Early Poor Readers Remain Poor Readers

[Garrette]

A thread about Bill Cosby's remarks about African-Americans and their culture of romanticizing underachievement sparked a side issue about reading development.

I made the claim that research shows that those who read poorly in the first grade remain poor readers as they grow up. A couple of people disagreed with me, pointing to themselves as counterexamples. Aside from the fact that anecdotes do not constitute counter-evidence, I had not intended to claim 100%, but only the statistically signifcant amount the studies claimed.

I promised to find the studies and post a new thread, so this is it.

Bit of background: I do not claim expert knowledge on this subject or these studies. My wife is writing her dissertation for a PhD in Early Childhood Education, and I frequently help in proofreading, soundboarding, filing, etc. In that role, I have been exposed to quite a bit of her work but of course have not studied it to the same depth she has.

When I asked this weekend if I were representing the studies accurately, she agreed that I was, with the proviso that the studies actually only demonstrate continued poor readership through fourth grade and not through adulthood.

The seminal study is by Juel (1988).

Here is the abstract:

Originally Posted by Abstract of Juel (1988)

Reading and writing development of 54 children from grade one through four was studied. Poor first-grade readers almost invariably were poor readers at completion of grade four. Poor readers tended to become poor writers. Early writing skill did not predict later ability as well as did early reading ability. (SLD)

A supportive study is Bagdar, Brooks-Gunn, & Furstenberg (1993), but I cannot find a link.

Does anyone agree or disagree? And is anyone aware of further studies on this topic?

[ponderingturtle]

I take issue that it stopped in fourth grade and the idea that at fourth grade reading and writing ability are at least proportionately established.

How effective was reading ability in first and fourth grades at determining reading ability at high school graduation? High school graduation being chosen as a example of later ability in life.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I take issue that it stopped in fourth grade and the idea that at fourth grade reading and writing ability are at least proportionately established.

How effective was reading ability in first and fourth grades at determining reading ability at high school graduation?

I don't know.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

High school graduation being chosen as a example of later ability in life.

Source?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle in the original Bill Cosby thread

But how many of them change later?

No idea.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle in the original Bill Cosby thread

I was a poor reader in first through fourth grades, but later became a better reader.

I refer you, again, to the facts that anecdotes do not make counterexamples and the claim is not that it is 100% true.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

This would seem to violate rules of brain function in catagory 3.

I've no idea what Rules you refer to or what Category 3 is.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Garrette

No idea.

I refer you, again, to the facts that anecdotes do not make counterexamples and the claim is not that it is 100% true.

I've no idea what Rules you refer to or what Category 3 is.

Clearly I cannot guarantee this - but if not, there is an interesting coincidence. In my response to the first anecdotes on your previous post I made 4 points. Point 3 was about the research - which Florida education lives by - which says if children cannot read "well" by the age of 9, the proper brain/neural pathways will never develop and they will never read well enough to "read for learning". At that point, the chance that they will successfully pass the FCAT and graduate (from a public school - private schools are "mysteriously" exempted) is vanishingly close to zero.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Clearly I cannot guarantee this - but if not, there is an interesting coincidence. In my response to the first anecdotes on your previous post I made 4 points. Point 3 was about the research - which Florida education lives by - which says if children cannot read "well" by the age of 9, the proper brain/neural pathways will never develop and they will never read well enough to "read for learning". At that point, the chance that they will successfully pass the FCAT and graduate (from a public school - private schools are "mysteriously" exempted) is vanishingly close to zero.

That helps. Sorry I missed it in the other thread. That's interesting. My wife works in a lab at the University of Louisville that does brain research; she has become quite adept at putting 256 node ERPs on small children. The people who run the lab and developed the neural nets (the ERPs) have demonstrated that they can predict future dyslexia with about 87% accuracy (iirc) simply by checking the brainwaves of infants.

