|
Jumpingmanjim posted:“Why Jaydon can’t read: the triumph of ideology over evidence in teaching reading”. oh come ON, at least try and be subtle with your classism
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
what's phonics exactly and why is it bad? i'd never heard of it until now and it's sort of weird that conservatives would be advocating for a particular language teaching strategy. you guys all say it's discredited but you don't say why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:what's phonics exactly and why is it bad? i'd never heard of it until now and it's sort of weird that conservatives would be advocating for a particular language teaching strategy. you guys all say it's discredited but you don't say why. Phonics is the act of teaching someone how to read by teaching the relationship that letter combinations have to the vocal sound they make (e.g., teaching that "ch" in all instances makes the "ch" sounds... actually this is hard to explain in text). The main criticism to this approach is that it divorces the "reading" of words from the meaning of words; you raise a generation of students who can read novel words relatively well but cannot place them in a larger language and grammatical context. The best educational models (as far as I'm aware) advocate for a phonics method to be taught alongside a "whole language" approach which involves teaching word context and definitions alongside novel words. Interesting tidbit, I learned about the distinction between the two because a return to phonics education was one of the signature aspects of the "no child left behind" educational act in the US which was a major reform of the US education system by Bush II. Serrath fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:what's phonics exactly and why is it bad? i'd never heard of it until now and it's sort of weird that conservatives would be advocating for a particular language teaching strategy. you guys all say it's discredited but you don't say why. Under phonics, once a child learns the basic and simple phonetic building blocks, the child can read any word and any book. Public schools have typically taught a "look and say" or word recognition approach to reading which limits the child to reading only words that the child has previously seen. One reason homeschoolers perform better than public schoolstudents on tests is that homeschoolers learn how to read with phonics in higher percentages than public school students do.In the United Kingdom it is sometimes described as a "back to basics" approach, which "despite being sneered at by the liberaltinkerers whose modern theories of teaching have caused so much damage to almost two generations, is turning the tide of illiteracy in some of the nation's most underprivileged areas."
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
SeekOtherCandidate posted:oh come ON, at least try and be subtle with your classism Why the Poor are so Dumb, Ha Ha Ha, the Poor: A Treatise, by Bumsniff Funnyboner, OAM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
So which teaching system is going to teach kids how to pronounce 'quay'? That's my sole metric for efficacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
How to destroy phonics in one easy step: Ask them what sound 'ough' makes. /f/, /ɒ/, /oʊ/, /ʊ/, or /uː/ depending on the word it's in. Mr Chips posted:So which teaching system is going to teach kids how to pronounce 'quay'? That's my sole metric for efficacy. Whole language approach. A phonics reader would probably say that as "way" the first time they see it because they'd be taught that 'qu' always sounds like 'kw' and 'ay' always sounds like the ay in "way." The fact that we can even have this discussion in print highlights why this is stupid. Smegmatron fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:what's phonics exactly and why is it bad? i'd never heard of it until now and it's sort of weird that conservatives would be advocating for a particular language teaching strategy. you guys all say it's discredited but you don't say why. Its not discredited, its just considered to be an impediment to an ability to read unfamiliar/irregular words in English, which is a big problem so it needs to be supplemented with a top down approach as well drowned in pussy juice fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Smegmatron seems to be the actual expert here so I'll defer to his opinion but that's the impression I got from the teachers I know anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
This is good timing, I'm reading up for a Literacies and Language course I'm doing right now, and I just went over the top down/bottom up approaches for teaching language to students. I should stress that I'm going into secondary science teaching, so I have no idea how it all goes at the primary level. As a few others pointed out, phonics is good for making students realise that a 'B' has a particular sound (phoneme) that can be expressed on a page by a letter (grapheme), and for assisting in spelling (sometimes). But it has very little to do with how well students utilise the "Four Resources" aside from the "code breaking" resource, such as realising that the letters c-a-t refers to a small four legged animal that meows. From what I can see, it doesn't approach text participation: using their background knowledge to make meanings from these symbols, text using: using text types for various purposes, or text analysis: critically examining texts to identify embedded values, interests, intentions, etc. I'm only just going over some of this material and it's doing my head in. If someone can relate phonics-based learning to this, then by all means, please profile more info, I'm extremely interested in this stuff. Either way, I'd prefer to listen to the opinions of someone that's actually done the research into educational methods (another course I have to do) rather than someone who says "it worked for me 50 years ago, why change it?" (some of the comments on that Devine article was poo poo like “my children and my grandchildren learned to read before they went to school ,simply by me reading to them, and making the sounds that the letters made, and repeating them over and over. I,m not a teacher! , it cant be too hard!!!" - no joke)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
