Why cueing (MSV) is a poor way to teach children to read

[argonak]

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It was just reported that US school kids' reading comprehension has fallen by 50% in the last ??? years.  I just saw that, but can't remember where.  Damn.  When I google the latest that comes up is the Atlantic from April.

However, I do know from my own experience that college kids' capacity to read, to comprehend in just the last three years has plunged drastically.  Moreover, they don't believe that they should be required to read at all.  And just point blank refuse to read a book.

 

Those are pretty blanket statements.  I think its a little unhelpful to paint with such broad brush strokes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It was just reported that US school kids' reading comprehension has fallen by 50% in the last ??? years.  I just saw that, but can't remember where.  Damn.  When I google the latest that comes up is the Atlantic from April.

However, I do know from my own experience that college kids' capacity to read, to comprehend in just the last three years has plunged drastically.  Moreover, they don't believe that they should be required to read at all.  And just point blank refuse to read a book.

 

Really?  What did they expect when they got to, well, “College”?

[Ormond]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Really?  What did they expect when they got to, well, “College”?

First generation college students don't know what to expect in college if they have not had explicit instruction about that at the secondary school level.

I've had students who thought being required to read one normal length psychology textbook during their introductory psychology class was "too much reading." There are also many students who are surprised that at the college level they may be tested over material which is in their reading but which is never mentioned in class. They have often had high school classes where the teacher just covered everything in the textbook over again during class time, and don't know that college instructors don't have the time to do that and often want to introduce other material during classroom time. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Ormond said:

First generation college students don't know what to expect in college if they have not had explicit instruction about that at the secondary school level.

I've had students who thought being required to read one normal length psychology textbook during their introductory psychology class was "too much reading." There are also many students who are surprised that at the college level they may be tested over material which is in their reading but which is never mentioned in class. They have often had high school classes where the teacher just covered everything in the textbook over again during class time, and don't know that college instructors don't have the time to do that and often want to introduce other material during classroom time. 

Wow.

[Zorral]

7 hours ago, argonak said:

Those are pretty blanket statements.  I think its a little unhelpful to paint with such broad brush strokes.

I spoke of my students. My colleagues report the same experience. As do many others in other schools for undergraduates (grad students are different which is why we prefer grad level courses and hate doing our undergrad obligations). That's not blanket.  Reading comprehension, ya?

It really was noticeable from one year to the next of the entering students.

Your students are different?  If so, lucky you, and what makes them different.  (My school, by the way, is a prestige school -- so the kids should have had all the prep they needed.  But then maybe their parents cheated to get them in.  These days, who knows? Who cares? What the hell? But quite a while it's been the trend among quite of few of them, "I'm opaying for this.  I call the shots.")

ETA 5 hours later:  Here's another story about the decline in overall reading comprehension just put up on the NY Times:

"Reading Scores on National Exam Decline in Half the States
The results of the test, which assesses a sample of fourth- and eighth-grade students, will inevitably prompt demands for policy change."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/reading-scores-national-exam.html?

Quote

 

WASHINGTON —  America’s fourth and eighth graders are losing ground in their ability to read literature and academic texts, according to a rigorous national assessment released Wednesday that is likely to fuel concerns over student achievement after decades of tumult on the educational landscape.

Two out of three children did not meet the standards for reading proficiency set by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a test administered by the National Center for Education Statistics, the research arm of the Education Department.

The dismal results reflected the performance of about 600,000 students in reading and math, whose scores made up what is called the “nation’s report card.” The average eighth-grade reading score declined in more than half of the states compared with 2017, the last time the test was given. The average score in fourth-grade reading declined in 17 states. Math scores remained relatively flat in most states.

Only 35 percent of fourth graders were proficient in reading in 2019, down from 37 percent in 2017; 34 percent of eighth graders were proficient in reading, down from 36 percent. Overall student progress in reading has stalled in the last decade, with the highest performers stagnating and the lowest-achieving students falling further behind....

 

 

[Seli]

On 10/29/2019 at 11:40 PM, HelenaExMachina said:

You know you read a very similar article and started a similar topic at the start of the year? 

