Get Schooled

By Broken Record

November 17, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

A picture is worth a thousand words! I totally believe in the power of pictures and images along with text when you are LEARNING. I am naturally right brained, but learned to think analytically with my left brain, too. Pictures were especially useful to me in law school (which I started at the age of 40). I would sketch little pictures next to the cases in the text, and draw pictures when I was taking class notes. It was a shorthand for me to remember the major issues. I am an avid reader and of course read mass quantities without pictures, but when I am learning new material, I always learn better if I use pictures, too.

By SET

November 17, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Is this an example of concrete vs abstract thought?

As children get older the less bright of those children are unable to continue in academic work as the workload becomes more abstract.

I have not heard of the difference becoming so obvious at 4th grade. 6th or 7th grade maybe.

Does this have anything to do with the new reports of lower average age of onset of puberty? ABCNews reported recently that recent studies say black females are starting puberty at age 8 which is an unprecedented low. Are the school districts paying attention to these studies and does anybody consider them in setting curriculum?

Whatever is going on, the public schools need to understand whatever is happening and do as much as they can for the students. Continuing to claim that everybody is the same and treating everyone the same without regard to individual performance and ability leads to frustration and school violence.

By Broken Record

November 17, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

SET, Yes it is partially concrete vs. abstract thought, and it ties in with how the development of the young brain affects how children learn. BUT there are also hard wired differences in learning styles that stay with us into adulthood. Some of us are visual learners, others auditory, some tactile, some abstract, some concrete, many a combination. Some people learn better going from the general to the specific, big picture to little detail, and others learn in the opposite direction. I read that it takes at least seven repetitions for us to learn something that will go into long term memory. IMO the best way to address all learning styles and developmental differences, too, is to teach with the words in the text, with pictures to reinforce the central themes, through teacher lectures, hands on for math, science and social studies, and maybe video or audio presented to reinforce the material. Our many learning styles demand a variety of teaching methods.

By high school teacher

November 17, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Perhaps if we could teach reading with the new high defition PS-3 we might get better results. :)

By Broken Record

November 17, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

HS Teacher, LOL! I am listening to Neal Boortz on WSB and he talked to one guy who stood in line for 39 hours to buy 2 PS-3’s which he is selling on e-bay for a min. opening bid of $2,500.!! He stands to make a profit of at least $100/hr. for the time he spent in line. Pretty smart!

By MMM

November 17, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

What an interesting premise—and I think high school teacher has a excellent point. Processing pictures is what the babies that are placed in front of TV’s wire up their brains to do. Vision swamps hearing and the physical learning that playing with toys give. I wonder if this is doing damage (or maybe just changing) the sustained attention needed to us the MIND to paint the picture. I vaguely remember reading something in Scientific America that it is the auditory processing that is engaged when decoding written language.

I’ve just watched my children learn to read and I will say that at the beginning the pictures helped them derive meaning from context and guess at words they didn’t know. They also felt a sense of accomplishment when two sentences was rewarded with a page turn and a new picture.

But both are avid readers beyond needing pictures—although my second grader still loves cartoons and the flip-o-ramas in Captain Underpants still. They have very good abstract reasoning for their ages—and I don’t know how much our talking, reading, thinking with them, and limiting TV has done to help launch this.

By SET

November 17, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

Broken Record: It’s increasingly clear to me that the Internet has the potential to operate schools without the need for students to be corraled on a campus. I predict the rise of affordable Internet Private schools that will deliver better results than the present system of public schools.

Only think is that with both parents having to work full time and then some, if the kids are in the house alone during the day they could burn the place down while they are doing their lessons.

Big change is coming.

By Broken Record

November 17, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

SET, while I think that the internet is the best research and information tool ever invented (to date), I think there is great value in classroom teaching that cannot be delivered (yet) on the internet. I think the value of classroom education is in the socialization of kids working cooperatively in groups and in individual competition, in learning the social rules of behavior such as civil discourse, polite repsonses, patience and discipline, in earning a grade for hard work done for the boss (teacher). IMO the give-and-take in the classroom is more stimulating for growing minds than hours sitting alone at a computer monitor. School is a training ground for adult workplace behaviors and ethics. Of course not all teachers and schools conduct their classes to maximize these lessons. And that’s the biggest problem in education today. Learning in children is not just about information downloaded into their brains. It’s a social and academic process that requires a real person teacher guiding, moderating, praising, encouraging, and disciplining. As adults, yes we can learn anything on the internet, but there are still learning settings for adults in med school or law school or other professions that need the classroom interaction also.

By Rod

November 17, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Broken record - an opening bid of $2,500 does not mean it will sell. Most of the PS3s on ebay will end up selling for less than $1,000.