I did my fair share of phonics and I think it worked out well, but it certainly wasn't the full picture, no. I guess it makes for a good baseline on which to pin all the numerous maddening exceptions that English is full of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
Smegmatron posted:How to destroy phonics in one easy step:
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
why did you guys reelect that racist dumbass rear end in a top hat. i say this as a texan what the poo poo is wrong with australia your prime minister is retarded
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:I did my fair share of phonics and I think it worked out well, but it certainly wasn't the full picture, no. I guess it makes for a good baseline on which to pin all the numerous maddening exceptions that English is full of. Fun fact about the English language: the 'I before E except after C' rule actually has more exceptions than adherents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
It works in the sense that a student will definitely learn to convert sounds to symbols and vice versa, but assuming that being able to do so is the sum total of "reading" is dumb as gently caress and doesn't actually involve any of the skills people really mean when they say "learn to read." At best it needs to be a small part of a larger pedagogical strategy. As I said, it's part of a push to get education back to a direct instruction model because tories think learning through critical evaluation is ideologically impure. P.S I'm not an expert, I'm just an ESL teacher who teaches people from other countries how to read, write, speak and listen to our really, really stupid and nonsensical language. The bulk of my masters of teaching was in second language acquisition, focusing on English, so I'm familiar with the processes but I don't work with or have any experience with primary students, only secondary and adult. My opinion is that English is such a flexible and transformable language that no one system of instruction or assessment is ever going to suit everyone's needs. The trick is to choose an outcome and work backwards from there to find the suitable approach. If you want pretty NAPLAN numbers and ignorant graduates who believe everything they're told, sticking to rote learning methods is a great choice. Being told to "sound it out" is how most of you would've been exposed to phonics at school, and it's good advice for a child who's trying to pronounce a new word aloud. It's dog poo poo for explaining what that word means or how to use it though, and those are the parts of language learning that we actually give a poo poo about. Smegmatron fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
sorry it was a confidence vote, so not a real vote
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
hawaiian_robot posted:I'm only just going over some of this material and it's doing my head in. If someone can relate phonics-based learning to this, then by all means, please profile more info, I'm extremely interested in this stuff. Either way, I'd prefer to listen to the opinions of someone that's actually done the research into educational methods (another course I have to do) rather than someone who says "it worked for me 50 years ago, why change it?" (some of the comments on that Devine article was poo poo like “my children and my grandchildren learned to read before they went to school ,simply by me reading to them, and making the sounds that the letters made, and repeating them over and over. I,m not a teacher! , it cant be too hard!!!" - no joke) This isn't my area but I have some familiarity with it. Phonics evolved from the whole word approach that they used to teach and it's a vastly superior method to this approach. As someone mentioned above, it's also not discredited; it does teach how to read in general but it's cumbersome for novel letter combinations and tends to neglect broader context like grammar and word usage. The best educational theories teach phonics concurrent to lessons in linguistics, teaching word definitions, creating like word association maps to put newly learned words and phonics into a broader context with other elements of language. Teaching "only" phonics runs the risk of developing classrooms of students who can read pretty much any novel word they come across but who aren't equipped with any skills to comprehend how language is constructed or how to use words to create sentences. **edit** I seem to have been beaten a couple of times with this reply but I'll leave it here anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Serrath posted:Phonics is the act of teaching someone how to read by teaching the relationship that letter combinations have to the vocal sound they make (e.g., teaching that "ch" in all instances makes the "ch" sounds... actually this is hard to explain in text). The main criticism to this approach is that it divorces the "reading" of words from the meaning of words; you raise a generation of students who can read novel words relatively well but cannot place them in a larger language and