Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."
Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.
Sure, but why not use other resources such as the pictures? If I read a word as “bag” instead of “box” in a sentence, and it doesn’t match the picture, why wouldn’t I use that picture and switch my reading to “box”? We can still work on the word but the picture helps me make the correction.
Because if you see “box” on the page and come up with “bag”, that’s a sign that you actually can’t read, and need help seeing the letters and connecting those letters to the sounds that they make. It’s a huge red flag that you need help learning to read.
+1,000
My DD's teacher (at APS), describing how she did on an oral reading test, said: "She read this word wrong but replaced it with another word meaning the same thing so that's great."
Uhm, no, it's not. Replacing one word with another that has ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LETTERS is not great.
It was evidence she was a very smart girl with dyslexia (undiagnosed and unacknowledged by APS).
Anonymous wrote:Hey everybody - stop saying, "Um...no" and "Uh...no." it comes across as so holier than thou.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."
Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.
Sure, but why not use other resources such as the pictures? If I read a word as “bag” instead of “box” in a sentence, and it doesn’t match the picture, why wouldn’t I use that picture and switch my reading to “box”? We can still work on the word but the picture helps me make the correction.
Because if you see “box” on the page and come up with “bag”, that’s a sign that you actually can’t read, and need help seeing the letters and connecting those letters to the sounds that they make. It’s a huge red flag that you need help learning to read.
+1,000
My DD's teacher (at APS), describing how she did on an oral reading test, said: "She read this word wrong but replaced it with another word meaning the same thing so that's great."
Uhm, no, it's not. Replacing one word with another that has ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LETTERS is not great.
It was evidence she was a very smart girl with dyslexia (undiagnosed and unacknowledged by APS).
I see your point but you are arguing it too much. Of course that’s not good for a disfluent reader. But I just read with a 2nd grader who is at an 8th grade reading level and he replaced a word with a synonym because he was reading very fluently and understood what he was reading and what word would be there so it is actually a technique of good readers.
Yes though I work with struggling readers who really over rely on this strategy and I have come to see that it’s really not good to give it much emphasis on teaching.
This is fine for people who already know how to read. In fact it’s normal. But it shouldn’t be a strategy for kids who are still learning to read. The way experts and beginners approach something is very different.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."
Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.
Sure, but why not use other resources such as the pictures? If I read a word as “bag” instead of “box” in a sentence, and it doesn’t match the picture, why wouldn’t I use that picture and switch my reading to “box”? We can still work on the word but the picture helps me make the correction.
Because if you see “box” on the page and come up with “bag”, that’s a sign that you actually can’t read, and need help seeing the letters and connecting those letters to the sounds that they make. It’s a huge red flag that you need help learning to read.
+1,000
My DD's teacher (at APS), describing how she did on an oral reading test, said: "She read this word wrong but replaced it with another word meaning the same thing so that's great."
Uhm, no, it's not. Replacing one word with another that has ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LETTERS is not great.
It was evidence she was a very smart girl with dyslexia (undiagnosed and unacknowledged by APS).
I see your point but you are arguing it too much. Of course that’s not good for a disfluent reader. But I just read with a 2nd grader who is at an 8th grade reading level and he replaced a word with a synonym because he was reading very fluently and understood what he was reading and what word would be there so it is actually a technique of good readers.
Yes though I work with struggling readers who really over rely on this strategy and I have come to see that it’s really not good to give it much emphasis on teaching.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."
Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.
Sure, but why not use other resources such as the pictures? If I read a word as “bag” instead of “box” in a sentence, and it doesn’t match the picture, why wouldn’t I use that picture and switch my reading to “box”? We can still work on the word but the picture helps me make the correction.
Because if you see “box” on the page and come up with “bag”, that’s a sign that you actually can’t read, and need help seeing the letters and connecting those letters to the sounds that they make. It’s a huge red flag that you need help learning to read.
+1,000
My DD's teacher (at APS), describing how she did on an oral reading test, said: "She read this word wrong but replaced it with another word meaning the same thing so that's great."
Uhm, no, it's not. Replacing one word with another that has ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LETTERS is not great.
It was evidence she was a very smart girl with dyslexia (undiagnosed and unacknowledged by APS).
I see your point but you are arguing it too much. Of course that’s not good for a disfluent reader. But I just read with a 2nd grader who is at an 8th grade reading level and he replaced a word with a synonym because he was reading very fluently and understood what he was reading and what word would be there so it is actually a technique of good readers.
Yes though I work with struggling readers who really over rely on this strategy and I have come to see that it’s really not good to give it much emphasis on teaching.
Anonymous wrote:
Good readers have a variety of tools, and pictures can be one of them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."
Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.
Sure, but why not use other resources such as the pictures? If I read a word as “bag” instead of “box” in a sentence, and it doesn’t match the picture, why wouldn’t I use that picture and switch my reading to “box”? We can still work on the word but the picture helps me make the correction.
Because if you see “box” on the page and come up with “bag”, that’s a sign that you actually can’t read, and need help seeing the letters and connecting those letters to the sounds that they make. It’s a huge red flag that you need help learning to read.
+1,000
My DD's teacher (at APS), describing how she did on an oral reading test, said: "She read this word wrong but replaced it with another word meaning the same thing so that's great."
Uhm, no, it's not. Replacing one word with another that has ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LETTERS is not great.
It was evidence she was a very smart girl with dyslexia (undiagnosed and unacknowledged by APS).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."
Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.
Good readers do a combination of both.
Uh, no. And anyone who studies the (well-established) science of reading would understand that looking at pictures is not reading, and it's a huge disservice to children to suggest that it helps.
Good readers have a variety of tools, and pictures can be one of them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."
Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.
Good readers do a combination of both.
Uh, no. And anyone who studies the (well-established) science of reading would understand that looking at pictures is not reading, and it's a huge disservice to children to suggest that it helps.
Good readers have a variety of tools, and pictures can be one of them.
Anonymous wrote:Hey everybody - stop saying, "Um...no" and "Uh...no." it comes across as so holier than thou.
Anonymous wrote:Hey everybody - stop saying, "Um...no" and "Uh...no." it comes across as so holier than thou.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."
Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.
Good readers do a combination of both.
Uh, no. And anyone who studies the (well-established) science of reading would understand that looking at pictures is not reading, and it's a huge disservice to children to suggest that it helps.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DP. My DC told me in 1st grade that "Good readers look at the pictures."
Uh what? Good readers look at the letters/words.
Sure, but why not use other resources such as the pictures? If I read a word as “bag” instead of “box” in a sentence, and it doesn’t match the picture, why wouldn’t I use that picture and switch my reading to “box”? We can still work on the word but the picture helps me make the correction.
Because if you see “box” on the page and come up with “bag”, that’s a sign that you actually can’t read, and need help seeing the letters and connecting those letters to the sounds that they make. It’s a huge red flag that you need help learning to read.