Happened with the other must have games came out.

By thomas

November 17, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

As someone trained in reading and language, I am familiar with the correlation between pictures and comprehension.

Children are taught in school to look at the pictures to gain insight into the message the author is trying to convey.

But the lack of pictures is not the reason children have more and more comprehension problems as they get older. The real reason is that as students get older, the books they read have more “difficult” text. There may be more unfamiliar words, the sentences are longer, and more of them.

In addition, in my observation MANY STUDENTS ARE NOT TAUGHT PHONICS!!!!! (I just had to let it out.) There is NO reason why a fourth grader should not be able to decode standard text. I have seen some things that are just plain sickening. I am having to teach phonics in the fourth grade. Long and short vowel sounds, consonants, syllibication, VCCV, VCV, etc. Pretty soon I’ll have to teach the old first grade maxim, when two vowels go a walkin’, the first does the talkin’.

If you PROPERLY teach reading in the lower grades, students won’t have problems in the upper grades. THAT’S A FACT, JACK!!!

STOP THE GAMES!!!! STOP THE DRAWING AND COLORING!!!! STOP THE MINDLESS DITTO SHEETS!!!! TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO READ!!!!

By catlady

November 17, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Comprehension suffers at the altar of “fluency” as defined by RF: how fast you can call words. The thought is if you can call the words you can understand them—not necessarily so!

Also, understanding nonfiction text is a different skill from understanding simple fiction. We don’t have “time” to teach students to read anymore, we are just getting them ready for the CRCT every minute!

You’ve heard the “Reading is Fundamental”? Seems like to be it should be “Reading is Incidental” in many classrooms. We rush, rush, rush to get on one bandwagon or another while the horse has not been hitched up yet!

By jim d

November 17, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

AMEN!

Preach on, Brother Thomas!

By high school teacher

November 17, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Thomas,

My son is in kindergarten, and I can assure you that he is learning phonics. They use the animated literacy program - they use different characters to teach sounds (Example: Polly Panda paints purple “P’s”). Each character also has a song that incorporates the sound. My son sees signs on the road and tries to sound out the letters. The animated literacy program my son’s school has been using is awesome! Wait a few years; you will see the fruits of this labor, hopefully.

By Broken Record

November 17, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

Thomas, I have been repeating the READING mantra in the Get Schooled blogs for some time, hence my new name, Broken Record. What do you think of requiring reading assessments EVERY YEAR at EVERY GRADE LEVEL, and then putting anyone reading below grade level into intensive reading skills classes until they come up to grade level? We could call these classes reading boot camp, not with abusive intimidating tactics, but focused individual learning, skill drilling and yes, PHONICS!! Teachers should be encouraging all students to read at least 1-2 hours a day beyond the school day. More reading means faster reading, bigger and better vocabularies, better comprehension, higher level thinking, and faster learning. Of course this would mean that kids should disconnect from their electronics; hang up the phone, turn off the PS-1, 2 and 3’s, DVDs, mp3’s, I-pods, etc.

By SET

November 17, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

Thomas is right about Phonics.

It’s terribly important that it be taught. What is the justification being used to eliminate it from the current curriculum?

By Janine

November 17, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

I have taught reading in both elementary and middle school….and even though I realize there is quite a controversy over the value of the teaching of phonics, virtually all of my best readers in middle school had a background in phonics. In addition, I have always found that the best way to learn to read is by reading… and it seems that the real reading of books, in class, with the teacher is long gone. We had a pilot program in my middle school in reading for a while..everyone had it one period a day… in which the majority of the reading class period was spent with the teacher reading a novel to the class, and then a silent reading period followed.THe circulation in the library increased over 50%..and the most of the students loved it and said it was they first time they had ever liked to read.

By Janine

November 17, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

I forgot to say that , when compared to their prior year’s reading scores on the ITBS, every student’s reading scores had improved significantly. However, it worked way to well, so it was eliminated over the pricipal’s objections.

By Janine

November 17, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Oh, and one more thing….our school won the county Reading Bowl and the state REading Bowl when they began to have it,every year that we had the program….The year it was replaced with the SRA scripted reading program, we didn’t even place….and the library’s circulation went way down.

By HB

November 17, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

SET, my understanding is that phonics was considered to be too confusing because their are so many exceptions to the rules in English. Personally, I don’t get it. My class learned using phonics and picked up on exceptions as we went along. I think some programs are stressing phonics again, but with a list of 40 common words that all children should know by sight rather than by trying to sound them out (includes is, was). This seems like a reasonable, effective compromise to me.

