How is the gap between children and reading science and how to be taught?
Mark sedenberg is not the first researcher to reach a startling conclusion: only a third of the nation’s students read in grade school. Many reasons, but she’s over and over again refer to is this: the children in the school the way has nothing to do with the latest research, that is, how language and speech in the child’s brain development.
Seidenberg is a cognitive scientist and professor at the university of wisconsin-madison. In his latest “visual speed language”, he points out that “reading science” may be a difficult concept for education workers. He says this requires some basic understanding of the “mechanisms” of brain research and reading, or often called phonetics.
I talked to Seidenberg about how to improve reading. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
So how do you explain this to the teacher?
The success of reading depends on the connection between print and voice. There is a lot of behavioral research on brain tissue and brain development, neuroimaging studies, and the conclusion is that proficiency reading is related to children’s spoken language, grammar and their known vocabulary. This is about teaching children the correspondence between letters and words on the page.
You mean the teacher didn’t know this?
The basic science does not involve the preparation of teachers. More often, they were told that it was not really relevant, that science was sterile and that it had nothing to do with what the teacher did in class.
In my book, I point out that in order to master research, [teachers] need basic scientific literacy to understand it. They can disband [what I’m saying] and share my anger.
Is that why you write with speed? The violence?
I was inspired by cumulative frustration. I reviewed the science of reading and recorded its impact on education practice, but I think it’s bad. It puts children at risk of failure.
Scientists have long discussed the problem and tried to communicate and fail with education workers. We haven’t been able to get through the schoolhouse door.
In your book, you will enter the reading war and argue that the debate about pronunciation and the overall language is largely due to the poor reading ability of American students. But you say it’s not a “or” question. Children need access to great books and rich literature, and they need to know the symbols and sounds of letters. Where are we?
When the war was over, science failed. Phonics is just a specific part of learning to read, which is important at a particular moment in child development. Reading wars did not focus on this issue, so the conflict was forged.
You said the conflict was political.
The political solution is called “balanced literacy” and calls on teachers to take advantage of both approaches. But it leaves teachers who have been trained to fire their pronunciation and brush off science.
One of the interesting Suggestions you’ve made is that college graduates who sign up for American teaching are not taught as classroom teachers, but as an army of reading counselors.
Is. They can be trained to provide supplementary reading guidance, one-on-one or in groups. That’s what the rich do. They pay for their tutors. The poor cannot.
So I would say, put more people in the classroom or in the reading and language classes. That will help.
So what about the recent legislation in Michigan that prohibits schools from getting third-year students into fourth grade, unless they can read in grade? Education workers have always supported the new law, but said it lacked money. Do you think such authorization is a good idea?
If they just pass a law and say, “you read better,” I don’t think it’s a good idea. This is to punish the child. Teachers, students and parents must be supported by planning and investment.
You insist that teacher training and certification are not sufficient, you choose education college.
Apparently, education school is setting up teacher failure. [teachers] work in the classroom, because the ideology in school is a philosophy of “learning by doing”. I think it’s a mess.
At the end of the book, you recommend the education comprehensive reform curriculum to ensure that the newly established teachers have a basic understanding of linguistics and child development after their departure. You say the country has to change their teacher license requirements. Finally, you want the district to expand greatly to help children who are struggling to read.
Is. It is necessary to involve all these people. In fact, we can see how parents and community leaders can join. I don’t pretend to know how to approach them. What I can do is explain how reading works, how children develop, and how to make children read better.