Below is a tweet by Brett Benson (@SoLInTheWild).
Here are my thoughts:
How does a child prone to disengaging from reading connect concepts when they've been taught the sounds of letters incorrectly from the start?
I've said this several times in my blog posts, and I'll say it again: Most educators and researchers have an ego that blocks them from accepting ideas contrary to what they've preached for decades.
An excellent example is James Chapman, who refused to accept that phonological awareness deficits are not the root cause of dyslexia—despite research reports that emerged after my numerous social media articles since 2010. LINK
We also have Mark Seidenberg, author of Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can't. Despite all the logical explanations, he insists that letters must be taught with extraneous sounds. LINK LINK
Brett Benson (see his tweets below) points out correctly that the "curse of knowledge" leads us to assume students can connect concepts as easily as we can.
Why don't educators ask themselves why about 20% of kids leave school illiterate, while 60% figure out reading between grades 4 and 6—after wasting years decoding nonsense like "luahmuhbuh" for lamb? Why can’t they discuss this matter with me openly?
Benson also notes: "What feels obvious to me often isn’t to students."
Similarly, what seems obvious to me isn't to many of these researchers and educators—or they're blinded by ego. They simply can't pivot and admit decades of mistakes.
Good instruction means teaching correctly from the outset, so students can build genuine connections. How does a child link the accurate letter sounds taught in grade one to the wrong letter sounds they've absorbed since toddlerhood via television programmes/ videos or in kindergarten? LINK LINK
The following is what I copied from the tweet by Brett Benson:
A curse of knowledge in teaching: assuming students can connect concepts as easily as we can. That’s a major difference between novices and experts. Experts see these relationships automatically because they know more and that knowledge fuels those connections.
Novices need them taught, modeled, and reinforced. I need to stay aware of this curse. What feels “obvious” to me often isn’t to students. Good instruction means slowing down, surfacing the links, and helping students build the knowledge that makes connections possible.
In class, I make these connections explicit by thinking aloud, linking back to prior lessons, and showing how new content fits into the bigger picture. I want students to see how knowledge connects, not just memorize pieces in isolation.
No comments:
Post a Comment