Does anyone know if Sesame Street still features phonics? I always loved the two-headed monster…

By Tina

November 17, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Broken Record, you sound like me! We need to catch children who are experiencing reading difficulties at the earliest possible age and bombard them with reading, because almost every other success in school comes from being able to comprehend what you read. I teach 3rd grade and hear so many lst and 2nd grade teachers saying “Well, the CRCT will catch them in 3rd grade”. It’s TOO late then! We have other subjects to teach in 3rd grade and don’t have the time to spend on the intensive reading instruction needed by some students. And it’s getting more and more impossible to get students placed into reading resource programs without wasting a whole year or more of their education.

By Broken Record

November 17, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

Tina, Thank you! I am not a teacher, but have tutored adults and children in reading. Can you do anything at your school to start some reading intervention? Is it possible? Kids learn to read K-2, then read to learn after that. Poor readers in 3rd grade are doomed if we cannot pull them out of class and bring their reading up to grade level.

By jim d

November 17, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

I’m not too sure pictures ever quit telling the story to kids in our public schools.

Has anyone else picked up one of your kids books and thumbed through it? Shoot—pictures on every page covering over half the page and very little substance in the print portion.

Hey—want to help the kids with their back pack weight issue? Cut the pictures out of the darn old books and reduce the weight by 50%

By Buy Danish

November 17, 2006 06:12 PM | Link to this

Broken Record and Tina,

It is interesting that the Waldorf Schools do not emphasize early reading, and in fact discourage it.

I know a some very brilliant people who went to Rudolph-Steiner in New York and they LOVED it.

It is a totally different approach that is not for everyone (and probably not for me!). However, it does belie the idea that children will be lost if they don’t learn to read starting in Kindergarten. It depends on the “system” -

Waldorf Education contradicts most public schools’ methods by de-emphasizing academics in early childhood. There are no textbooks until after grade five. The children basically write (draw) their own text through workbooks documenting through their experiences throughout the year. Academics are minimal in the first grade because reading is not taught till second or third grade. Waldorf’s academics are speaking first, then writing and reading last (River Song). Why does Waldorf delay reading? “Reading is the most abstract and intellectual … and makes higher demands on inner picturing and conceptualization”(Schmitt-Stegmann), which just begins developing in second or third grade. No grades are given at elementary level, only an evaluation of the child at the end of each school year.

By Broken Record

November 17, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this

Yes, Steiner is ‘out there’ and his curriculum and IMO his followers almost cult like. My daughter Susan visited Steiner’s original buildings in Austria last year when she was studying arshcitecture in Paris. ONe of the buildings looks like a giant squirrel! His philosophy and buildings are organic in design, and his curriculum organic also. I think the Waldorf School has success because they are teaching the children how to Think, to Process Information, and to Express themselves; then they teach them to read. As the children know how to learn they can learn how to read. Most of our public schools are more concerned with covering content and downloading informantion into students’ brains, ready for regurgitation on the CRCT, and NOT teaching them how to learn, how to think. while interesting, I think his methods would not be widely accepted, the philosophy is more like Scientology if you ask me! Here are links to his architecture and life: http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/GoetheanumI.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RudolfSteiner

By Broken Record

November 17, 2006 06:41 PM | Link to this

Please excuse the misspellings, capitalization, and punctuation errors in my previous post. I hit POST before I proofed!

By Buy Danish

November 17, 2006 06:44 PM | Link to this

Broken Record,

I’m a pretty “conservative” person, and it would not be for me. But there are some aspects of it that I think the public schools could use.

A building shaped like a squirrel is ridiculous, but so are buildings designed without out windows, and worse are bureaucrats who design a child’s day with too much counter-productive emphasis on academics and rote discipline with not enough “rewards”.

By Broken Record

November 17, 2006 06:57 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish, I agree, especially since they seem to have produced some bright people. I say let’s get rid of the educrats and administrators and their paperwork, standardized tests and PC rules and policies. Let the teachers teach the kids how to read and write and think. Let the teachers establish a good discipline of learning and behavior in their classes, requiring the students to assume responsibility for attending, paying attention and completing their work, with good and bad consequences.

By Ernest

November 18, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

I can’t speak to this specifically however asked my wife about this. She indicated there isn’t a much ‘guided’ reading in ES school as there once was. This is mostly handled now by tapes and other devices NOT with human interaction.

I know KA suggested ‘reading bootcamps’ as a possible supplement. Maybe this would have a lot of merit.

By KA

November 20, 2006 08:02 AM | Link to this

Ernest, Thanks! Are you a teacher? Could reading bootcamps happen at your school? WHY won’t teachers take control and make sure that slow readers and failing students get reading help?????