The Science of Reading: using research to teach reading
Check the Better Start to Literacy MoE work with UC (and their new texts which are going to become available soon).
How do ch'n LEARN to read vs how do we best TEACH ch'n to read?
This is based on 'old' science.
Check the Year 5 results in PIRLS: 10% of our children came through as illiterate (not even able to be qualified as 'low').
Reading isn't 'natural': speech is natural; reading is an invention. We 'hijack' different parts of our brain to teach reading and writing. We can wire and rewire teach neural pathways.
N.B. the ladder of reading.
ALL ch'n benefit from a structured literacy approach. Up to 65% absolutely need it/ it's absolutely essential, but all will benefit.
N.B. The Simple View of Reading, Gough and Tumnor, 1986
- reading = decoding x language comprehension (if either decoding or language comprehension = 0 the result is 0).
Also see Scarborough's Rope model (2001) relating to comprehension and word recognition.
See Caroline's handout:
- think about MR - decoding + comprehension
- RR - oral language and emotional challenges perhaps masked his potential
- MaQ - ? perhaps like MR
- pre-alphabetic phase or logographic phase
- partial alphabetic phase
- full alphabetic phase
- consolidated alphabetic phase - orthographic mapping
- automatic alphabetic phase (automatic recognition of almost every word you see, and at that point you can have comprehension); that automaticity is crucial.
No comments:
Post a Comment