 

(have no issue with this, but i got a weird semse of deja vu in the thread and had to look)

I did think it was a continuation of that discussion, so was skipping ahead to get to the new posts :p

[Stego]

I know working adults who are illiterate. They are invariably capable morons and fit into the same category as functional alcoholics.

Blaming teachers for their incapacity is just as absurd as blaming a soccer coach because one of their athletes refuses to run. What do you do? Encourage? Cajole?

You can lead a horse to water and all that, but the reality is that most people are not readers, and there is no difference between illiteracy and just not reading. MOST ADULTS ARE FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE.

Let us also remember that reading in your native language is EASY. This was not a difficult skill to learn. By and large, those who lack the skill -- it's their own fucking fault.

[OldGimletEye]

On 10/30/2019 at 2:53 PM, Ormond said:

I've had students who thought being required to read one normal length psychology textbook during their introductory psychology class was "too much reading." There are also many students who are surprised that at the college level they may be tested over material which is in their reading but which is never mentioned in class. They have often had high school classes where the teacher just covered everything in the textbook over again during class time, and don't know that college instructors don't have the time to do that and often want to introduce other material during classroom time. 

Interesting because for me reading was my primary way of learning and lecture was secondary, mainly to just reinforce what I had read.  In fact, I was often likely to doze off during lecture.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 hours ago, Stego said:

I know working adults who are illiterate. They are invariably capable morons and fit into the same category as functional alcoholics.

Blaming teachers for their incapacity is just as absurd as blaming a soccer coach because one of their athletes refuses to run. What do you do? Encourage? Cajole?

You can lead a horse to water and all that, but the reality is that most people are not readers, and there is no difference between illiteracy and just not reading. MOST ADULTS ARE FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE.

Let us also remember that reading in your native language is EASY. This was not a difficult skill to learn. By and large, those who lack the skill -- it's their own fucking fault.

This article isn’t “blaming teachers” it’s blaming the people who refuse to update curriculum Teachers are required by the State to use.

[DMC]

12 hours ago, Stego said:

Blaming teachers for their incapacity is just as absurd as blaming a soccer coach because one of their athletes refuses to run. What do you do? Encourage? Cajole?

 

[Proudfeet]

12 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This article isn’t “blaming teachers” it’s blaming the people who refuse to update curriculum Teachers are required by the State to use.

It is also conflating basic reading skills with other skills such as critical thinking and structured writing skills to exaggerate its point. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

It is also conflating basic reading skills with other skills such as critical thinking and structured writing skills to exaggerate its point. 

No.  

It’s pointing out that you need basic reading skills to obtain the other skills.  You don’t learn to write well without reading.

[Proudfeet]

53 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  

It’s pointing out that you need basic reading skills to obtain the other skills.  You don’t learn to write well without reading.

Yeah, that's the thing. Their basic reading skills aren't as bad as they are made out to be.

[DireWolfSpirit]

On 11/2/2019 at 6:30 AM, Stego said:

MOST ADULTS ARE FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE.

What source are you using for that assertion?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Yeah, that's the thing. Their basic reading skills aren't as bad as they are made out to be.

So, teaching kids to be subpar readers is good enough?  The generalized lowering reading statistics is not a good thing and claiming subpar reading is “good enough” really misses the point.  You need to be a pretty good reader to be a good critical thinker.

[Proudfeet]

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, teaching kids to be subpar readers is good enough?  The generalized lowering reading statistics is not a good thing and claiming subpar reading is “good enough” really misses the point.  You need to be a pretty good reader to be a good critical thinker.

No? Please point out where I said "subpar is good enough". The point is that you aren't addressing the problem effectively. I'm saying that you are applying the wrong solution to the problem. My problem with the article is not that I disagree that you should apply the better and proven method. It is the examples it provides to illustrate its point that I find dishonest. Your takeaway from the article is that they are such poor readers that they are barely literate as seen from the below quote.

On 10/30/2019 at 8:42 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And if you read poorly how does the smartphone look up feature help you?

I don't think being a good reader is necessary to be a good critical thinker. I think that you are conflating correlation with causation but that is besides the point. You don't become a good critical thinker just by being good at reading.