How to Get Your Mind to Read (NYT article)

[Runningmom80]

I found this interesting, and also reaffirming of homeschooling. (especially classical, Charlotte Mason and unschooling too.)

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-your-mind-to-read.html

Edited November 27, 2017 by someonestolemyname

[Meriwether]

I liked the article. I have one of the author's books - Why Don't Students Like School.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Meriwether

[fralala]

I liked the article. I have one of the author's books - Why Students Don't Like School.

 

I knew his name sounded familiar! I have Raising Kids Who Read.

[8filltheheart]

I am not sure why the obvious always seems so enlightening. Being well-educated improves contextual understanding? Does anyone actually disagree with that premise?

 

Fwiw, I did wonder as I read the article if he was an advocate for a nationalized curriculum dictating which subjects are studied when with specific texts so that standardized tests were testing based on that content. (May be overreading into his comments here.) In theory, that might help in understanding the results of standardized tests better, but I am opposed to dictating curriculum around standardized tests. I'd rather see those results as limited and have more freedom in the classroom to teach. I could careless if my kids could make inferences out of a passage on soccer. There is no way for young kids to be masters of all things. The bigger question for me is are they learning to infer in general based on what they do know. Standardized tests are limited in what they are actually capable in evaluating.

 

Oh well. I'm in a cynical mood this morning. Ignore me. Carry on!

[RoundAbout]

I am not sure why the obvious always seems so enlightening. Being well-educated improves contextual understanding? Does anyone actually disagree with that premise?

 

Fwiw, I did wonder as I read the article if he was an advocate for a nationalized curriculum dictating which subjects are studied when with specific texts so that standardized tests were testing based on that content. (May be overreading into his comments here.) In theory, that might help in understanding the results of standardized tests better, but I am opposed to dictating curriculum around standardized tests. I'd rather see those results as limited and have more freedom in the classroom to teach. I could careless if my kids could make inferences out of a passage on soccer. There is no way for young kids to be masters of all things. The bigger question for me is are they learning to infer in general based on what they do know. Standardized tests are limited in what they are actually capable in evaluating.

 

Oh well. I'm in a cynical mood this morning. Ignore me. Carry on!

 

I've read a lot of Willingham's work including the excellent Why Student's Don't Like School and haven't got a sense that he's an advocate of national curriculum. I think one of the points he makes is that if we're going to actually test reading comprehension then we ought to pick topics the kids have actually studied rather than random passages. 

 

I love his work for a lot of reasons - debunking the outdated and oversimplified idea of sensory learning styles (kinesthetic, auditory, etc.) in particular, and skepticism of certain types of project based learning (baking biscuits to teach about life on the Underground Railroad was one example he used), and some great techniques about presentation in the classroom. As a cognitive scientist he has some insights that I think are missing from normal classroom instruction. Though not all of it is applicable to homeschool, and some seem obvious, I've been able to make use of a lot of his ideas to improve how I do things with my son and some of my tutoring students. 

[8filltheheart]

I've read a lot of Willingham's work including the excellent Why Student's Don't Like School and haven't got a sense that he's an advocate of national curriculum. I think one of the points he makes is that if we're going to actually test reading comprehension then we ought to pick topics the kids have actually studied rather than random passages.

 

I love his work for a lot of reasons - debunking the outdated and oversimplified idea of sensory learning styles (kinesthetic, auditory, etc.) in particular, and skepticism of certain types of project based learning (baking biscuits to teach about life on the Underground Railroad was one example he used), and some great techniques about presentation in the classroom. As a cognitive scientist he has some insights that I think are missing from normal classroom instruction. Though not all of it is applicable to homeschool, and some seem obvious, I've been able to make use of a lot of his ideas to improve how I do things with my son and some of my tutoring students.

I based my comments strictly on the linked article, not on who the author is or his other works.

 

The bolded is one of the points he made. It begs the question of how standardized test creators can create tests based on topics kids have studied vs random selections if there is no standardization of what 3rd graders are studying.

[mama25angels]

8fills, how are things? How's your dd doing? So glad to see you getting to post.

[8filltheheart]

8fills, how are things? How's your dd doing? So glad to see you getting to post.

Thanks for asking. We are settling into our new location and Dd has adjusted well to college life.

[fralala]

I am not sure why the obvious always seems so enlightening. Being well-educated improves contextual understanding? Does anyone actually disagree with that premise?

 

 

Ha. My equally cynical reply would be, apparently the people in charge of the language arts curriculum at our local elementary school.