lirazel | (no subject)

I recently listened to a (very interesting, recommended) 6-episode podcast called Sold a Story about why so many USAmerican kids (and Kiwi kids, too, apparently!) can't read. Long story short: a lady from New Zealand came up with this theory that kids don't learn by sounding out the words but by paying attention to context and stuff like this ("three-cueing"). Her ideas took off and schools stopped teaching phonics. There's a big publisher and some superstar reading pedagogy authors who have made an empire from teaching this weird theory despite the fact that neuroscience is very clear that, actually, yes kids do indeed learn phonetically. This is accompanied by a theory that if you just give kids books on topics they're interested in, they will learn to read automatically? I guess? The idea is to make them "passionate" readers but not actually, you know, worry about whether they understand the mechanics of reading. Which, as a lifelong passionate reader, seems wrong-headed.

It's a depressing story (mostly because it appears that upper and upper-middle class families have papered over this problem by hiring private tutors, while poorer and working class kids just suffer), but what I kept getting hung up on was that this has to be an English-language problem, right? The root of this thing has to come down to the fact that English has such weird and quirky spelling for so many words. A language like, say, Spanish that uses an alphabet or syllabic system for phonetic spelling--in which you always, always know how to pronounce the word just by looking at it--could never give rise to such a theory, right?

So the fact that this took off in the Anglophone world has got to be just another manifestation of the way that Anglocentrism bites us in the butt--if any of these people had looked at how kids learn to read Korean or whatever, they would have realized that their theory can't be right?

Or am I missing something?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A language like, say, Spanish that uses an alphabet or syllabic system for phonetic spelling--in which you always, always know how to pronounce the word just by looking at it--could never give rise to such a theory, right?

But it did! Up to the late 80s/early 90s, the phonic method was widely used (that's how I learnt!), but then the psychogenetic/immersive method became super popular. That in itself was not a problem--quite the opposite, because it definitely created a more immersive approach and reading experience. But in my opinion both methods can (and should coexist), because our brains need that structure when we are first approaching reading. Otherwise it's just like you said: a sort of reading pedagogy fad (that totally misrepresents Piaget's theories, I think!). And I agree with you in that poorer and working class kids are the ones more affected by a method that doesn't contemplate their reality. When I was a school librarian (in the mid 2000s), I definitely saw that kids benefited from immersive reading, and but also that they need that first structured approach! Giving kids books about things they're interested in is great (I hooked a lot of kids by offering them dinosaur books! XD) but first you have to give them the tools and structure to read them! Over here, in recent years, a sort of hybrid model has been tested, and I think that works a lot better.

Edited (Appropriate icon! :D) 2022-12-02 16:21 (UTC)

OH YAY! This is exactly why I asked the question, because I was hoping someone could give me some insight from a different language perspective. Count on you to do that!

But in my opinion both methods can (and should coexist), because our brains need that structure when we are first approaching reading....When I was a school librarian (in the mid 2000s), I definitely saw that kids benefited from immersive reading, and but also that they need that first structured approach!

Yes, this makes sense! So much sense! That phonics would be an indispensable part of learning to read but that there are other tools too! I'm really fascinated by the fact that it popped up in other languages too--thank you for correcting me!

It really is so interesting to read perspectives and experiences from all over, isn't it? Apparently this one is very similar everywhere, because we've all been fucked over by this fad that says that phonics are old-fashioned and conservative and psychogenetics are modern and creative and the best thing ever... and now people are slowly realising that maybe this is not so! It's ironic because people like Piaget or Vygotsky definitely pointed out the importance of a child's context, like you were saying above, or their reality or their interactions with the world, and so on, but they never ignored a systematic learning, so this fad makes no sense, and it's just a watered down version of what they meant... like most fads, right? So "phonics would be an indispensable part of learning to read but that there are other tools too" is pretty much it, both are useful in order to build a method that will reach as many people as possible and be useful to them, and I agree with you!

(Now I have fond memories of the school library... showing kids books about robots and dinosaurs and monsters, reading aloud... and helping them with phonics! XD)

ETA: I forgot to say thank you for another super interesting and thought-provoking post!

Edited 2022-12-02 16:39 (UTC)

I think a lot of it probably comes down to people wanting to have a silver bullet and to other people being able to make money selling them The Solution. It's probably just complex! And different things work for different people! But that's a frustrating answer, I guess.

(Now I have fond memories of the school library... showing kids books about robots and dinosaurs and monsters, reading aloud... and helping them with phonics! XD)

I love this!