Illiteracy is almost unknown in Finland because there are no exceptional sound correspondences in their written language. UK children master the sound correspondences just as quickly as Finnish children but then they also have to learn that ‘ton’ reads as ‘tun’ and ‘weigh’ as ‘way’ and ‘walk’ and ‘wok’ and so on through a total of 3750 ‘special cases’ all of which have to learned individually.
Most children succeed in learning these 3750 ‘special cases’ intuitively, during subsequent successful reading experience. Unfortunately, about 20% cannot so readily absorb this avalanche of ‘special cases’ and conventional teaching strategies are not able to deliver the quantity of successful reading sessions, necessary to secure their internalisation. For them, reading is a consistently confusing pattern of hesitations and contextual guesses which only serves to erode their self-confidence and makes assimilating the ‘special cases’ an even more distant prospect.
At the extremes of the literacy debate, a view has gained currency in the past five years or so that all of these ‘special cases’ can be learned by all children assimilating a fixed set of ‘rules’ in nursery and infant classes. The large numbers of head teachers who have succumbed to pressure to follow this unproven, logic-defying theory in the past five years have inevitably been finding that the normal distribution factor still applies and that .tests at 11 years of age are still confirming that this illogical philosophy continues to condemn one fifth of all children to a lifetime of illiteracy.
We will make no progress towards achieving Scandinavian levels of literacy in the United Kingdom and other English speaking countries until we accept the reality that our written language embodies so many complex sound correspondences that its assimilation will always be a lengthier process for many, otherwise, intellectually unimpaired children. We must adopt teaching strategies which will ensure that these children are not subjected to the confusing experience of hesitations and contextual guessing which currently pass for ‘reading sessions’ and which inevitably achieve nothing other than the destruction of their chances of becoming literate adults.
Q.E.D.
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Reading is a Two Part Process.
Paper 5
The Quantum Literacy Theory proposes that
In common with all other skills, reading skill is independent of intellectual capacity and is solely a consequence of a specific amount of successful practice, the quantum of which, in common with all other normally distributed phenomena, varies between individuals.
Anyone who accepts that the reading process consists of (1) a mechanical part (decoding) and (2) a meaning part (comprehension) surely has to concede that as long as the mechanical part has not been mastered, the meaning part cannot even begin to start. The mechanical part is starting point of the reading process. It is the skills part of sub-vocalising the text to produce ‘words’ in the mind which the brain can then begin to comprehend.
The failure of our profession to have produced a working definition of reading means that we each of us define it idiosyncratically and as long as we each define reading idiosyncratically, there will be those who reject this portrayal of the reading process. There is nothing wrong in this except that it is incumbent on those who have an alternative concept of the reading process to share their ideas and so take our understanding of the reading process forward in the interests of the almost 90,000 or so children who leave school each year, unable to read.
Until I am offered a satisfactory alternative, I am stuck with a reading process which has a mechanical or ‘skills part’ and a meaning or ‘intellectual part.’ The ‘intellectual part’ is what reading is all about – we do not read because we like the sounds the letters make; we are motivated to read in order to access the intellectual content which is encoded in the text. The mechanical part of the process is self-evidently a skill and in common with all skills, will become a reflex reaction, only when given a sufficient quantity of successful practice. How else is it to be achieved?
As long as the poor reader’s reaction to text involves thinking about the sounds made by the letters and letter combinations, the mind of that individual is not free to receive the intellectual content. The mind is only freed to receive the intellectual content of text when the reaction to that text has become a reflex reaction and the only strategy which can bring that about is a quantity of successful practices. Reading is after all, a receptive activity – the brain receives meaning. It is only reading aloud which is an expressive activity. Reading aloud is an expressive activity during which the meaning of text is expressed or communicated.
The Quantum Theory of Literacy fully explains our failure to deliver literacy to one fifth of the population and it tells us how to achieve a more productive education system if that is what we really want. In a fiercely competitive world, we cannot affort to throw away the potential contributions of so many people.
The Quantum Literacy Theory proposes that
In common with all other skills, reading skill is independent of intellectual capacity and is solely a consequence of a specific amount of successful practice, the quantum of which, in common with all other normally distributed phenomena, varies between individuals.