Back to the topic at hand, though, it seems ponderingturtle is still taking issue with the claim if it's made as 100%. I don't know about the Florida research, but the research I have cited makes no such claim.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Garrette

That helps. Sorry I missed it in the other thread. That's interesting. My wife works in a lab at the University of Louisville that does brain research; she has become quite adept at putting 256 node ERPs on small children. The people who run the lab and developed the neural nets (the ERPs) have demonstrated that they can predict future dyslexia with about 87% accuracy (iirc) simply by checking the brainwaves of infants.

Back to the topic at hand, though, it seems ponderingturtle is still taking issue with the claim if it's made as 100%. I don't know about the Florida research, but the research I have cited makes no such claim.

The research isn't (as far as I know) from Florida - it is just quoted over and over in Florida newspapers and by Florida school boards as the reason that Florida 3rd graders must be proficient at reading by the time they take the FCAT reading test in 3rd grade or they do not move to 4th grade - because if they are not proficient by then they wil not ever..............etc. (as in previous). [Interestingly, the state requires that districts work hard with reviewing the students who have not passed FCAT reading on reading - to get them to raise scores/pass FCAT - even though the quoted research says this can't occur!] {FCAT reading, to shorten, is largely non-fiction passages which must be examined, interpretated , used to build data, etc. - i.e. used/read to learn from}
Technically, we have been given no real source of the research though I originally heard it earlier than Floridas' use when I was researching the literature on brain-based learning and the development of pathways - particularly the window of opportunity for building them. The implication would be that some people either have a longer window OR that there are situations that can cause a different path development. That (either) is sheer speculation , though.

[Beth]

I don't have any studies at hand, but here is some personal experience for what it's worth:

We homeschool our children. Further, we follow a philosophy known as 'child-led learning'. That means, we try not to push schedules and curriculum on our children, but instead build on their own interests. Since basics are just that, basics, no matter where their interests lie, they will eventually need to know how to read, do math, etc.

Our daughter was a late reader (it turned out her father was also) and did not learn to read until age 9 - considerably behind what is considered appropriate then or today (she's 19 now). We were quite concerned about this when she was younger, but as I researched the ways homeschoolers dealt with this problem one unexpected fact came up repeatedl: for homeschoolers, the age they learned to read at made no difference in their eventual success in reading or other acedemics. Essentially, what typically occurred (and did eventually occur with our daughter) is that once they decide to learn to read, they reading ability progresses rapidly and they catch up with or exceed their schooled peers within about a year.

However, with schooled children, since so much of the curriculum is designed assuming a certain level of reading ability, if a child is behind in reading ability, they will fall behind in all other subjects. With homeschooled children, if a child is not reading, the parents simply help them learn in other ways and thus, they need not fall behind in other subjects. Certainly this was true with our daughter.

So, while the studies may well indicate that schooled children suffer long-term as a result of late reading, my opinion is that such a finding is indicates a failure of the school system to adequately adjust to the individual needs of the children rather than an indication that it is supremely important for every child to be reading by a certain age. I see the problem as not that such children cannot 'catch up' with reading later, but that within our currently educational system such children must inevitably fall behind in other subjects as well due to being late readers.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Beth

I don't have any studies at hand, but here is some personal experience for what it's worth:

We homeschool our children. Further, we follow a philosophy known as 'child-led learning'. That means, we try not to push schedules and curriculum on our children, but instead build on their own interests. Since basics are just that, basics, no matter where their interests lie, they will eventually need to know how to read, do math, etc.

Our daughter was a late reader (it turned out her father was also) and did not learn to read until age 9 - considerably behind what is considered appropriate then or today (she's 19 now). We were quite concerned about this when she was younger, but as I researched the ways homeschoolers dealt with this problem one unexpected fact came up repeatedl: for homeschoolers, the age they learned to read at made no difference in their eventual success in reading or other acedemics. Essentially, what typically occurred (and did eventually occur with our daughter) is that once they decide to learn to read, they reading ability progresses rapidly and they catch up with or exceed their schooled peers within about a year.