grammatical context. The best educational models (as far as I'm aware) advocate for a phonics method to be taught alongside a "whole language" approach which involves teaching word context and definitions alongside novel words. but not all letters/letter combos correspond to phonemes, and they leave prosody out. sounds like a useful component to language teaching but only a component. the novel word stuff sounds important though. Orkin Mang fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Smegmatron posted:Phonics is part of direct instruction, which goes back to the hypodermic model of communication, and that's what they really want to bring back. The idea is basically that you get told something, you remember it, and that means you've learned it. Its been discredited as a communication model for decades, let alone a pedagogical strategy, but it makes sense to Jerry from Doonside and he votes, so lets go with it. Leave Hoonside out of this. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:why did you guys reelect that racist dumbass rear end in a top hat. i say this as a texan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRM1S6Jno8A&t=47s
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5-2-jD-42Q light as a feather when im floatin through readin through the daily news measuring the hurt within the golden rule, centimeters of ether im heatin the speaker motivational teacher with words that burn people seeing the headlines lined with discord its either genocide, all the planet in uproar never good but rules of paradise are never nice the best laid plan of mice and men are never right im just a vagabond with flowers for algernon an average joe who knows what the gently caress is goin on its the hope of my thoughts that I travelled upon fly like an arrow of god until im gone
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:32
|
|
|
Serrath posted:This isn't my area but I have some familiarity with it. Phonics evolved from the whole word approach that they used to teach and it's a vastly superior method to this approach. As someone mentioned above, it's also not discredited; it does teach how to read in general but it's cumbersome for novel letter combinations and tends to neglect broader context like grammar and word usage. The best educational theories teach phonics concurrent to lessons in linguistics, teaching word definitions, creating like word association maps to put newly learned words and phonics into a broader context with other elements of language. Smegmatron posted:It works in the sense that a student will definitely learn to convert sounds to symbols and vice versa, but assuming that being able to do so is the sum total of "reading" is dumb as gently caress and doesn't actually involve any of the skills people really mean when they say "learn to read." At best it needs to be a small part of a larger pedagogical strategy. As I said, it's part of a push to get education back to a direct instruction model because tories think learning through critical evaluation is ideologically impure. It'd be really nice if English fit into that kind of approach, but as pointed out many times above, yeah it all just falls apart when unfamiliar words are encountered. The material we have for this course is "yeah learning how to go from sounds to letters and vice-versa is good, but it's not the sum total of reading", which again is what you guys have pointed out as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyoYf7rZVGI
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:In NSW election news the LNP are guaranteeing power prices will fall if they privatise the poles and wires and have banned speaking in Abrabic in prison if you are a 'terror' offender. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
Andrew Bolt thinks the Mardi Gras wasn't anti-ISIS enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
So presumably all non-English languages all also banned, since terrorism could be done in any of them and apparently jails for foreign-speaking terrorists don't have any translators or other language specialists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
at this point, whats the difference between russia and australia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:at this point, whats the difference between russia and australia? Putin is convincing when he acts macho.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
SadisTech posted:Putin is convincing when he acts macho. He's really not. E: Like, I know he's ordered the deaths of people but he's still a short, balding guy with manboobs who spends a massive amount of time and money cultivating his public image. Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:at this point, whats the difference between russia and australia? slightly safer roads and our political assassinations are a touch more metaphorical
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:at this point, whats the difference between russia and australia? The temperature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
tony abbott should be shot and killed
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
Hmmm, He's balding. Good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
I love that they dumped dirt in a car park for this photo op.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
I can't see the picture for some reason. Weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
TEAYCHES posted:tony abbott should be shot and killed
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 10:05
|
|
|
Hi ASIO.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Is the M4 a euphemism for Australia's arsehole?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 10:09
|
|
