Talk:Learning to read

message: THE page lists ten of the most important reading intervention programs. All are research-based, as mandated by No Child Left Behind. I have included numerous references supporting the suggestions. Most people accessing this article will be looking for solutions, either as dyslexics, educators or parents of students with reading problems. I have eliminated repeated references to the same program. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B7howlett (talk • contribs).
:To say that these program are some of the "most important" interventions is a dubious claim. References to commercial programs should be removed.  Recommend referring readers to sites where research about specific programs can be found.   Adding Florida Center for Reading Research to See Also list.  
smoran 11:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: I am not the author of this material, but i think it hs merit. It still is not close to an encyclopedic style, but it is  getting there. I think the material could be merged into the dyslexia page and that would be the better solution. It might be possible to include it as  separate section on that page/ I'm no expert, but tthis doesn't seem hopeless. Please list for AfD. 
DGG 02:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if it was marked as comecial spam then it was an accident. I just don't see why this article should be here when it can be merged into the dyslexia article or even deleted. if not then the title should definitly be changed. it doesn't represent the content of the article. you'd this the article was a hybrid artile on reading difficulties and dyslexia and not what is actually written in the article. i won't improve this article myself but i feel it should be if it isn't merged or deleted. of course sources need to be cited and the style is lacking. oh well. i have better things to do i suppose. --Tainter 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: where is the author--he should merge it. The title, btw was changed from Reading difficulties to the present one on the advice of an earlier editor. I do not intend to do the work either.  DGG 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: I propose a name change to "Reading skills acquisition" (thanks Abigail Marshall) - because that's exactly what this article is about. Please comment! Lova Falk 07:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody commented, so I'll make the change. Lova Falk 09:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Skills acquisition  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.26.25.6 (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reading skills acquisition 

message: Deleted the following example which only applies to the USA and some other English speaking countries. Which does meet the Wikipedia global content requirement
"The following example illustrates the dysfluency that this can create.  Without looking ahead, begin to sound out the following word, left to right, using letter-sound knowledge.  The first letter is b, the sound of which is- try to say it.   The second letter is o.  If you said the sound of b was buh, you have some revision to do since you have ended in a vowel sound that does not allow for blending with the o.  But how does the o sound?  Now you have bo.  What does it sound like?   The o could be long or short.  Try bou, bough.  At this point you might have begun to appreciate that the vowel is not knowable until you reach the end of the syllable, i.e., until you have considered the full rime.  Now try bought." 
dolfrog (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted non-global example 

message: Beginning at the top, we feel like the title should be changed to "Learning to read English"
In the Introduction we feel like it needs to be:
# expanded
# include overview of contents fround throughout the article
# there needs to be a reference for the definition
# make a specific reference that this article is for parents who have children learning to read or people who helping teach others to read.
# put in that the brain and genetics influence reading, but that is not the focus of this article
# move the links to phonics and synthetic phonics down the section on methods of teaching reading
Writing Systems
In this section we feel that:
# the title and purpose should be changed to towards focusing more on the history of learning to read.
# references are needed in this section
Cognitive Skills of Reading
We feel this this section contains a lot of good useful information, but:
# it needs to be expanded more.
# needs to include the whole word method
# described the benefits and drawbacks of each approach
# moved down a section below skills required to read
# and also change the title to cognitive styles of reading
Skills required for proficient reading when using a Latin alphabet writing system
# include all of the skills listed by the NRP in the descriptions
# Skill definitions need references
# Edits to all skill definitions
# Add back in from discussion page Auditory Skills
# Also add back in from Discussion page the #8 Read, Read some more, then read
Methods of teaching reading
In this section we feel that it:
# needs an introduction
# and edits need to be made to each section
# and include whole word method
Reading Difficulties
This section needs to be:
# defined beyond the definition 
# linked to the official dyslexia article
Those are our ideas for improving this page.
Alk4hgirl (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class Assignment Editing 

message: I hold it is obvious that the stages of learning to read are different states in the brains (at least in the knowledge and proficiencies of the learner). Yet the chapter on the emerging pre-reader stage does not say almost nothing about how the learner is at the beginning and end of this stage. The only thing said is that the child produces its first word in the first year. This is presumable about talking. Consequently it is not about reading. --Ettrig (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  stages of development 

message: Alk4hgirl and Sngriffi
I have removed the tag requiring expert review, that is what I'm doing this week with this article so I think that is appropriate. So far I have made a few changes to the Acquiring Language section. I am trying to keep in mind the comments of the GA reviewer and other comments I've seen in the history section. I will continue through the article as fast as I can. 
I do think the lead needs strengthening, and if you two are up to it, you have the best perspective to summarize the whole entry.  My other major comment would be that there are many sources that would specifically address your points, aside from Wolf. While she is an expert in the field, and the book is a great source because it is readily available and written for the general public, it might help support your point to include a variety of authors. Someone may come along and not agree with Wolf and imagine that she is the only source. Specifically here it is noteworthy that you are using her terms for the stages, but many others have suggested similar stages. 
As for the global references tag, I am a bit stumped. Much of the research we have access to comes out of countries using alphabets. I actually think that the list is quite relevant globally, but that the tag is appropriate for the stages section which is primarily focussed on the challenges of learning to read languages with opaque phoneme-grapheme correspondence. This is, of course, Wolf's focus as she is working on English. I'll think on that one—quickly though as I see that there is a clock on GA submission.
Paula Marentette (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to meet Good Article requirements 