However, with schooled children, since so much of the curriculum is designed assuming a certain level of reading ability, if a child is behind in reading ability, they will fall behind in all other subjects. With homeschooled children, if a child is not reading, the parents simply help them learn in other ways and thus, they need not fall behind in other subjects. Certainly this was true with our daughter.

So, while the studies may well indicate that schooled children suffer long-term as a result of late reading, my opinion is that such a finding is indicates a failure of the school system to adequately adjust to the individual needs of the children rather than an indication that it is supremely important for every child to be reading by a certain age. I see the problem as not that such children cannot 'catch up' with reading later, but that within our currently educational system such children must inevitably fall behind in other subjects as well due to being late readers.

Please remember Garrette's Law:

No anecdote in opposition to the claim defended by Garrette shall be allowed into evidence. All anecdotes in support, shall.

Ahem.

Interesting. A study along those lines (the importance of individualization) would be intriguing.. The idea that Juel's studies merely point out failings in the school system is an intriguing hypothesis.

An alternative hypothesis might be that the neural pathways necessary for reading development are stimulated with other, individualized instruction in home-schooled children but the instruction in formal schooling is not individualized enough to do that. In either case, stimulation/development of the neural pathways is the determinant to later ability.

But I'm speculating from the layman's bench.

[Hardenbergh]

I think it's very important to learn reading skills in the lower grades. I was very fortunate to have excellent teachers. I feel that I was able to read as well in the 4th, 5th & 6th grade as I did in high school.

Quote:

A child's reading skill at the end of grade three is a better predictor of later school success that any other variable, including family income, ethnic background and home language (L.F. Carter, 1988).

http://educ.ubc.ca/research/vsbliter...rvention.shtml

This article "Beyond Grade Three" seems to differ with the theory in the first quote:

Quote:

Reading well at grade three level does not ensure school success. Children still have a lot to learn about reading in the middle school and secondary grades. They need to learn to process the much more challenging texts they will encounter, with their denser grammar, unfamiliar words, and complex ideas. They need to learn how to learn from reading–as well as how to be critical of what they read. Unfortunately, the knowledge base for how to teach children the comprehension and analysis skills they will need to read their social science, math, and science texts is inadequate. Many children read pretty well at the end of grade three, but encounter real difficulties in the higher grades because the task of reading to learn is so different from the task of learning to read.

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~snow/Aspen_snow.html

[Mephisto]

I think I would concur with your wife's assertions, Garrette.

I believe that if a child's interest isn't sparked by reading within the first three grades at school, he's likely to excel (hopefully) elsewhere. I know that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all, but by 7th grade I had read (and discussed) all of Edgar Allen Poe's work with several teachers and could read 700 wpm - which I'm told was astounding at that age.

I also indirectly credit my parents for my reading penchant. They were strict disciplinarians and confined me to my room with nothing to do but read. I was an inordinately boisterous kid so I spent quite a bit of time being punished, and consequently, reading.

Thanks for following up on your previous thread. I thought it was a very interesting subject.

(edited to add) Kudos to your wife too - education has got to be the most frustrating career field to enter. I'm glad that someone considers it worthy enough to obtain a Ph.D.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

I think I would concur with your wife's assertions, Garrette.

I believe that if a child's interest isn't sparked by reading within the first three grades at school, he's likely to excel (hopefully) elsewhere. I know that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all, but by 7th grade I had read (and discussed) all of Edgar Allen Poe's work with several teachers and could read 700 wpm - which I'm told was astounding at that age.

I also indirectly credit my parents for my reading penchant. They were strict disciplinarians and confined me to my room with nothing to do but read. I was an inordinately boisterous kid so I spent quite a bit of time being punished, and consequently, reading.

Thanks for following up on your previous thread. I thought it was a very interesting subject.

(edited to add) Kudos to your wife too - education has got to be the most frustrating career field to enter. I'm glad that someone considers it worthy enough to obtain a Ph.D.

