Відео

Thank you for your comment! We don’t doubt your effectiveness and experiences in teaching Pinyin and we are grateful. In context, our point is that reading is a complex skill and not a natural ability-especially in reading English, which is much harder than most other languages. Although there is no natural reading system that exists in the brain, reading and writing are complex skills that can be learned, and the brain can develop pathways for an efficient (or inefficient) reading system. This is true for reading in all languages. Even Pinyin, as you shared, must be taught. If interested, a lengthy explanation is below! In different languages, reading and writing activate separate areas of the brain, with different levels of activation and types of coordination. Research asserts that English readers take longer to learn to read than readers in almost all orthographies, except for Chinese readers. To your point, yes, if you learn all of Pinyin through memorization, you can read that which is written is Pinyin which is cool and important, and possible for the brain to typically handle. The very difficulties of reading Chinese was foundational to the development of Pinyin. Pinyin was not meant to be a complete “reading” system, but a language tool used to accelerate reading skills in Chinese. It was developed as a simplified transliteration system with Latin letters. It is an effective starting point for Mandarin, but it does not replace the essential knowledge of the Chinese characters in reading or writing. But English does not have an efficient springboard like Pinyin. English has neither the discrete sound-symbol correspondence of Pinyin nor the visual context provided by Chinese logograms (which does not even require accurate grapheme-phoneme correspondence). English is also highly irregular as it developed and continues to be developed by scores of other languages, whereas Mandarin was not significantly influenced by any language outside of the Sinetic languages. Reading and writing English is limited to a phoneme-grapheme correspondence, and English phonetics are highly irregular and unstable. English has 44-47 phonemes (even experts cannot agree); these phonemes flex depending on the sounds before and after, speaker, region, and context; we only have 26 letters to represent these; and as a result of this and the influence of 13 primary languages and dozens of others English has more than 1100 sound-symbol (orthographic) correspondences, which we combine in hundreds of thousands of different ways. In the US, most develop a limited sort of compensatory reading skill based on visual memory that might be akin to an ability to read Pinyin. Too often, instruction stops here and although it is still considered “reading”, it is at a “functionally illiterate” level. This is typically the result of poor methods of instruction based on fallacies of reading English and the failure to develop the phoneme-orthographic correspondence.

@@LexiaHeroes Thank you for your detailed explanation. What you said in the video is: Language is instinctive and it's natural but reading is a very complex skill there's nothing in our brain that we were born with to help us read. My response is: If speaking is considered natural then reading should also be considered natural. We have to learn both speaking and reading. Both are learned traits. This is not about which language is harder to learn. You said: ‘Although there is no natural reading system that exists in the brain…’ It is this type of statement that is misleading and detrimental to other readers. Where did you come up with this? Please don’t say anything you can’t substantiate. You said: ‘Research asserts that English readers take longer to learn to read than readers in almost all orthographies…’ I agree. However, learning to read in English takes longer mainly because the letter sounds are taught wrongly in most schools worldwide. Teach letter sounds correctly and no child will be left behind. Anyway, we can discuss this separately if you like. You said: ‘Pinyin was not meant to be a complete “reading” system, but a language tool used to accelerate reading skills in Chinese. It was developed as a simplified transliteration system with Latin letters. It is an effective starting point for Mandarin, but it does not replace the essential knowledge of the Chinese characters in reading or writing.’ I disagree and will be happy to continue with this if you so choose. For now, let us stick with the matter at hand. You said: ‘Reading and writing English is limited to a phoneme-grapheme correspondence, and English phonetics are highly irregular and unstable.’ This too is just an excuse and is not the cause of kids shutting down /disengaging from learning to read. We can discuss this separately if you like. You said: ‘In the US, most develop a limited sort of compensatory reading skill based on visual memory that might be akin to an ability to read Pinyin. Too often, instruction stops here and although it is still considered “reading”, it is at a “functionally illiterate” level. This is typically the result of poor methods of instruction based on fallacies of reading English and the failure to develop the phoneme-orthographic correspondence.’ Again, I disagree with you and I am willing to discuss this if you would like to keep an open mind. In short, you have gone off on a tangent and have written what I have read several times on the net. My statement is that both speaking and reading have to be learned. If you say they are both inherent abilities I agree. To say that the brain has no place for reading because reading is relatively new, I disagree. The brain is wired to read. I wish you well.