Anyone who accepts that the reading process consists of (1) a mechanical part (decoding) and (2) a meaning part (comprehension) surely has to concede that as long as the mechanical part has not been mastered, the meaning part cannot even begin to start. The mechanical part is starting point of the reading process. It is the skills part of sub-vocalising the text to produce ‘words’ in the mind which the brain can then begin to comprehend.
The failure of our profession to have produced a working definition of reading means that we each of us define it idiosyncratically and as long as we each define reading idiosyncratically, there will be those who reject this portrayal of the reading process. There is nothing wrong in this except that it is incumbent on those who have an alternative concept of the reading process to share their ideas and so take our understanding of the reading process forward in the interests of the almost 90,000 or so children who leave school each year, unable to read.
Until I am offered a satisfactory alternative, I am stuck with a reading process which has a mechanical or ‘skills part’ and a meaning or ‘intellectual part.’ The ‘intellectual part’ is what reading is all about – we do not read because we like the sounds the letters make; we are motivated to read in order to access the intellectual content which is encoded in the text. The mechanical part of the process is self-evidently a skill and in common with all skills, will become a reflex reaction, only when given a sufficient quantity of successful practice. How else is it to be achieved?
As long as the poor reader’s reaction to text involves thinking about the sounds made by the letters and letter combinations, the mind of that individual is not free to receive the intellectual content. The mind is only freed to receive the intellectual content of text when the reaction to that text has become a reflex reaction and the only strategy which can bring that about is a quantity of successful practices. Reading is after all, a receptive activity – the brain receives meaning. It is only reading aloud which is an expressive activity. Reading aloud is an expressive activity during which the meaning of text is expressed or communicated.
The Quantum Theory of Literacy fully explains our failure to deliver literacy to one fifth of the population and it tells us how to achieve a more productive education system if that is what we really want. In a fiercely competitive world, we cannot affort to throw away the potential contributions of so many people.
Monday, 18 August 2008
The Quantum Theory of Literacy
Paper 4.
The Quantum Literacy Theory proposes that
In common with all other skills, reading skill is independent of intellectual capacity and is solely a consequence of a specific amount of successful practice, the quantum of which, in common with all other normally distributed phenomena, varies between individuals.
In the US, a Carnegie Mellon University brain imaging study reported earlier this month that if given 100 hours of appropriate remedial instruction, the brain could be ‘rewired’ to resolve reading failure. Whilst this is a fascinating finding, I have no comment to offer except that this work does seem to support the idea of a time quantum of reading practice to effect physical changes in the brain which result in a resolution of reading failure. I have evidence supporting the Quantum Theory of Literacy but none in support of any resultant changes in the brain although such changes would seem to be inevitable when a non-reader becomes a competent reader.
Since the percentage of UK pupils leaving school less than functionally literate has remained more or less constant at around 19% over the past few decades, I think it reasonable to assume that some normally distributed factor which determines the necessary quantum of experience (such as Short Term Memory effectiveness) is at work. If this is indeed the case, there would be no one specific quantum of experience but a sliding scale depending on the position of the individual child on the graph of normal distribution. My own work suggests that the scale is between 50 hours in the most extremely disadvantaged learners to about 10 hours at the other end of the spectrum of those who have failed to learn to read reflexively by age 9. The diagram below is intended only to show how the active factor might be distributed and what quantum of successful reading practice might be required to secure the necessary reflex reaction to text. This is an idealised graph only. It may be that there are other normally distributed IQ component factors, not included in either the WISC or BAS tests.
It is my hope that someone pursuing a Masters or PhD in this area would wish to examine the idea of the Quantum Theory of Literacy by studying the impact of daily doses of reading success on children with significant reading deficits and I would be happy to assist anyone pursuing such studies who should contact me at eddiecarron@btconnect.com
The Quantum Literacy Theory proposes that
In common with all other skills, reading skill is independent of intellectual capacity and is solely a consequence of a specific amount of successful practice, the quantum of which, in common with all other normally distributed phenomena, varies between individuals.
In the US, a Carnegie Mellon University brain imaging study reported earlier this month that if given 100 hours of appropriate remedial instruction, the brain could be ‘rewired’ to resolve reading failure. Whilst this is a fascinating finding, I have no comment to offer except that this work does seem to support the idea of a time quantum of reading practice to effect physical changes in the brain which result in a resolution of reading failure. I have evidence supporting the Quantum Theory of Literacy but none in support of any resultant changes in the brain although such changes would seem to be inevitable when a non-reader becomes a competent reader.