Thanks Mephisto. Sorry I don't have the knowledge base to really discuss it further, but at least it's out there now, and Beth has provided some interesting food for thought.

(Hardenbergh, too; I don't mean to ignore anyone's input).

Regarding reading precociousness, I exhibited it, too, though I can't claim having read all of Poe's work by the 7th grade. I always enjoyed literature classes more than the math and engineering classes I took, but nearly always scored higher grades in math and engineering. I (egotistically) consider the reason to be that I knew more about the literature topics than most of my instructors and so they couldn't grade me realistically.

All three of my children are very good readers, though my middle child doesn't like to do it unless it's Manga (he's still very good at it when he does it).

My oldest child, who is 15, is genetically incapable of surviving five minutes without something to read in his hand. I read fast (I don't know the wpm) but he reads about four times as fast. Finishing 300 page books in a day is easy for him, and he retains it.

I have to push him to get him to include the occasional heavier tome, though, as opposed to all the lightweight stuff he reads. (He's finishing all the Terry Pratchett novels now).

You don't know cognitive dissonance as a parent until you consider punishing your son's misdeeds by prohibiting him reading for a weekend...

[Beth]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Please remember Garrette's Law:

No anecdote in opposition to the claim defended by Garrette shall be allowed into evidence. All anecdotes in support, shall.

Ahem.

Interesting. A study along those lines (the importance of individualization) would be intriguing.. The idea that Juel's studies merely point out failings in the school system is an intriguing hypothesis.

An alternative hypothesis might be that the neural pathways necessary for reading development are stimulated with other, individualized instruction in home-schooled children but the instruction in formal schooling is not individualized enough to do that. In either case, stimulation/development of the neural pathways is the determinant to later ability.

But I'm speculating from the layman's bench.

It's an interesting area to study. I don't know about the neural pathways stuff, but it was quite an eye-opener (and a great relief!) for me to discover that homeschooled kids didn't seem to suffer any adverse long-term effects due to being late readers.

I wish I could direct you to some studies on it, but I don't know that there are any formal ones available. At least, when I was researching it, all I could find were anecdotal evidence, but ALL of the acendotal evidence I found on homeschoolers indicated that they did not suffer as a result of delayed reading and there was quite a bit of speculation that pushing children to read before they were ready was actually detrimental to the development of that skill.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Garrette

I don't know.


Source?

I have no idea if such a study would be done, but first to fourth grades does not seem to be very longitudinal of long term ability unless you accept that reading ability is largely locked in place at 4th grade.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Garrette

No idea.

I refer you, again, to the facts that anecdotes do not make counterexamples and the claim is not that it is 100% true.

I've no idea what Rules you refer to or what Category 3 is.

Category three was your part in the other thread where you listed them in order, three was the claim that by neuro biology reading ability was largely locked into place by 4th grade.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Garrette

That helps. Sorry I missed it in the other thread. That's interesting. My wife works in a lab at the University of Louisville that does brain research; she has become quite adept at putting 256 node ERPs on small children. The people who run the lab and developed the neural nets (the ERPs) have demonstrated that they can predict future dyslexia with about 87% accuracy (iirc) simply by checking the brainwaves of infants.

Back to the topic at hand, though, it seems ponderingturtle is still taking issue with the claim if it's made as 100%. I don't know about the Florida research, but the research I have cited makes no such claim.

No you never listed any confience interval, so any positive correlation supports your claims no matter how weak.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by fuelair

The research isn't (as far as I know) from Florida - it is just quoted over and over in Florida newspapers and by Florida school boards as the reason that Florida 3rd graders must be proficient at reading by the time they take the FCAT reading test in 3rd grade or they do not move to 4th grade - because if they are not proficient by then they wil not ever..............etc. (as in previous). [Interestingly, the state requires that districts work hard with reviewing the students who have not passed FCAT reading on reading - to get them to raise scores/pass FCAT - even though the quoted research says this can't occur!] {FCAT reading, to shorten, is largely non-fiction passages which must be examined, interpretated , used to build data, etc. - i.e. used/read to learn from}

And this is why I take exception to such claims. I would have been held back likely for 2 years, even though in high school I was an honors student and advanced in most classes except English.