@@LuqmanMichel Thank you, again, for your comment. I want to start by thanking you for YOUR passion about helping children learn. You have found a noble calling and in no way do I wish to diminish the good you do. I am wary about the back and forth of these conversations, as I am very aware that there are heated debates between different “camps” and the battle between them is typically counterproductive or results in a stale-mate. I appreciate the opportunity to share information and I hope I leave you with my intention, which was to thoughtfully address your criticisms with fact-based information, respect, and the professionalism and experience I have as a certified dyslexia practitioner, psychometrician, researcher (US and Paris), educational therapist, certified Orton-Gillingham teacher, and director of a clinic. I did not say the brain “has no place for reading,” but I cannot agree it is an inherent ability. This causes me to suspect that we are in disagreement in semantics, so I am hoping the words of other authors cited below will provide more nuanced insight as to my position (if interested). The abysmal literacy richness in the US supports us both. Yes, phoneme instruction in the US is very poor and when it is properly taught, then reading is easier. Yet, we must still teach the vastly complex orthography of English to correspond with those sounds, which is not easy. For example, there is no reliable one-to-one phoneme-grapheme correspondence for vowels. For example, the letter A can make six different sounds (and some argue more), there are 39 different orthographics to represent the sound of long A, and in some regions the long A may actually sound like a short E! We have worked with hundreds (if not thousands) of families, Learners, and professionals over the years. We find that the most effective, respectful, and successful approach with our Learners is to share with them that there are reasons it is difficult and that we will support them and help manage the complex task at hand. Otherwise, when they inevitably discover the fallacies of the simple “rules” of English, the instruction loses integrity and they spend a lifetime doubting their own intelligence and reading skills because they could never acquire something so “easy”. “Learning to read is a complex human process that is not naturally occurring. The human brain is hard-wired for spoken language - making learning to speak natural. Any child, unless neurologically or hearing-impaired - or are sensory-deprived - will learn to speak at some point. Reading and writing, on the other hand, are man-made. The notion that simply surrounding students in a print-rich environment and fostering the love of reading will lead them to become readers may sound ideal, but that is not how learning to read works. We are not hard-wired to read; our brains repurpose different parts of the brain for reading to create a reading neural network. Immersing children in literature and language-rich environments is important, but not sufficient on its own to guarantee the development of the necessary literacy skills for successful reading. We are not hard-wired to read and because of this these skills must be explicitly and systematically taught to students along with providing ample opportunity for students to practice these skills.” (Dehaene, 2009; Lyon, 1998; Wolf, 2007) As to some of the other myths of reading, this primer may be helpful: “Science of Reading Myths and Misconceptions”, provided by the Colorado Department of Education. www.cde.state.co.us/coloradoliteracy/sormythsmisconceptions Another great primer is “How do Kids Learn to Read? What the Science Says” Sarah Schwartz & Sarah D. Sparks , October 02, 2019 www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/how-do-kids-learn-to-read-what-the-science-says/2019/10 Two books that I recommend include: Shaywitz, Sally. “Overcoming dyslexia: (2020 Edition): Second Edition, Completely revised and updated”, Vintage, 2020. Wolf, Maryanne. "Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain." (2007). Other information spans decades, including a meta-analysis: Lyon, G. Reid. "Why reading is not a natural process." Educational leadership 55.6 (1998): 14-18. Rayner, Keith, and Erik D. Reichle. "Models of the reading process." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1.6 (2010): 787-799. Martin, Anna, et al. "Reading in the brain of children and adults: A meta‐analysis of 40 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies." Human brain mapping 36.5 (2015): 1963-1981. Martin, Anna, et al. "Reading in the brain of children and adults: A meta‐analysis of 40 functional magnetic resonance imaging studies." Human brain mapping 36.5 (2015): 1963-1981. National Reading Panel (U.S.) & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read : an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. And, I agree that it is not about which language is harder to learn, but to address the misconception that all languages are easy to read. I still assert, “Recognizing how complex English is is important.” It was not a tangent; rather, addressing your experiences with Pinyin and the resulting equivocation. Pinyin and English are different, developed in different ways, and even with different purposes. Pinyin is a pedagogical tool and teaching it in two weeks makes sense. English is vastly different in its origin, influences, complexity, and use in reading. Reading is developed over years, much like the language of Mandarin beyond Pinyin. Although I am open to some additional information about Pinyin and would appreciate any supported research that you care to share, I am limited in my time to engage further in this conversation online. Please feel free to email this information to lexiability@gmail.com and I will review. If warranted, I will address this in a future video. Again, thank you!

