Talk:Reading education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 2006 talk 2 Needs Major Revision 3 Inaccurate/untrue factual information 4 Very POV 5 Factual dispute regarding the historical use of phonics in American education 6 Reverted edit regarding reading comprehension 7 US / UK / other english-speaking countries.

[edit] 2006 talk

The whole language approach is not the same as the "look-say" approach, though it does incorporate the use of sight words. The whole language approach emphasizes learning to read in context. The look-say, or whole word approach, has fallen out of favor, but there is still debate on the validity of whole language versus phonics. See the article titled "whole language".

The part on speed reading is contradictory to the article Speed reading.

If the work of the National Reading Panel has any bearing on "favor," then the Whole Language approach is definitely out of favor, instead of being the latest best thing. While its die-hard proponents, such as Kenneth Goodman, insist that their approach has been misunderstood, the term is almost anathema for teachers interviewing for public school jobs. In general, this article suffers from lack of references to support tricky claims, such as, "Its application to learning a primarily phonetic language like English has questionable value and has been associated with artificially inducing dyslexia." Jerekson 05:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I started work on Developmental Stages of Reading recently but am now wondering whether it might fit in better on this page. If not, I propose a link. Beckyam 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs Major Revision

This page duplicates information found on other pages, such as the phonics and whole language pages. Furthermore, it is not NPOV, in my opinion. Some editors clearly favor phonics and others whole language; this is problematic. Furthermore, the page never addresses instruction in other areas, such as reading comprehension and vocabulary. There have been many studies in both areas and these should be added. I propose that the page be almost completely rewritten, save some incorporation of key ideas.

I would like feedback on this proposal before I make these changes. Kearnsdm 09:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate/untrue factual information

I removed this statement, "The Orton-Gillingham corporation market products products and training derived from the work of Samuel Orton and Anna Gillingham." This is simply a false statement -- there is no such thing as "the Orton-Gillingham corporation". The phrase Orton-Gillingham is used generically to refer to a type of method, and there are various companies and associations which incorporate O-G in their name -- example: "Institute for Multi-Sensory Education for Orton-Gillingham", "Academy of Orton-Gillingham" -- but these are separate, unaffiliated organizations. It's hard to "source" a negative (i.e., to prove that there is no such thing) - but a quick internet search will document simply that there is no Orton-Gillingham "corporation" to be found. Armarshall 14:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very POV

Much of this article is POV; I'd think that a section header of "Why English spelling is so bad" is something of a tip-off. I've removed most of the inappropriate bolding that was present, and changed some of the constructions such as "a shocking percentage" to NPOV versions; that aside there's still a lot that needs to be fixed that, due to my lack of authority on the subject, I'm not qualified to fix. In fact, I might as well mention that much of the article seems to be a polemic for English spelling reform rather than an article about Reading education. - Alf the Frisbee Kid

I agree wholeheartedly - the content of this article is far from encyclopedic and needs a significant re-write.

There are several existing articles specifically about spelling reform (see Category:English spelling reform). The spelling reform content in this article should be summarized and links provided to appropriate existing articles. Content from this article that does not appear in the other articles could be added.

Incidentally, I'm working on several other articles related to reading, including reading skill acquisition, methodology, influential researchers and educators, etc. If anyone is interested in working with me across multiple articles on the topic of reading, please let me know on my Talk page.

Best,

Rosmoran 16:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire Diane McGuinness section should be taken out, until she demonstrates that she has some real knowledge of how Chinese reading is actually taught and what it entails. Anyone who has learned to read Chinese can immediately discredit these numbers-based theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.47.33 (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factual dispute regarding the historical use of phonics in American education

Hi,

This section states the following:

Phonics has been the traditional method for many years going back to the start of the public education system in America.

This is partially true, but definitely misleading. Whole word methods go back at least to the mid 1800's, and earlier in Europe, specifically in France and Germany.

I will make the needed revisions in the next couple of days, but I wanted to flag the problem immediately.

Rosmoran 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

Whole word is a systemn of learning to read used by many who are not able toi access phonics as a system of learning. Although phonics is prefered by those who are able to use their Auditory Learning style, this is not the case for all. There are those who are Visual-Spatial Learners who think differently , they think in pictures and soi need to use a whole word approach. there arw also those who have Auditory Processing Disorder, who have a listening disability, and therefore require a visuial alternative to phonics. look at the work of Dr. Linda Silverman (USA) and and Dr. Lesley Sword Australia, and others a good artilce that sumerises these issues can be found on the APDUK web site by Cate Turner (including citations) "Visual Spatial Children: Learning Disabled, Learning Disadvantaged,or Learning Differently" http://apd.apduk.org/cate_turner.htm or http://apd.apduk.org/catesintro.htm

there is also a copy of "Whole Word" from Dr. Silvermans book Upsidedown Brilliance at http://www.apduk.org/learningstyles/vslwholeword.htm

The factual dispute is created by those who are phonics only zealots who have no understanding of the needs of others, and are not prepared to learn about all inclusive teaching practices, we have them in the UK, and thye like ti discuss teaching systems but fail to see how this affects those who have problems with their prescribe methods. And they even go out of their way to deny the existance of medicla conditions such as APD because to accpet that APD exists would discredit their preffered teaching methods, and their income from the programs that they promote.

best wishes

dolfrog 00:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

As i have mentioned before WIKI is not just about the USA so this Dispute is an irrelevance so i have removed the dispute So this is merely a locla dispute to the USA, which from my experience of the specialis tUSA reading forums is split about this specific topic, which is never resolved because each side i too polarised by their financial interests in providing reading progrqams for schools rather than helping children to read.

dolfrog 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog,

I don't understand what your rant is about this time. In my post dated July 31, I said that it is incorrect to describe "phonics" as the traditional method of instruction in the US, going back to the beginning of American public education. My point is merely that whole-word types of instruction have a long history in the US. How does this statement make the article US-centric?

Where is your issue with what I'm saying?

Which section of this article do you have an issue with?

I have to say, I get tired of seeing you rant repeatedly about the same vague "issues" without making specific, productive recommendations for how to improve the articles.

Rosmoran 05:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted edit regarding reading comprehension

Hi,

Someone made a good faith edit to the following text in the section "Cognitive elements of reading" section:

This text:

Children who readily understand spoken language and who are able to fluently and easily recognize printed words do not have difficulty with reading comprehension. However, students must be proficient in both competencies to read well; difficulty in either domain undermines the overall reading process.

was changed to this text:

Children who readily understand spoken language and who are able to fluently and easily recognize printed words are less likely to have difficulty with reading comprehension. However, students must be proficient in both competencies to read well; difficulty in either domain undermines the overall reading process.

I changed it back to the original text because that is what the cited reference says. It's fine with me for this to be changed, but the change will require a different reference to be cited for that sentence.

Best,

Rosmoran 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US / UK / other english-speaking countries.

Are there any references to difficulties experienced by beginner readers in other than US English-speaking countries? Or it is all like 'we r dumb cant read'Linefeed (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)