Now mabey I am a statistical aberation, but this learning pattern seems to run in my family.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Beth

I don't have any studies at hand, but here is some personal experience for what it's worth:

We homeschool our children. Further, we follow a philosophy known as 'child-led learning'. That means, we try not to push schedules and curriculum on our children, but instead build on their own interests. Since basics are just that, basics, no matter where their interests lie, they will eventually need to know how to read, do math, etc.

Our daughter was a late reader (it turned out her father was also) and did not learn to read until age 9 - considerably behind what is considered appropriate then or today (she's 19 now). We were quite concerned about this when she was younger, but as I researched the ways homeschoolers dealt with this problem one unexpected fact came up repeatedl: for homeschoolers, the age they learned to read at made no difference in their eventual success in reading or other acedemics. Essentially, what typically occurred (and did eventually occur with our daughter) is that once they decide to learn to read, they reading ability progresses rapidly and they catch up with or exceed their schooled peers within about a year.

However, with schooled children, since so much of the curriculum is designed assuming a certain level of reading ability, if a child is behind in reading ability, they will fall behind in all other subjects. With homeschooled children, if a child is not reading, the parents simply help them learn in other ways and thus, they need not fall behind in other subjects. Certainly this was true with our daughter.

So, while the studies may well indicate that schooled children suffer long-term as a result of late reading, my opinion is that such a finding is indicates a failure of the school system to adequately adjust to the individual needs of the children rather than an indication that it is supremely important for every child to be reading by a certain age. I see the problem as not that such children cannot 'catch up' with reading later, but that within our currently educational system such children must inevitably fall behind in other subjects as well due to being late readers.

This is interesting and fits well with my educational background. I was in a small class with two teachers from second grade until high school. So when you have 8 students and 2 teachers you can make up for deficits in some areas so they do not effect other areas.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

This is interesting and fits well with my educational background. I was in a small class with two teachers from second grade until high school. So when you have 8 students and 2 teachers you can make up for deficits in some areas so they do not effect other areas.

Yes. I think that nothing tops individualized education geared to the child, not a set of standards.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Beth

Yes. I think that nothing tops individualized education geared to the child, not a set of standards.

But that requires parents who fight for their child, and know that there are such programs available. So all the correlation between low reading at 4th grade and low reading in life might be both caused by apathetic parents.

That most of those who do not read well by then are either not capable of reading well, or do not have a background to support education. So that these both stick with the individual later so you get it as a good indicator even if it is irrelevant as both are caused by the same thing.

[Garrette]

pt,

As fuelair said, I think you are referring to his (her?) post in the other thread, not mine.

You may be right about 4th grade reading ability not being statistically correlated to lifelong reading ability, but your blanket dismissal of the study is still amiss.

On your side of the argument you have self-referential anecdote (and Beth's). On the other side there is are the two studies I mentioned (which admittedly are not life-long studies but do scientifically answer a portion of the question), plus the unsourced studies that fuelair mentions which refer to neural pathway stimulation.

While my earlier speculation on home schooling stimulating neural pathways in a manner sufficient to keep them active for later learning of reading is admittedly a layman's guess, it is not idle speculation nor is it unreasonable.

And since we do know that the brain continues to physically develop at least well into the teenage years, it seems to me that the more unreasonable position is that learning capability remains static.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Garrette

pt,

As fuelair said, I think you are referring to his (her?) post in the other thread, not mine.

Ah I got confused.

Quote:

You may be right about 4th grade reading ability not being statistically correlated to lifelong reading ability, but your blanket dismissal of the study is still amiss.

It likely is correlated, it is the strength of the correlation that is the point of contention. Certainly learning disabilities and cognitive deficits can remain fixed, but they can also be temperary, and cause a relative delay but no change in long term ability.

