9y ago
  Oh wow, that sounds suicidally boring. Way to kill the joy, eh.
  - tropo 9y ago
    It's mandatory to be boring. Anything else is offensive. Little kids want to read about flinging poo, farting, projectile vomit, violence, and every possible misbehavior. Supposed "children's books" are actually marketed toward grandmothers and public school librarians.
    - Kluny 9y ago
      What about that Captain Underpants crap? I hated it when I was a kid but it seemed pretty good to the other kids and kind of acceptable to the adults.
      - tropo 9y ago
        That often gets banned for crudeness, but otherwise yes. It has the right idea. I object to it for a completely different reason: bad spelling and grammar. I think a kid's book should set a perfect example.
zellyn 9y ago
The interview is clearly about a book; I assume they focused on the story around the writing of the book, rather than recapitulating the contents of the book. If you want to know what is done badly, and how to improve, I imagine the best thing would be to read the book.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  I have read many hundreds of interviews with non-fiction book authors, and they almost always include some of the specific ideas of the book. Indeed, usually that is most of what the interview is about.
- ahdroit 9y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/books/language-at-the-speed-of-sight-mark-seidenberg.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/books/language-at-the-spe... quote: "Most of all, as he, teachers and other reading-instruction stakeholders have already joined forces to do in the Wisconsin Reading Coalition, he pleads with those who teach written communication and those who research it to start, at last, communicating with one another."
jjuel 9y ago
It was very much a nothingburger. I am disappointed I read the whole article.
sarahconstantin 9y ago
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?
- rogerthis 9y ago
  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 had been replaced with the whole word method here in Brazil... that's another and long story. EDIT 1: typo.
  - mkempe 9y ago
    The "Look Say" method you describe (vs the classic "Phonics" method) was also widely deployed in the USA, to the detriment of many children's reading and writing skills.
    - tropo 9y ago
      I object to both. The whole-word method is required for Chinese languages. Phonics is obviously proper for Spanish and Russian. English is not so extreme. Phonics is useful, but it falls short. I've seen the disaster that is pure phonics with English, leading to a kid who mostly couldn't read at age 14. On the other hand, it will be hard to develop a decent vocabulary with the whole-word method. A hybrid approach works nicely. See phonics fail on The Chaos: https://www.learnenglish.de/pronunciation/pronunciationpoem.html https://www.learnenglish.de/pronunciation/pronunciationpoem....
      - camelite 9y ago
        One part of the solution is to introduce exceptions early. The whole thing is a more complicated business than a one-to-one sound-letter correspondence. But it is a problem that has been solved for a long time now[1]. Cognitive science is not required. The only mystery is how this is not more widely known. [1] teach your child to read in 100 easy lessons, and associated school curricula from the same author

skywhopper 9y ago

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 to how children learn to read in other languages whose written forms are either far more phoenetically entwined with their spoken forms (eg, Portugese and Finnish, as I understand it), or far less (eg, Mandarin or Arabic). (I'm sure I'm oversimplifying complex relationships and reality in the overbroad sentence I just wrote, but I'm happy to hear how my received CW is wrong about these languages.) Anecdatally: when my own daughter was about four, we had some friends whose son had learned to read from a Phonics book at four, and when we knew him at five, he could read pretty much anything you put in front of him (how much he understood, who knows, but he could translate the text into spoken language that we could understand). Both her mother and I were also reading at four, and so we expected our daughter would be able to do the same. We were inspired by this kid's example to get our daughter started early, and tried the same Phonics book with her. Unfortunately, she didn't take to it so well. She seemed to understand what was happening well enough, but it never clicked or became natural, and it was ultimately a frustrating experience for us and our daughter. So we eventually stopped the lessons, and let her learn at her own pace. She happily made it through kindergarten and first grade without really showing any interest in or being able to read with any proficiency. She was clearly smart, and her teachers told us not to worry about it. Then in second grade mid-year, something just clicked, and she started voraciously consuming books, with her reading ability testing well above grade level. Now at 16, she's still a voracious reader, and a writer who has completed NaNoWriMo three times, reads and writes every second of the day, and has an incredibly sophisticated grasp on storytelling, analyzing the writing behind books and movies and TV shows with a clarity that I personally have never had. 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 also doubt that she is really a meaningful example, other than to say that it's complicated, and humans vary in their learning styles, and we should focus on the goal of reading and comprehending, trying to discover all the ways that individuals can and do learn to read, and having our teachers focus on identifying and encouraging the best methods for each student and not so much on imposing specific mechanics of how the statistically typical student achieves reading proficiency.