@@LexiaHeroes You said: ‘I am wary about the back and forth of these conversations, as I am very aware that there are heated debates between different “camps” and the battle between them is typically counterproductive or results in a stalemate.’ Yes, they may be counterproductive but I have seen so much disinformation which will mislead teachers and parents. My comments are for others not to accept everything they hear or read without thinking. You said: ‘I did not say the brain “has no place for reading,” but I cannot agree it is an inherent ability.’ I repeat what I said earlier. If learning to speak is an inherent ability, so is learning to read. Both need to be learned. You said: ‘The abysmal literacy richness in the US supports us both. Yes, phoneme instruction in the US is very poor and when it is properly taught, then reading is easier. Yet, we must still teach the vastly complex orthography of English to correspond with those sounds, which is not easy.’ I did not say that learning to either speak or read in English is easy. I know about the many different sounds represented by vowels as well as consonants. My book Shut Down Kids covers this. But this is not what this matter is about. You said: “Learning to read is a complex human process that is not naturally occurring. The human brain is hard-wired for spoken language - making learning to speak natural. Any child, unless neurologically or hearing-impaired - or sensory-deprived - will learn to speak ­at some point. Reading and writing, on the other hand, are man-made.” This is the point of contention. This discussion will lead to a stalemate because you are unwilling to keep an open mind and listen to reasoning. As I mentioned one can read in Pinyin when taught within two weeks. If I sit a child who knows how to speak Malay and the alphabet beside me and read to him and let him read after me sentence by sentence he will be able to read in Malay in a month an hour a day. This is not the case with reading in English. So, it has nothing to do with speaking being natural and reading being unnatural. To me, it is silly to say that reading is man-made but not speaking. I request you to read my post at www.dyslexiafriend.com/2023/07/brains-innate-capacity-for-reading.html#more Read the research report that says the brain has an innate capacity to read. You said: ‘We are not hard-wired to read; our brains repurpose different parts of the brain for reading to create a reading neural network.’ Stop this nonsense. If you can’t understand my reasoning and what the research report above says then I have wasted my time with you. Reading and speaking a language have to be learned. They are as natural as walking. The brain is hard-wired to read. You have quoted Dehaene and I say he does not know how the brain learns to read. He did not answer my questions to him. Perhaps you can answer my questions in my post at www.dyslexiafriend.com/2022/03/dehaene-how-brain-learns-to-read.html I have written to Lyon, Shaywitz, Dehaene, and many others since 2010. You said: ‘And, I agree that it is not about which language is harder to learn, but to address the misconception that all languages are easy to read.’ Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say that all languages are easy to learn to read. I know how hard it is for someone to learn English. I speak Tamil, English, Malay, Mandarin, and now learning Japanese. One can learn to read Pinyin, Malay, and Japanese easily but not English. So, one should not say that learning to read is difficult. Learning to speak and read in English is difficult. I don’t think you know about Pinyin. There is a whole book written in just Pinyin without any Chinese characters. If you care to read you may read my post at www.dyslexiafriend.com/2024/08/pinyin-riji-duanwen-by-zhang-liqing.html Thank you for the email address. If you want to know how the Westerners have infiltrated China and screwed up Pinyin teaching in China you are welcome to email me at luqmanmichel@gmail.com. I will post these discussions on my blog for posterity. Thank you for indulging me. I wish you well.