Talk:Literacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In considering earlier comments about the lack of an international view in this article, I think the teaching literacy section is too long to exist as it is in this article because it is so English-centric.....................

I would like to suggest that we consider including a summary about teaching literacy in English here, create an separate article that addresses this topic specifically, and link to that article from this section (as in WP:Summary style. It is certainly a complex enough topic to warrant its own article.

There is an existing article on reading skills acquisition, however, as mentioned above, literacy refers to a much broader range of skills than does reading acquisition. So I don't think it would be appropriate to try to combine "teaching literacy in English" with "reading skills acquisition," even though the topics overlap.

Thoughts?

Best, Rosmoran 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Phonics section

Hi, all. One thing I think needs to be addressed in some way is that a comprehensive "phonics" method of teaching reading covers a great deal more ground than most people realize. In addition to teaching phonological awareness and sound-symbol correspondence, a comprehensive program also includes instruction in irregular words, the 6 syllable types, morphology (root words, prefixes, suffixes, etc) and word origin.

I'm not sure how best to include this in the article.

Thoughts?

Best, Rosmoran 09:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I copied what you said into the article almost verbatim, though it should be properly referenced. It would also be a good idea to update the phonics article. -- Beland 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Learning about literacy section

The Teaching/Learning literacy section is receiving "undue weight" in this article. That is to say, teaching literacy is dominating the content of the article, which is supposed to be about literacy in the broader context.

There are other articles that cover reading acquisition. I propose merging the bulk of the Teaching section in with the Reading skills acquisition article. What would remain in this article would be a summary of the major points currently included in the section, with a clear link to the more detailed article. (See WP:Summary style for information and examples).

Thoughts?

Best,

Rosmoran 04:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This subtopic is even more dominated by the topic of reading acquisition than it was when I posted the previous comment. If you have objections to this content being reduced to summary style and references provided to the articles that explicitly cover these topics, speak now!
Best,
Rosmoran 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Constructive criticism

I'll begin with the section titled "Why learning to read is hard," as it strikes me as the most flawed. First, the entire section is based on the statement that "many children of average and above-average intelligence experience difficulty when learning to read." This does not necessarily make it an inherently difficult task. Like all acquired skills, it comes easily to some and causes great frustration for others, much like math or riding a bike. Second, it only gives evidence that learning to read in English is especially difficult, and offers no comparisons to other languages. While it brings up some interesting points (brain being wired to process speech as opposed to written language, etc.), it doesn't prove its thesis and offers only one side to the argument. Much of the "Teaching literacy" section reads like a high-school term paper or magazine article, and simply seems unnecessary given the content. Finally, the article seems to have a definite slant towards the English language (and the U.S., in particular), the "Illiteracy" section being the most obvious. Personally, I think a good "slash and burn" is in order, and would help the article immensely ("trim the fat," so to speak). Opinions? intooblv 08:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi,Intooblv.
I agree with much of what you say. One comment I've posted a couple of times is that the article is very heavily weighted toward reading acquisition. A brief summary-style type section should be included, because a critical element of literacy is learning to read. But the details can be handled in the articles specific to that topic, many of which already exist. I haven't done anything about it in part because I prefer to work as part of a collaboration.
As to the difficulty of learning to read, dealing with the symbolic nature of the task is inherently difficult because there are so many neurological, cognitive and motor systems needing to be coordinated, and because it is a new skill relative to our long-term evolution. Consider: if it were "easy," most human civilizations would have writing systems. In fact, only a few civilizations have invented their own writing systems -- most were borrowed or adapted from the inventing language. Even today, two thirds of extant human languages are unwritten. You are correct that learning to read does come easily to a good percentage of the population, about 30%, but our illiteracy rates illustrate just how difficult a task it is. Nearly all the "illiterates" speak their own languages fluently (even if not correctly or eloquently).
Incidentally, the above paragraph summarizes the type of information I think should be included in this article.
Before a slash and burn campaign, I think it would be helpful to determine what topics *should* be included in the article. That would focus the "slash and burn," and also give us direction as to what needs to be kept or added.
Thoughts?
Best,
Rosmoran 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
You make some very good points, and I appreciate your acknowledgment that learning to read isn't always difficult, and (if it can be cited) I think that your "30%" figure is definitely worth mentioning. My main beef with the "Why..." section is that it puts too much effort into trying to prove that learning to read is difficult ("just look at all them little squigglies!") and not enough effort into why it is difficult. I think that the neurological/biological aspects of the argument are by far the most important/compelling, yet they make up very little of that particular section, which instead focuses on how complex English is as a written language. While true, this shouldn't constitute the bulk of the argument
Perhaps "slash and burn" is a bit harsh, but it sums up my feelings about this article fairly nicely; there's simply too much unnecessary material. My next post will probably include a list of suggestions for the article, which will need critiquing. intooblv 19:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you are interested in the article as a whole and willing to work on it. It's an important topic of particular interest to me, but I hesitate to work on it alone because of my personal biases.
I look forward to seeing your further comments.
Best,
Rosmoran 21:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Syllables

This is a minor point, but in the section "Why learning to read is hard", part of the section come from a book — Why Our Children Can't Read by Dr. Diane McGuinness. In that section, it is explained that English has sixteen different syllable patterns, with a maximum of three consonants after the vowel. I understand the mistake may be with Dr. McGuinness (and I can't correct a quote), but this seems to ignore words like exempts, glimpsed, horsts, instincts, sculpts, sixths, texts, thousandths, and waltzed. All of these have four final phonetic consonants. If you use a different definition of consonant, you can approach five consonants with the word "warmths".

