this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
52 points (98.1% liked)

Excellent Reads

1525 readers
1 users here now

Are you tired of clickbait and the current state of journalism? This community is meant to remind you that excellent journalism still happens. While not sticking to a specific topic, the focus will be on high-quality articles and discussion around their topics.

Politics is allowed, but should not be the main focus of the community.

Submissions should be articles of medium length or longer. As in, it should take you 5 minutes or more to read it. Article series’ would also qualify.

Please either submit an archive link, or include it in your summary.

Rules:

  1. Common Sense. Civility, etc.
  2. Server rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Fair warning: This is complete nonsense:

When I asked him what he makes of the cognitive science research, he told me he thinks scientists focus too much on word recognition. He still doesn't believe accurate word recognition is necessary for reading comprehension.

"Word recognition is a preoccupation," he said. "I don't teach word recognition. I teach people to make sense of language. And learning the words is incidental to that."

He brought up the example of a child who comes to the word "horse" and says "pony" instead. His argument is that a child will still understand the meaning of the story because horse and pony are the same concept. 

I pressed him on this. First of all, a pony isn't the same thing as a horse. Second, don't you want to make sure that when a child is learning to read, he understands that /p/ /o/ /n/ /y/ says "pony"? And different letters say "horse"?

He dismissed my question. 

"The purpose is not to learn words," he said. "The purpose is to make sense." 

Cognitive scientists don't dispute that the purpose of reading is to make sense of the text. But the question is: How can you understand what you are reading if you can't accurately read the words? And if quick and accurate word recognition is the hallmark of being a skilled reader, how does a little kid get there?

Goodman rejected the idea that you can make a distinction between skilled readers and unskilled readers; he doesn't like the value judgment that implies. He said dyslexia does not exist — despite lots of evidence that it does. And he said the three-cueing theory is based on years of observational research. In his view, three cueing is perfectly valid, drawn from a different kind of evidence than what scientists collect in their labs.

"My science is different," Goodman said.

This idea that there are different kinds of evidence that lead to different conclusions about how reading works is one reason people continue to disagree about how children should be taught to read. It's important for educators to understand that three cueing is based on theory and observational research and that there's decades of scientific evidence from labs all over the world that converges on a very different idea about skilled reading.

[–] De_Narm@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It seems he is just too far up his arse to admit he is wrong. The pony question perfectly shows this.

[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago

The pony question tells me he's never encountered a child in the wild. You think a kid isn't gonna correct you the second they know the difference?!

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

Oh wow I just caught the dyslexia bit. The rest was so bad I just blew right past it.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 4 months ago

He talks an awful lot about making sense for someone who clearly doesn't.