Quote:

On your side of the argument you have self-referential anecdote (and Beth's). On the other side there is are the two studies I mentioned (which admittedly are not life-long studies but do scientifically answer a portion of the question), plus the unsourced studies that fuelair mentions which refer to neural pathway stimulation.

When a study dirrectly conflicts with a large ammount of personal experiance it will take more than one or two studies that I can find real issues to take with to convince me of the positions merit.

There are all kinds of reasons that the studies can be flawed or simply an aberation of the expectation.

[Garrette]

Fair enough, pt.

[Hardenbergh]

I think that a student's ability to learn, whether it's reading or any other subject, is largely influenced by a teacher's enthusiasm for the subject he/she teaches. When I was in eigth grade, our teacher came to our class with a background in English Literature and Poetry. That was his passion even though he had to touch on all other subjects throughout the day as he was our only teacher. It was very obvious to all of us that teaching the classics was his great love. He'd go through the motions of teaching Math and Science but his face lit up like a candle whenever he was teaching English. It seemed that we spent over half of the day learning English. We loved Mr. Dudley. We lovingly referred to him as "Dudley Do-Right." His enthusiasm rubbed off on each one of us and we were soon writing short stories of our own. We were reading, memorizing and reciting such works as Longfellow's The Raven and Evangeline. We were very well prepared for English when we started our Freshman year in high school.

The easiest way to lose a student's attention is for the teacher to appear as if he doesn't care about his subject.

Mr. Dudley as well as most of my other teachers loved teaching. They also loved learning and they carried this love of learning beyond the ivy-covered halls of academe. I think the best teachers have a way of presenting a subject with an attitude of enthusiasm that is passed on to the student. The most gifted teachers have an innate curiosity and a child-like sense of wonder about life that puts them on the same wave length as their students. Great teachers see things from a different point of view. They don't just see the beauty of a flower as a whole but they see how that flower evolves or unfolds, how it reproduces and how all the various parts of that flower are part of its "becoming" (stamen, pistil, style, stigma, petal, stem, sepal). They're fascinated with the life cycles of all things; for instance, when a butterfly emerges from its chrysalis through the process of metamorphosis. A good teacher appreciates the wonders of science and is always fascinated with how living things move and have their being.

I remember that another teacher of mine seemed to have a certain radiance, a quality that seemed to draw the student's attention to the lesson to the exclusion of everything else. She developed a rapport with each of her students that allowed her access to everything that was good, bright and shining in them. She had the ability to teach in such a way that it was difficult to become distracted because she had such a sincere interest in the subject matter herself that it was easier to focus on the lesson because she herself was focused. She had a wellspring of knowledge that she was eager to share with all of us and we responded to that enthusiasm. It is the spirit in which this knowledge is conveyed that gives it meaning. It's not just a matter of textbooks and scheduled lessons although that's part of it. There was definitely a certain order to our classes and I think that's important but it's also an asset to be flexible and go off the beaten path once in a while to keep things interesting. I don't seem to recall too many days when I was bored.

[Hardenbergh]

Quote:

We were reading, memorizing and reciting such works as Longfellow's The Raven and Evangeline.

Forget I said that. While I was getting ready for work this morning, it came to me. I thought to myself, "Did I say that Longfellow wrote The Raven?" Edgar Allan Poe must be rolling over in his grave. Longfellow, too. I guess I must have had Henry Wadsworth Longfellow on the brain (being from Maine and all). I also have a niece named Evangeline. I was in the eighth grade about forty years ago but that still doesn't forgive such a goof.

Well, anyway, I stand corrected. I'll never live that down. And Poe replied, "Quoth the raven, Nevermore."

Long-fel-low,
Edgar Allan Poe.

Long-fel-low,
Edgar Allan Poe.

Write that 500 times.

[Garrette]

Under a spreading chestnut tree
the House of Usher stands?

