Talk:Cognition and Instruction/Learning to Read

As a group, we looked through the textbook chapter for our section and decided which topics and points to cover in our Wikibook based on what we felt was most important to learning to read. When it comes to developing the chapter we'll be breaking the chapter as a whole into three sections. Each member will be writing about 3000 words for their section and the other members will look over it as well. In the end we will be going over the chapter as a group to ensure that it is delivered in one cohesive voice. Sjwally (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible articles to use for chapter:

-Silliman, E. R., Bahr, R., Beasman, J., & Wilkinson, L. C. (2000). Scaffolds for learning to read in an inclusion classroom. Language, Speech, And Hearing Services In Schools, 31(3), 265-279.

-Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 458-492. doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.4.2

-Learning to Read: Phonics and Fluency by Debby Houston

- McGuinness, D., & MITCogNet. (2005). Language development and learning to read: The scientific study of how language development affects reading skill. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

- Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

- Linnea C. Ehri (2005) Learning to Read Words: Theory, Findings, and Issues, Scientific Studies of Reading, 9:2, 167-188, DOI: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4

- Stone, T. J. (1993). Whole-language reading processes from a Vygotskian perspective. Child & Youth Care Forum, 22(5), 361-373. doi:10.1007/BF00760945

-MONEY, J. (1967). LEARNING DISABILITY AND THE PRINCIPLES OF READING. Slow Learning Child: The Australian Journal On The Education Of Backward Children, 14(2), 68-87.

- Haxhiraj, B. (2015). Predicting academic behavior of seventh-grade students with and without learning disabilities using curriculum-based formative assessment tests on a statewide reading assessment. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 76

- Shuying, A. (2013). Schema Theory in Reading. Theory & Practice In Language Studies, 3(1), 130-134. doi:10.4304/tplss.3.1.130-134

- McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R.. (2005). Schema Theory Revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 531–566. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/stable/3516106

- Elaine M. Bukowiecki (2007) Teaching Children How to Read, Kappa Delta Pi Record, 43:2, 58-65, DOI: 10.1080/00228958.2007.10516463

- H.Lee Swanson, Margaret Howell Ashbaker, Working memory, short-term memory, speech rate, word recognition and reading comprehension in learning disabled readers: does the executive system have a role?1, Intelligence, Volume 28, Issue 1, February 2000, Pages 1-30, ISSN 0160-2896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00025-2. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289699000252)

- The Interactions of Vocabulary, Phonemic Awareness, Decoding, and Reading Comprehension Elaine Carlson, Frank Jenkins , Tiandong Li , Mary Brownell The Journal of Educational Research Vol. 106, Iss. 2, 2013

- Furnes, B., and Norman, E. (2015) Metacognition and Reading: Comparing Three Forms of Metacognition in Normally Developing Readers and Readers with Dyslexia. Dyslexia, 21: 273–284. doi: 10.1002/dys.1501.

- Siné McDougall, Charles Hulme, Andrew Ellis, Andrew Monk, Learning to Read: The Role of Short-Term Memory and Phonological Skills, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Volume 58, Issue 1, August 1994, Pages 112-133, ISSN 0022-0965, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1994.1028. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096584710289)

Khikida (discuss • contribs) 06:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review: EDUC320SYI
Learning to Read One of the strongest features of this draft chapter was the structure and organization of headings and subheadings. The group dissected the process of learning to read into clear and succinct topics that I believe could be informative to someone unfamiliar with the procedure. For example, they present information about cognition which is important when understanding the varying levels of ability in the classroom. They also provide a bit of background knowledge in regards to the main components that comprise language such as syntax and semantics which are easily understood but required knowledge if one is to understand how the process of reading evolves. They also demonstrate the pragmatic function of language which is necessary to introduce the applicability of its use in planning and self-regulation. They are consistent in the key concepts and ideas they wish to get across as well. For instance, they often stress the importance to remember that rules and principles of learning to read are to be used as guidelines because each child is different and contexts may vary. Overall, I think learning to read is a systemized process and this group has aligned process with appropriately corresponding steps, stages and teaching instruction. However, the section on different types of reading difficulties and disabilities might benefit more from focusing on one overarching commonality amongst readers. For example, gathering research on phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness supports an individual’s ability to hear, identify and manipulate sounds which essentially matures their capacity to read. In addition, they could provide examples of disabilities associated with phonemic awareness and draw upon connections it has with pragmatics and semantics. Lastly, the implications for the classroom could be integrated into each section briefly depending on its relevancy as opposed to being its own section near the end. I think this will help the chapter sound more fluid and it will illustrate the importance of application for instruction throughout. All in all, it appears to be coming together great!

SFU-301229581-KNF (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Another Peer Review: The Learning to Read Wiki page is off to a great start. While reading, it was clear, concise, and neatly laid out. The strongest feature was the format because the bolded definitions, the headings and the way it was presented made it easy to read. The introduction was a solid explication of what is to be expected in the chapter. However, the repetition of the phrase “learning to read” was slightly excessive. I would suggest to try and cut down the amount of times you say that phrase, if possible. Another suggestion is to explain what central and sensory mean. In the second paragraph of the section Reading Difficulties and Disabilities you mention that the “problem is in central not sensory”. An explanation of this meaning would help clarify the material explained later in the section. Another suggestion is in the section Implications of Teachers. If you could compare what the recovery method is like in Canada to what you have written now for New Zealand, a better understanding may develop for the readers. These are just a few suggestions from my point of view. I would like to compliment the solid definitions made at the beginning of the chapter which helps develop a clear understanding of terminology right from the beginning. The content talked about is accurate and makes sense. There are good diagnostic steps presented which are clear and helpful. When the disabilities are listed and explained it might be helpful to state the types of disabilities in a definition fashion, or bold the specific types of disabilities just to make the read a little more simple. I was interested when reading the difficulties in photonics because I made a personal connection to the definition. It was explained that a student who is not able to connect a sound to a visual form has a learning disability. In the class I volunteer in, there is a girl who cannot connect sounds to visual forms. I knew she had a learning disability but I did not know what kind of disability, so I am interested to learn more on this topic. Overall this is a great wiki page. I really enjoyed reading it.