Since the percentage of UK pupils leaving school less than functionally literate has remained more or less constant at around 19% over the past few decades, I think it reasonable to assume that some normally distributed factor which determines the necessary quantum of experience (such as Short Term Memory effectiveness) is at work. If this is indeed the case, there would be no one specific quantum of experience but a sliding scale depending on the position of the individual child on the graph of normal distribution. My own work suggests that the scale is between 50 hours in the most extremely disadvantaged learners to about 10 hours at the other end of the spectrum of those who have failed to learn to read reflexively by age 9. The diagram below is intended only to show how the active factor might be distributed and what quantum of successful reading practice might be required to secure the necessary reflex reaction to text. This is an idealised graph only. It may be that there are other normally distributed IQ component factors, not included in either the WISC or BAS tests.
It is my hope that someone pursuing a Masters or PhD in this area would wish to examine the idea of the Quantum Theory of Literacy by studying the impact of daily doses of reading success on children with significant reading deficits and I would be happy to assist anyone pursuing such studies who should contact me at eddiecarron@btconnect.com
Sunday, 17 August 2008
The Quantum Theory of Literacy.
Paper 3
The Quantum Literacy Theory proposes that
In common with all other skills, reading skill is independent of intellectual capacity and is solely a consequence of a specific amount of successful practice, the quantum of which, in common with all other normally distributed phenomena, varies between individuals.
It is sometimes suggested by teachers, that the one in five children who leave school unable to read are the lowest 20% of the intellectual spectrum of ability. This implies that these children simply lack the intellectual capacity to learn to read and that consequently, their failure to learn to read is no way, a failure of teaching. The many famously intelligent, high achievers who failed to learn to read at school shows that this argument has no validity. Additionally of course, it is also beyond dispute, that the acquisition of any skill is a matter of practice and entirely independent of intellect.
It may be of course that there are people whose brains are wired differently and who consequently, experience greater difficulty in acquiring a reflex reaction to printed text. This does not alter the fact that learning to read involves learning the sounds that the letters make to a point at which their recognition/decoding becomes an automatic, reflex reaction which does not involve cognition (conscious thinking). The vast majority of those who leave school illiterate every year are well able to recognise and vocalise the letters and letter groups of the alphabet but this ability has not been practiced to a point at which the response process has become independent of cognition. Their ‘schooling’ has not included the appropriate quantum of successful experience to make this happen. Where reading competence is the aim, mastering the mechanical or ‘skills’ part of the reading process is essential whatever learning difficulties a child may have inherited.
There is of course, a tiny percentage of children, possibly around 1.5%, whose learning difficulties mean that they will never learn to read but this fact cannot explain our failure to deliver literacy to one fifth of the population. It does not take intellectual superiority to make a good juggler; just lots of successful juggling practice. Similarly, it does not take a superior intellect to become a competent reader; just lots of successful reading practice. Failure by 20% of children to acquire fluent reading skills is not an indication of their intellectual inferiority; it is an indication that the education system has failed to deliver to them, the appropriate quantum of successful reading practice.
The failure of the UK education system to appreciate the logic of the Quantum Literacy Theory and to respond appropriately to that logic, fully explains our failure to deliver literacy to all of our children. An inexpensive and extremely practical means of responding appropriately to the Quantum Literacy Theory is already widely available to schools which could ensure that about 95% of children become competent readers before graduating to secondary school. Unless teachers and teacher training institutions grasp the fundamental truth of the Quantum Literacy Theory and train teachers accordingly, schools are unlikely to break the institutionalised attitude to illiteracy. There is some evidence that parents are less restricted in their attitudes and are already taking matters into their own hands.
The Quantum Literacy Theory proposes that
In common with all other skills, reading skill is independent of intellectual capacity and is solely a consequence of a specific amount of successful practice, the quantum of which, in common with all other normally distributed phenomena, varies between individuals.
It is sometimes suggested by teachers, that the one in five children who leave school unable to read are the lowest 20% of the intellectual spectrum of ability. This implies that these children simply lack the intellectual capacity to learn to read and that consequently, their failure to learn to read is no way, a failure of teaching. The many famously intelligent, high achievers who failed to learn to read at school shows that this argument has no validity. Additionally of course, it is also beyond dispute, that the acquisition of any skill is a matter of practice and entirely independent of intellect.
