This is a
continuation of a discussion thread on LinkedIn. Yesterday I wrote about evasive answers and today it is about not answering direct questions.
Emma
Hartnell-Baker wrote:
The science of how children learn to read is fairly settled,
but instruction is where the issue lies.
When children enter the self-teaching phase (Share, 1995;
Ehri, 2014), they continue to develop orthographic knowledge by deducing words
from context—if those words are already part of their vocabulary. Activities
like repeated reading help them track back and re-code without instruction. Children who face no difficulties do this easily, often
without any phonics instruction. This is precisely why three-cueing is so
effective for children with good phonemic awareness—they
are essentially teaching themselves phonics. And their phonics isn’t
limited to around 100 correspondences.
My response
now:
Where did
this woman come up with such a notion about how children learn to read?
I have asked
this question several times over the last few years on social media and no one
responds and yet these people keep stating something as if they know it.
Questions
that need to be answered are:
i.
How
did about 80% of kids who learned during the Whole Language period learn to
read?
ii.
How
do about 80% of kids learn to read despite the sounds of letters being taught
wrongly?
iii.
Where
is the Science about how children learn to read?