[skeptifem]

My mom missed a lot of school due to medical problems and missed out on how to read for the most part. She is a pretty good reader now, but she said she basically had to learn it all over in college and its still harder for her than other people to read. I can believe it.

[Hardenbergh]

Originally Posted by nails3jesus0

My mom missed a lot of school due to medical problems and missed out on how to read for the most part. She is a pretty good reader now, but she said she basically had to learn it all over in college and its still harder for her than other people to read. I can believe it.

In the late 70's, I was a literacy volunteer tutor. My first student was an adult male with a family. He was very difficult to teach and I feel that I didn't really have the credentials to teach someone with his particular problems but I continued to tutor him for a long time. He was able to read better but not as well as I would have liked. Perhaps someone else would have been able to work with him with better results.

[Solus]

I wasn’t the best of readers in my early years although that’s by my own standards so I don’t think that’s worth much as I tend to be ridiculously critical of myself. I remember almost being unable to read in the first grade. I was able to read well by the 3rd however. It didn’t help that I couldn’t read the text for the videogames I wanted to play. I guess that was my motivation.

I have taken a psychological test which has rated my ability as “superior”. Something like in the top 80% and do note I was severely depressed at the time I took that test. Another test (ASVAB) was given to everyone in highschool by the army. That test put me 99 percentile for reading ability for males and the 98th percentile for general population. That’s the one area where my "IQ" so to speak is at the “gifted” level. I don't make that statement because of some army test or an IQ test I took, that's my general observation whenever I compare my ability to others. Nearly everyone has been slow paced in that area compared to myself.

It shows my lack of intelligence that I even took the damn army’s test. For the next two years I was harassed by the army to join them. They had some recruitment people come to my house several times.One day this happened and I had just woke up and was in my bathrobe, quite comfortable. I told them, “Do I look the the kind of person that’s interested in joining the army as a common solider, I actually use my brain.. Unless your superiors plan on automatically giving me an officer’s rank equal to that of captain. I have no interest so stop wasting my time. I intend to get a PHd as in psychology, you would call me doctor when I’m done. I don’t have time to waste with your army nonsense.” Maybe I was a bit harsh but I haven’t heard from the army since. Too bad. I really did want that captain’s rank. I guess I should have just asked for the rank of 1st lieutenant, I I must have overplayed my hand.

I was younger then and my goals have changed I will very likely become a lawyer now.

Now what’s interesting is the .1% that’s left. 800 words per minute that is fast… Always that small portion of the population of that excels beyond all else. I have no idea what my reading speed is as it depends on what I’m reading. All I know I read considerably faster than the average person. If it’s a history class or a psychology class and I the hear the words “12 hours of reading a week” it’s always a joke to me; try less than 3.

I didn’t mean to brag. I don’t have much else positive to say for myself and that is the only thing I have a natural ability in. Either it amazes others or there is apparent anger that I “didn’t “read” what they gave me. Sorry that I can read too fast.

Of course I’m going to ignore Mephisto as a deal was clearly made with the devil.

[Solus]

Originally Posted by Garrette

A thread about Bill Cosby's remarks about African-Americans and their culture of romanticizing underachievement sparked a side issue about reading development.

I made the claim that research shows that those who read poorly in the first grade remain poor readers as they grow up. A couple of people disagreed with me, pointing to themselves as counterexamples. Aside from the fact that anecdotes do not constitute counter-evidence, I had not intended to claim 100%, but only the statistically signifcant amount the studies claimed.

I promised to find the studies and post a new thread, so this is it.

Bit of background: I do not claim expert knowledge on this subject or these studies. My wife is writing her dissertation for a PhD in Early Childhood Education, and I frequently help in proofreading, soundboarding, filing, etc. In that role, I have been exposed to quite a bit of her work but of course have not studied it to the same depth she has.

When I asked this weekend if I were representing the studies accurately, she agreed that I was, with the proviso that the studies actually only demonstrate continued poor readership through fourth grade and not through adulthood.