Peer Review: EDUC320JNSM
After reading this draft, I feel that one of the strongest points is its overall structure. I would swap the 'reading disabilities' and 'stages of reading' sections, but otherwise it has a good flow, from how language acquisition and reading begins, to how it develops in children, the stages they go through, what can go wrong, and how teachers can approach teaching such an important skill to students of all levels of ability.

My main issue with this draft is the troubles with spelling and grammar throughout. There are many redundant words and sentences, like "important structural levels of language structure", and there were even a few potentially false claims such as " Learning to read is an important milestone for children because it is their first entry point into the world of literacy and understanding language." (understanding language starts well before learning to read) and "Learning a new language is a lengthy process for everyone, especially for children." (studies suggest that children learn new languages much more easily than adults. We lose our affinity for acquiring language as we age).

As far as spelling issues, the word "learning" is misspelled several times throughout, and there were issues in the last section with contracted words or possessives like "its" vs. "it's" and "students" vs. "students'". Lastly, some phrases and sentences were unclear in their meaning, such as "the linguistics of reading" in the first paragraph in the 'types of reading difficulties and disabilities' section.

The 'Phonics-based approach' section was very well written. Clear, concise writing, few grammatical errors and no noted spelling mistakes. Maybe just split it into multiple paragraphs. In order to improve in the other areas of the chapter, perhaps making sure that group members look over and edit the sections of others, and to read each section slowly and carefully in order to catch spelling mistakes and punctuation errors. I also find that reading it out loud can help to point out any sentences that are clunky and awkward, so that you can identify them and make them flow better.

EDUC320JNSM (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review: heathercheung
The group brought up interesting content to develop the chapter. The introduction was very clear. Starts broad and narrow down nicely into the chapter. The strongest feature in this chapter is the “Reading Disabilities”. I think it is useful to bring up a topic like this. For normal content in “reading to learn”, most people will discuss about how to read or how learning related to read. Bringing up topic of “reading disabilities”, not just including every type of readers to access this chapter and also extending ideas for disabilities to learning affectivity in reading. It was a great idea to start by diagnosing and recognizing types of reading difficulties because it can guide teacher or educator to find the most relevant and suitable implications that matched to the specific difficulties, which is really useful and excellent.

On the other hand, the weakness feature in the chapter would be some disorganizing works. I found that the first two sessions in this chapter (“Cognitive o of reading” and “ Foundations of Language”) only contained very little content. Only have 2-3 sentences to explain what this session for. Some headings are missing content (only headings in the paragraph without explaining). Moreover, the different components under “foundations of languages” only contained 2-3 sentences as a simple description. Seems like these two sessions were left from the “plan for Wikibook”. Also, the introduction under “reading disabilities” was a bit off topic compare to the content that the group has put.

I would suggest that the group can either recognizing the whole content structure of this chapter or adding enough content for the first two sessions. Adding introductions under each sub-title would be great for reader to have a board idea of your ideas. Also, it would be great for the group to add some relevant and easy examples corresponding to each component under foundations of language. Therefore, reader would have a better understanding for this chapter. heathercheung (discuss • contribs)

Learning To Read Peer Review. EDUC320AUA
Learning to Read’s draft so far is pretty strongly done. Some of the overview strong points of the draft are that the chapter seems to have a good flow and it seems as if the chapter is written by one strong voice. The topics that the writers have chosen are interesting, relevant, and essential for understanding the topic of Learning to Read. None of the topics and supporting sections seemed to be dragged on more than needed, and all the sections seemed to be very direct and concise. I also believe that the over all tone of the draft is very well done, which made me feel that I was reading a textbook that someone at my level could understand exceptionally clearly.

The structure/order of the chapter, over all in my opinion, is the weakest part of the draft. It does seem logical starting from your introduction, background information of cognitive factors, and the basic foundations of language itself, however, the recommendation I would have is the more on the rest of the of the chapter. I would recommend or suggest moving the sections of Reading Disabilities and Implications to later on in the chapter after explaining the Stages of Reading, Teaching to Read,and Assessing Reading section. If you do this, it would change order of the draft and would make the overall structure more logical and clear. The chapter’s outline then might look like having an Intro of  the topic, background information( Stages, Teaching, Assessing), and then the Implications (Teaching Implications and Disabilities).

I think the background information that you present of what the typical reading approach looks like brings a better approach at understanding the Disabilities section and Implications, and separates the two a bit more distinctly. On the same point of The Reading Disabilities section, I’m not completely sure if that section is completed or not, however I do believe that there should be more information on that section as I think it is a crucial topic to address. My suggestions would be to outline the different types of disabilities and their characteristics, and how, over the years, there have been major research and findings on the topics of Disabilities/Implications and the conclusion effects and implication on classroom practices( i.e. experiments etc.)Also, including a section that talks about reading programs and approaches made for students who have a learning disabilities within that topic could make that section a bit stronger and helpful for any reader to understand that there might be other approaches for children who have disabilities when it comes to reading.

The last point I wanted to point out, was to make your thesis or main idea that is introduced in your introduction, a bit more clearer throughout the chapter.

Overall great job on the draft, and I look forward to reading the rest.