Email to Dr. David Boulton (Part 3 of 3)

·         luqman michel

·          

·         06/09/15 at 4:41 AM

To

·         David Boulton

Hello again Dr. David Boulton,

I think it is time to challenge our institutionalized assumptions about reading failure. Our assumption that many students will be poor readers can and should be changed. As Dr. G Reid said these kids are “instruction casualties”.

Now, I am giving you anecdotal evidence on questions you have raised in your interviews.

Please give me your views.

The following is from an online news paper in Malaysia.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2011/10/15/illiteracy-issue-raises-hard-questions/

October 2011

But it turns out that illiteracy among youngsters is a real problem. Just last month, it was revealed that out of a batch of 11,000 students chosen to undergo National Service training, 1,000 were illiterate.

“In the case of the 1,000 NS trainees who were found to be illiterate, maybe some of them are dropouts,” she was quoted as saying.

But then the question of whether they were dropouts or illiterate became irrelevant when, after a mere 30 credit hours of learning, the 1,000 became able to read and write.

Looking at the case of the NS trainees, isn’t it fair to say that the Education Ministry has failed to fulfill its responsibility of making sure that students master the 3Rs at the primary school level?

Still, despite the programmes mentioned by Mohd Ali, the education system has been unable to arrest the problem of illiteracy among schoolchildren. Why?

If all it took were 30 credit hours to help the illiterate NS trainees, what happened during their years in school? How did their poor performance in examinations like the Primary School Assessment Test escape the attention of their schools?

We cannot use the same approach that has yielded about 20% (30%?) reading failure for decades.

What is your comment?

Because learning is involved in everything,
changing how we think about learning changes everything.

Happy Days,

Luqman Michel

……………………………

·         luqman michel

·          

·         06/09/15 at 5:02 AM

To

·         David Boulton

Hello Dr.

http://www.learningstewards.org/unhealthy-learning/

How much of what they are struggling with is an innate learning problem and how much of what they are struggling with is what they have learnt in the past working against them learning now.

I believe I have given the answer to the above question.

http://www.learningstewards.org/when-learning-hurts-toxic-learning/

In my live events, I frequently ask educators how they feel about their math abilities. Typically less than  1/3rd indicate they feel good about them and about ½ feel bad about them. I then ask how many think their difficulties with math are the result of the way they were introduced to and/or taught math, rather than some kind of innate math-processing weakness. Virtually everyone who previously indicated they didn’t feel good about their math abilities raises their hands.

These anxieties are learned responses to our learning difficulties!

In the video I believe you said that the same applies to reading.

I joined the Lions Club recently and I am the chairman of ‘Assisting reluctant and struggling students’ committee.

We have made a few visits to schools but the red tape is too long. However, in our visits we had confirmation of a few things to support my anecdotal evidence (but then again it is just my words). Teachers told us that there are many kids who are good in mathematics but are very poor in language. They also told us that many kids good in mathematics don’t do very well in questions where there is writing involved. (e.g. If you had $10 and went to the supermarket and bought eggs for $3 …….)

Here we ought to question as to why these kids who are good at mathematics (which means their brain is working well) are weak in language.  The possibility is that these are shut-down kids.

Sir, your comments:

Happy Days,

Luqman Michel