The seminal study is by Juel (1988).

Here is the abstract:



A supportive study is Bagdar, Brooks-Gunn, & Furstenberg (1993), but I cannot find a link.

Does anyone agree or disagree? And is anyone aware of further studies on this topic?

I would have liked to read the full report rather than just than just comment on the abstract. It's merely my opinion but the abstract makes logical sense to me.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Solus

I would have liked to read the full report rather than just than just comment on the abstract. It's merely my opinion but the abstract makes logical sense to me.

If you have an academic account with a university, you can get the full text.

The university may have it hardcopy, too.

Otherwise, interlibrary loan is the way to go. Easy with the university library; doable with a public library.

Print the linked page and take it to your librarian.

[aries]

As I teacher myself I'm kind of interested in that discusion. First, I would question the definition of what a poor reader is ? If a poor reader is one that doesn't do well on reading tests, then I tend to agree that yes, poor readers stat poor readers all their lives, especially since reading tests in the US schools don't seem to be reading test at all, but just being able to recognize basic grammer and sentence structures as well as answering (stupid, imo) questions like this one *dog is to bone as cat is ----- * (insert proper word here).

Imo, this has nothing to do with reading. This is a test to see if students know their grammar, sentence structure and vocabulary, nothing else.
A proper reading test will, imo, test a student's ability to read a text and his or her understanding of said text, i.e. how much of the text has the student actually understood.

As a teacher myself I also know that if you shall get a poor reader to be a better reader you'll need to get them to read about a subject that interests them a lot. That way they'd become better readers. [On a sidenote, I might add, that I think recent advance in brain research i.e. on how the brain actually works, has shown that if you read a lot, then you'd getter at it, since certain centres in the brain gets activated when you read, write or jump or play say basketball].

Also, many of the poor readers probably have dyslexia, which mean they can
see the word rightly or something like that or that they confuse the letter b and the letter d, because they look alike. Also, my guess is that many of the poor readers need glasses. I know that my reading didn't really take off before I got glasses in the third grade.

Please also note that while most US children start in 1st grade as 5 year olds, most Danish children start in 1st grade as 7 year olds. This means that
children are expected to read (properly and fluently) when they are nine.
(in the second or even third grade in Denmark).

I also remember from my time in the US as an exhange student that most classes was taught in the old fashioned way. The teacher stood before the
class, explaining a lot, and then overheard the students in today's lessons.

This does not take into account that some people have another learning style than this. Myself, I am sort of visual type, I like to see things and also touch things I am to learn. That's why I loved the scientific experiments in my school in the 8th grade or when we saw an educational movie.

I think this need to be taken into account as well. And it goes without saying that the teacher that burns with passion, not only for his students, but for his subjects as well is a very great teacher. And from this teacher you can learn almost anything - as teaching first and foremost as I see is about trust.
Trust between teacher and the students, and making the students feel
'hey - this teacher thinks he really can learn me something - yes, maybe I
can learn this subject - even if is hard to do'.

That's a good teacher, imo.

[Garrette]

aries,

I'm not sure how the variables were operationalized in the study, but if I have a chance to read over the hard copy my wife has, I'll try to put it together for you. No promises, though.

As an educator, you probably have greater access to an online version of the full report. That may be a quicker route for you.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think we're mixing buckets of apples, oranges, and kiwi fruit here. If a child is not dyslexic, then certainly he can start reading late and almost instantly catch up. Most kids can read more-or-less-naturally. That is why the whole language program works at all, and why it is taking so long for educators to realize that a bit of phonics might still be good for kids, especially those with reading problems.

Our son is dyslexic. He has almost no phonological awareness. His reading is improving with time, but not very quickly. All the admonishments to "just make him read" don't help much, since reading is so painfully tiring that he hasn't much interest in doing it for pleasure. We are about to press the high school to allow him to take a remedial reading program in place of freshmen English next year. Books on tape are a good resource for him.

~~ Paul