It may be of course that there are people whose brains are wired differently and who consequently, experience greater difficulty in acquiring a reflex reaction to printed text. This does not alter the fact that learning to read involves learning the sounds that the letters make to a point at which their recognition/decoding becomes an automatic, reflex reaction which does not involve cognition (conscious thinking). The vast majority of those who leave school illiterate every year are well able to recognise and vocalise the letters and letter groups of the alphabet but this ability has not been practiced to a point at which the response process has become independent of cognition. Their ‘schooling’ has not included the appropriate quantum of successful experience to make this happen. Where reading competence is the aim, mastering the mechanical or ‘skills’ part of the reading process is essential whatever learning difficulties a child may have inherited.
There is of course, a tiny percentage of children, possibly around 1.5%, whose learning difficulties mean that they will never learn to read but this fact cannot explain our failure to deliver literacy to one fifth of the population. It does not take intellectual superiority to make a good juggler; just lots of successful juggling practice. Similarly, it does not take a superior intellect to become a competent reader; just lots of successful reading practice. Failure by 20% of children to acquire fluent reading skills is not an indication of their intellectual inferiority; it is an indication that the education system has failed to deliver to them, the appropriate quantum of successful reading practice.
The failure of the UK education system to appreciate the logic of the Quantum Literacy Theory and to respond appropriately to that logic, fully explains our failure to deliver literacy to all of our children. An inexpensive and extremely practical means of responding appropriately to the Quantum Literacy Theory is already widely available to schools which could ensure that about 95% of children become competent readers before graduating to secondary school. Unless teachers and teacher training institutions grasp the fundamental truth of the Quantum Literacy Theory and train teachers accordingly, schools are unlikely to break the institutionalised attitude to illiteracy. There is some evidence that parents are less restricted in their attitudes and are already taking matters into their own hands.
Saturday, 16 August 2008
The Quantum Theory of Literacy.
Paper 2
Reading and the Quantum Theory of Literacy.
Reading is something that children are supposed to be taught in school. We know that our education system only succeeds in four out of five cases and in spite of massive annual cash injections, shows no sign of improving on this atrocious state of affairs.
The reading process has two obvious parts. Firstly there is the purely mechanical ‘skills part’ of sub-vocally recreating words from the written/printed text being read and secondly there is the purely ‘intellectual’ part of understanding the meanings which the words represent.
For the purposes of this proposal, only the mechanical ‘skills part’ of the reading process is being discussed. In this context therefore, reading is a skill and there are two things that we know for certain about all skills. Skills can only be acquired by means of a series of successful practices and skills, given sufficient successful practise, become a reflex reaction viz. they are executed automatically without the need to think about them. The competent piano player does not have to think about the notes in any piece of music being played and the competent juggler does not have to think about the balls he or she is juggling. Similarly, the competent reader does not have to think about the sounds made by each of the letters in the words being read – that ‘skills part’ of the reading process is automatic. The problem faced by poor readers is that because they are poor readers, they can never get the quantity of reading successful practise which is necessary to make the ‘skills part’ of the process, an automatic, reflex reaction to the text.
The Quantum Literacy Theory proposes therefore that Reading competence/fluency is the consequence of a specific amount of successful reading practice, the quantum of which varies between individual children. In order to become competent readers, about one fifth of all children require a quantum of successful reading practise, significantly greater than that required by other children. The fact that these children fail to become competent readers before leaving school, is proof positive of the failure of the education system to have provided them with an appropriate quantum of successful reading practise.
Reading and the Quantum Theory of Literacy.
Reading is something that children are supposed to be taught in school. We know that our education system only succeeds in four out of five cases and in spite of massive annual cash injections, shows no sign of improving on this atrocious state of affairs.
The reading process has two obvious parts. Firstly there is the purely mechanical ‘skills part’ of sub-vocally recreating words from the written/printed text being read and secondly there is the purely ‘intellectual’ part of understanding the meanings which the words represent.