Confiks 9y ago
If some rich and complex learning material doesn't immediately 'click', that doesn't mean it is ineffective. You might just be laying the groundwork to understanding those complex ideas later, for example when they are connected to other ideas or when the motivation to learn surfaces. Learning is sometimes too focused on 'understanding' and immediate results, while often very puzzled faces and proclamations of non-understanding are the best indication that real learning is going on.
teslabox 9y ago
> 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 ready. The lesson was put in front of him, and 1st-grade-him thought he was stupid for not being able to perform.
- sp332 9y ago
  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.
  - jackhack 9y ago
    You're missing the point. "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.

dubya 9y ago

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 web (e.g. https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Browse/Grade-Level/First/PreK-12-Subject-Area/Literature https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Browse/Grade-Level/First...) Occasionally they will actually read short passages from readers. After they read anything they will have to fill in some sort of (standards aligned) paperwork. They will never have extended reading time in class. As an example, a 1st grade reading teacher needs to cover CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.1.(1-10) (reading literature); CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.1.(1-10) (reading information text); and CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.1.(1-4) (but actually 15 substandards) (foundational skills). Actual standards at http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/1/ http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/1/

Kluny 9y ago
Oh wow, that sounds suicidally boring. Way to kill the joy, eh.
- tropo 9y ago
  It's mandatory to be boring. Anything else is offensive. Little kids want to read about flinging poo, farting, projectile vomit, violence, and every possible misbehavior. Supposed "children's books" are actually marketed toward grandmothers and public school librarians.
  - Kluny 9y ago
    What about that Captain Underpants crap? I hated it when I was a kid but it seemed pretty good to the other kids and kind of acceptable to the adults.
    - tropo 9y ago
      That often gets banned for crudeness, but otherwise yes. It has the right idea. I object to it for a completely different reason: bad spelling and grammar. I think a kid's book should set a perfect example.

zellyn 9y ago

The interview is clearly about a book; I assume they focused on the story around the writing of the book, rather than recapitulating the contents of the book. If you want to know what is done badly, and how to improve, I imagine the best thing would be to read the book.

woodandsteel 9y ago
I have read many hundreds of interviews with non-fiction book authors, and they almost always include some of the specific ideas of the book. Indeed, usually that is most of what the interview is about.
ahdroit 9y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/books/language-at-the-speed-of-sight-mark-seidenberg.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/books/language-at-the-spe... quote: "Most of all, as he, teachers and other reading-instruction stakeholders have already joined forces to do in the Wisconsin Reading Coalition, he pleads with those who teach written communication and those who research it to start, at last, communicating with one another."

jjuel 9y ago

It was very much a nothingburger. I am disappointed I read the whole article.

sarahconstantin 9y ago

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?

rogerthis 9y ago
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 had been replaced with the whole word method here in Brazil... that's another and long story. EDIT 1: typo.
- mkempe 9y ago
  The "Look Say" method you describe (vs the classic "Phonics" method) was also widely deployed in the USA, to the detriment of many children's reading and writing skills.
  - tropo 9y ago
    I object to both. The whole-word method is required for Chinese languages. Phonics is obviously proper for Spanish and Russian. English is not so extreme. Phonics is useful, but it falls short. I've seen the disaster that is pure phonics with English, leading to a kid who mostly couldn't read at age 14. On the other hand, it will be hard to develop a decent vocabulary with the whole-word method. A hybrid approach works nicely. See phonics fail on The Chaos: https://www.learnenglish.de/pronunciation/pronunciationpoem.html https://www.learnenglish.de/pronunciation/pronunciationpoem....
    - camelite 9y ago
      One part of the solution is to introduce exceptions early. The whole thing is a more complicated business than a one-to-one sound-letter correspondence. But it is a problem that has been solved for a long time now[1]. Cognitive science is not required. The only mystery is how this is not more widely known. [1] teach your child to read in 100 easy lessons, and associated school curricula from the same author