4 ms·
> Time spent listening to hard books is for most children also more marginally useful than time spent trying to learn to read very simple books independently, e
by pfarnsworth 7y ago
> Time spent listening to hard books is for most children also more marginally useful than time spent trying to learn to read very simple books independently, especially at the earliest ages.
I disagree about introducing hard books, especially at an early age. Young children will simply ignore things they don't understand, they don't attempt to understand it. If they are inundated with words they don't understand, they will simply move onto another activity. My son started reading at 2, but as his reading improved, it was challenging finding books that weren't too hard for him, with the right word density and vocabulary so that he remained engaged in reading.
Now he's 5 and he's reading at a grade 8 level, and still he will ignore some words but now he's old enough to occasionally ask me what a particular word means.
- jacobolus 7y agoWe are talking about listening comprehension, not reading comprehension. Childrens’ listening comprehension is far ahead of their reading comprehension, and improves very quickly when they practice; if their school teacher reads aloud for 1+ hours per day, they’ll get a whole pile of practice. By “hard books” I mean that school-age students (age 5+) have no trouble listening to real chapter books (say Charlotte’s Web or Matilda) instead of only short rhyming picture books. I’m sure your son could start handle listening to those when he was 3.5, but he’ll still get something out of listening to them at age 6, as will the slowest students in the class. I don’t mean that we should be dropping Faulkner on a 2nd grade class.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]