For the purposes of this proposal, only the mechanical ‘skills part’ of the reading process is being discussed. In this context therefore, reading is a skill and there are two things that we know for certain about all skills. Skills can only be acquired by means of a series of successful practices and skills, given sufficient successful practise, become a reflex reaction viz. they are executed automatically without the need to think about them. The competent piano player does not have to think about the notes in any piece of music being played and the competent juggler does not have to think about the balls he or she is juggling. Similarly, the competent reader does not have to think about the sounds made by each of the letters in the words being read – that ‘skills part’ of the reading process is automatic. The problem faced by poor readers is that because they are poor readers, they can never get the quantity of reading successful practise which is necessary to make the ‘skills part’ of the process, an automatic, reflex reaction to the text.
The Quantum Literacy Theory proposes therefore that Reading competence/fluency is the consequence of a specific amount of successful reading practice, the quantum of which varies between individual children. In order to become competent readers, about one fifth of all children require a quantum of successful reading practise, significantly greater than that required by other children. The fact that these children fail to become competent readers before leaving school, is proof positive of the failure of the education system to have provided them with an appropriate quantum of successful reading practise.
Monday, 11 August 2008
The Quantum Literacy Theory.
Reading is the fundamental literacy skill. At the outbreak of the second world war when virtually every able-bodied man in the UK was conscripted in the armed forces, our generals discovered to their horror that one man in five was unable to read. The seriously dangerous munitions which these men were required to handle and take into battle, came with printed operating instructions which 20% were completely unable to read and this led to so many embarrassing disasters that one general is on record as saying that he felt in greater danger around his own men than he did around the enemy. Needlessly to say, this widespread illiteracy among the population was kept a closely guarded military secret.
Now seventy years later and in spite of massive annual investments running into hundreds of millions of pounds, the literacy situation is astonishingly, unchanged. About 20% of children still leave school less than functionally literate. A well funded andf professionally managed EU study in 2000 revealed that one person in five in the UK was unable to read correctly, the dosage on a child's medicine bottle! It is difficult to understand how this situation can exist in a country which teams with Educational Psychologists, Literacy Consultants, Remedial Advisory Teachers, Specialist Literacy Teachers, Special Needs Co-ordinators and Teaching Assistants, yet exist it most certainly does.
A major contributing factor in the failure of our expensive Education system to deliver the ability to read to one fifth of the population is the failure of the great and the good in Education, to agree a professional definition of what reading is. As a result of this failure, every teacher of reading has their own perception and therfore, their own idiosyncratic definition of what reading is. This means that when professional educators discuss reading, they are all taking about different things because there is no professionally agreed definition. Imagine the kind of chaos that would result if doctors were left to define medical conditions idiosyncratically!
Anyone involved in the business of solving problems knows that first step in solving any problem is to cleary and succinctly define that problem. Teachers however, appear to be wholly unconcerned with the absence of a professionally agreed definition of reading. One teacher once told me, " We don't need a definition of reading. We just know what it is!" Some regard reading as a wholly mechanical activity and some as a wholly intellectual activity. If those who teach our children to read were paid by results, I think this horrendous situation would be resolved very quickly. But they are not paid by results and the results are attrocious.
Now seventy years later and in spite of massive annual investments running into hundreds of millions of pounds, the literacy situation is astonishingly, unchanged. About 20% of children still leave school less than functionally literate. A well funded andf professionally managed EU study in 2000 revealed that one person in five in the UK was unable to read correctly, the dosage on a child's medicine bottle! It is difficult to understand how this situation can exist in a country which teams with Educational Psychologists, Literacy Consultants, Remedial Advisory Teachers, Specialist Literacy Teachers, Special Needs Co-ordinators and Teaching Assistants, yet exist it most certainly does.
A major contributing factor in the failure of our expensive Education system to deliver the ability to read to one fifth of the population is the failure of the great and the good in Education, to agree a professional definition of what reading is. As a result of this failure, every teacher of reading has their own perception and therfore, their own idiosyncratic definition of what reading is. This means that when professional educators discuss reading, they are all taking about different things because there is no professionally agreed definition. Imagine the kind of chaos that would result if doctors were left to define medical conditions idiosyncratically!
Anyone involved in the business of solving problems knows that first step in solving any problem is to cleary and succinctly define that problem. Teachers however, appear to be wholly unconcerned with the absence of a professionally agreed definition of reading. One teacher once told me, " We don't need a definition of reading. We just know what it is!" Some regard reading as a wholly mechanical activity and some as a wholly intellectual activity. If those who teach our children to read were paid by results, I think this horrendous situation would be resolved very quickly. But they are not paid by results and the results are attrocious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)