Her main point may be valid, but it seems she's just wrong about syllables. (If that is in her book)

I'm not sure what to do, or if anything should be done, but if anyone changes this, the same thing is here, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_education

- Misha

216.254.12.114 17:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing that could be done is to take the quote out, as it is inaccurate, or comment on that fact. You'd need a source to contradict that source...Hires an editor 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
This is an interesting point that I didn't notice before. Mcguinness' list of syllable types is very different from the 6 syllable types normally presented in language and reading instruction courses.
In the typical 6-syllable paradigm, all of the examples you give fall into what is known as a "closed syllable." A closed syllable is one that has a vowel followed by one or more consonants --- in this type of syllable the vowel is usually short (your examples do include some of the exceptions, such as the r-controlled vowel -or in horsts).
In your examples, the extra letters are all suffixes that do not add additional syllables (for example, a -tion ending adds another syllable to the word). Syllable patterns in this context are related to spelling patterns, not pronunciation. Adding an -s at the end of a word does not change the syllable type -- it's still a closed syllable. (Incidentally, even in McGuinness's paradigm, "glimpsed" and "waltzed" are non-examples even by your definition, as "e" is a vowel. )
I think that we can probably replace the specifics of McGuinness' syllable types with a different example of the irregularities of English spelling. To my mind, including the syllable patterns clouds the picture rather than clarifying it.
What would you think about using an example along the following lines (taken from the Alphabetic principle article:
In English, spelling patterns usually follow certain conventions but nearly every sound can be legitimately spelled with different letters or letter combinations. [1] For example, the letters ee almost always represent /i/, but the sound can also be represented by the letter y. Similarly, the letter cluster ough represents /ʌf/ as in enough, /oʊ/ as in though, /u/ as in through, /ɔf/ as in cough, and /æɔ/ as in bough.
Thoughts?
Rosmoran 04:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
No thoughts or comments. Except that in the context of the articles, Dr. McGuinness's list seems (to me) to be phonetic, not ..uhm...graphemic? Also, I have no idea what you mean by "your definition".
-Misha
216.254.12.114 22:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Orthographic is probably the word you're looking for.  :-)
With regard to McGuinness referring to phonemes (sounds) or spelling (letter patterns), it's certainly possible that I misunderstood. My experience is that discussing syllables in terms of CVC, etc, is only done in reference to the spelling patterns of those syllables. I don't have McGuinness' book in front of me, so I have no way to confirm one way or the other.
By "your definition," I just meant the way you seem to interpret the stated rule based on the examples you provided: exempts, glimpsed, horsts, instincts, sculpts, sixths, texts, thousandths, and waltzed. No offense intended. Rosmoran 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed reference

This was floating around at the end of the "Information and communication technology literacy" section, but I have no idea what facts it is supposed to support. -- Beland 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Achterman, D. (2006, December). Beyond wikipedia. Teacher Librarian, 34(2), 19-22. Retrieved July 11, UNO, Information Science &Technology Abstracts database.

[edit] Removed passage on texting

I removed these two paragraphs, which are a rather strongly opinionated criticism of how text messaging is allegedly making children illiterate. Any such discussion would need to be more well-rounded; I'm sure you could find other authors who have written that text messaging is putting normal pressure on the language to change, and some who would call this author overly proscriptivist. The their/there example is a weird one to pick on, since those two words sound the same when spoken, and as such are commonly confused when written. Is any of this really an appropriate level of detail for this encyclopedia article? -- Beland 01:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been argued by many[weasel words] that the linguistic changes which are associated with new media technologies and communicative practices have not only altered but replaced normal levels of literacy and accepted norms of communication. Indeed apart from becoming recognised as its own form of written communication, text talk has been “absorbed into languages more generally”, [1] and with its ever increasing use by mobile users it has been suggested by many to have contributed to a drastic decline in literacy rates of school children around the world. It has been reported that high school students are writing entire essays in text talk rather than standard English.[citation needed]

In his book Cellphone Culture Gerard Goggin examines how the spread of texting and other forms of multimedia literacy can be seen as a “threat to culture”. [1] Indeed Goggin remarks that text talk is typically discussed as something that “threatens the processes of cultivation and learning around which pedagogy and citizenship revolve”.[1] Such anxieties and fears stem from the potentially damaging effects mobile phone texting can have on written literacy. Indeed it has been reported that a “number of senior secondary pupils can not distinguish between ‘their’ and ‘there’”.[1] In addition to discussing the fears of multimedia literacy Goggin also documents studies conducted in Sweden that show that the “language use in text messaging is to be regarded as a variant of language use, creatively and effectively suited to the conditions of SMS and the aims for which it is used”.[1]

[edit] Arab Countries Illiteracy Rates Claim

"Asian, Arab and Sub-Saharan African countries are regions with the lowest literacy rates at about 10% to 12%"

So can someone give an example of an Arab country that has literacy rates at about 10% to 12%, as this article claims?

[edit] Citation request in "Which approach is better section"

Hi,

The following sentence needs a verifiable citation because it is a statement of opinion :


Consideration should be given to alternative methods of teaching reading since neither the phonics method, the whole word or whole language method, nor any combination of them is completely successful with every student.

Rosmoran (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map is outdated

Hello. Noticed that the World Literacy map for some countries might be outdated. Like Pakistan for example needs to be orange in the 50-69% according to all estimates including UN and world factbook. Can someone fix this chart? - SG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.85.116 (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analphabetism and illiteracy

Both of them currently redirect here. I believe they should have a separate article, as, simply, literacy and illiteracy are two related but different phenomena.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)