Reading and compiling knowledge should dance with each other. The more you read, the more you know and understand, and conversely. Sometimes I feel like teachers' academies actually fear this. Because of course it's power. I remember how this worked as early as middle elementary school (grades 4 and 5).
The basic knowledge needed to understand text was only partially provided by the school classroom. The rest of it was compiled by an extended social conglomeration - including libraries, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, peer discussions, family conversations, and just about everything else. The vision and the hearing was always directed outward. There was no private screen (smartphone) nor were there ear-buds. Learning and understanding was dependent upon external sources, of people, and of informational packages, not necessarily privatized.
Why this was important was the fact that actual learning, building knowledge, increasing reading aptitude were not compartmentalized down into one narrow pedagogical exercise. A kid was surrounded by it all the time, every day.
One may argue that this is what internet connection and computerized devices are for, and a function they perform. Obviously, this is not the case. How many kids will wake up in the morning and immediately spend an hour looking up online all kinds of cool bits of knowledge that they can memorize and impress their friends with.
And yet, back in the day (the very early 1960s) this is exactly what kids would have done had such a device existed. Why? Because it was already hardwired into us. It was a natural thing. It did not feel alien or foreign.
But yes - a combination of knowledge building plus systematic phonics will go miles and miles toward actually bringing kids up to their proper developmental stage in reading. And with a strong emphasis on memory.
One of the negative impacts on memory work is the idea that at the touch of an ever-present button, you can just look a thing up - no need to memorize.
Imagine trying to think one's way through a complex layered thought process that requires calling to mind hundreds of facts, nuances, and impressions, suspicions, experiences, etc. As fast as what the speed of a mind actually is. Now, imagine having to look up almost all of those, which means stopping the process before it really gets started. Most kids would give up after about 2 minutes.
Because it would quickly get just that tedious.
When I was a kid, there was a game I used to play with my own brain. I think I remember calling it the thought train. You let your mind wander (when you're sitting by yourself with nothing particular to do, or otherwise unengaged in anything much) and thoughts lead to other thoughts. After about 4 or 5 minutes of this, you stop. And reverse, going the other way, back to the initial thought, recognized which thought led to the next. Pretty nifty exercise.
By this measure, the memories of many children now, are 9-pound weaklings. Sure I hated memory work when it was memorizing 47-verse old English ballads. But far more than just the latest episode of a TV show stuck like glue.
And lastly -as with so many things, practice makes perfect. And if it doesn't make it perfect, it makes it pretty damned good anyhow. So there are two choices: reading like pulling teeth. Or reading to find out what happens next, or how this thing works, and why it does. Reading as an active and engaged curiosity machine. Which is a thing you can't teach to a kid. You can either wake it up, or put it to sleep. The rest is a natural process, either way.
It’s true that reading is a construct based on decoding words automatically & fluently, and that vocabulary is a predictor of reading comprehension; however, as an education evaluator, learning specialist & language pathologist I have seen too many classrooms without explicit reading instruction. If children cannot decode automatically & fluently no amount of vocabulary building will help them be literate.
Reading and compiling knowledge should dance with each other. The more you read, the more you know and understand, and conversely. Sometimes I feel like teachers' academies actually fear this. Because of course it's power. I remember how this worked as early as middle elementary school (grades 4 and 5).
The basic knowledge needed to understand text was only partially provided by the school classroom. The rest of it was compiled by an extended social conglomeration - including libraries, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, peer discussions, family conversations, and just about everything else. The vision and the hearing was always directed outward. There was no private screen (smartphone) nor were there ear-buds. Learning and understanding was dependent upon external sources, of people, and of informational packages, not necessarily privatized.
Why this was important was the fact that actual learning, building knowledge, increasing reading aptitude were not compartmentalized down into one narrow pedagogical exercise. A kid was surrounded by it all the time, every day.
One may argue that this is what internet connection and computerized devices are for, and a function they perform. Obviously, this is not the case. How many kids will wake up in the morning and immediately spend an hour looking up online all kinds of cool bits of knowledge that they can memorize and impress their friends with.
And yet, back in the day (the very early 1960s) this is exactly what kids would have done had such a device existed. Why? Because it was already hardwired into us. It was a natural thing. It did not feel alien or foreign.
But yes - a combination of knowledge building plus systematic phonics will go miles and miles toward actually bringing kids up to their proper developmental stage in reading. And with a strong emphasis on memory.
One of the negative impacts on memory work is the idea that at the touch of an ever-present button, you can just look a thing up - no need to memorize.
Imagine trying to think one's way through a complex layered thought process that requires calling to mind hundreds of facts, nuances, and impressions, suspicions, experiences, etc. As fast as what the speed of a mind actually is. Now, imagine having to look up almost all of those, which means stopping the process before it really gets started. Most kids would give up after about 2 minutes.
Because it would quickly get just that tedious.
When I was a kid, there was a game I used to play with my own brain. I think I remember calling it the thought train. You let your mind wander (when you're sitting by yourself with nothing particular to do, or otherwise unengaged in anything much) and thoughts lead to other thoughts. After about 4 or 5 minutes of this, you stop. And reverse, going the other way, back to the initial thought, recognized which thought led to the next. Pretty nifty exercise.
By this measure, the memories of many children now, are 9-pound weaklings. Sure I hated memory work when it was memorizing 47-verse old English ballads. But far more than just the latest episode of a TV show stuck like glue.
And lastly -as with so many things, practice makes perfect. And if it doesn't make it perfect, it makes it pretty damned good anyhow. So there are two choices: reading like pulling teeth. Or reading to find out what happens next, or how this thing works, and why it does. Reading as an active and engaged curiosity machine. Which is a thing you can't teach to a kid. You can either wake it up, or put it to sleep. The rest is a natural process, either way.
It’s true that reading is a construct based on decoding words automatically & fluently, and that vocabulary is a predictor of reading comprehension; however, as an education evaluator, learning specialist & language pathologist I have seen too many classrooms without explicit reading instruction. If children cannot decode automatically & fluently no amount of vocabulary building will help them be literate.