message: I raised this issue in the "eye movements in reading" article as well - this article is written in a way that assumes the language one is reading is written phonetically. What about pictographic languages (like Chinese calligraphy), and other styles of writing?  The article needs to be reviewed and revised with that issue in mind to change phrases that talk about syllables, phonemes, letters etc. I'm not saying these things need to be removed - the editors need to specify that these issues relate to particular writing systems, and then speak more extensively on learning to read other writing systems as well. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culturally biased 

message: I removed the text in the section below because it seems to give undue weight to a theory of reading which is advanced by a single author.  If further citations establish there is more merit to this theory than that, I recommend including it at the end of the "Methods of teaching reading" section. -- Beland (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: I have started a new section, on the age to introduce literacy learning. Please help fill this out with more empirical studies, etc. ! HGilbert (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age to introduce literacy learning 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Learning to read. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812024503/http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/report_recommendations.pdf to http://www.dest.gov.au/nitl/documents/report_recommendations.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705194256/http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/findings.cfm to http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/findings.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100610211113/http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/summary.htm to http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/summary.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611011153/http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/subgroups.htm to http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/publications/subgroups.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think adding  this topmost picture is at cross-purposes with the article. Even the caption "Teacher with pupils in a school of the resistance movement PAIGC in the liberated areas of Guinea-Bissau, 1974" does not mention 'reading'. It's a propaganda picture from 45 years ago, and does not put the subject here first. There must be a better picture. Gee, the picture at section Learning_to_read#Novice_reader actually is about reading! Shenme (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I will replace the photo with a non-political photo from Wiki Common unless there is a strenuous objection. John (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict with intent of article? 

message: I plan to rewrite this paragraph and will refer to the reference that is already there. While I am sure the intent is good, it seems to be based on opinions rather than verifiable facts.
"Which style to use in teaching reading has divided educators for years. It is now known that using the two approaches together is more powerful than either program alone. The technical skills learned through phonics are important for many children when learning to read, spell, and general language comprehension and engagement of children in the whole-language approach is also important to keep the children motivated and excited to learn. Many teachers and schools acknowledge this and say that they use multiple methods to teach children to read." John (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsubstantiated statements

message: I suggest we merge Reading education in the United States with Learning to read. And, I am happy to start this if there are no objections.
Reading education in the United States appears to be unnecessary, incomplete, inaccurate, and may contain promotional material ("Native reading" appears to be an advertisment).
If we merge these articles, we could add a "History" section in Learning to read, and incorporate the US material together with material on other countries. We might also add a section about attempts to measure the effectiveness of reading education (PISA, PIAAC, PIRLS, NAEP, OECD-TALIS, and perhaps National reading panel, Rose report etc.)
Most of the other material is covered more accurately in other articles (Learning to read, Phonics, Whole language, Literacy, etc.).
Please let me know what you think. John NH (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merger

message: I have respectfully copied a great deal of information from Reading education in the United States to Learning to read because the plan is to merge the two under Learning to read. The intent is to protect the good work that has gone into Reading education in the United States. Thanks to all who have contributed. I welcome suggestions and contributions.
John NH (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Material copied from Reading education in the United States to Learning to read

message: I have added information to the History section in "Learning to read" from the Phonics page "Practices by country or region". I believe the Learning to read article can now stand on its own, so if there are no objections I will soon redirect "Reading education in the United States" to "Learning to read". John NH (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Preparation for merger of "Reading education in the United States" with "Learning to read"

message: The tag on this section appears to be correct. The section does not appear to be entirely encyclopedic. It seems to be based largely on the opinion of one author who makes a very good case for there being "five stages of reading development". Yet, there are many different points of view on this subject. For example, some describe five different stages. Others see two, three, six stages, etc. Others see it is a lifelong process (See How to Read a Book).
I suggest the section be rewritten with an encyclopedic tone and style, having more viewpoints and references. Of course, it also seems to be appropriate to show how reading fits into the development of literacy.
I am happy to start this and welcome your suggestions. John NH (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: The Tag on the "Reading development" section

message: I suggest we merge Teaching reading: whole language and phonics with Learning to read. They are opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak, and it would much easier to maintain one page with integrity. Learning to read already has a section called "Methods of teaching reading". I am happy to start this and am open to suggestions. I would utilize material from both articles, of course. John NH (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merger of Teaching reading: whole language and phonics with Learning to read

message: I have merged the two articles and removed the flags. If I have missed anything, please leave a note and I will fix it. John NH (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged "Teaching reading: whole language and phonics" to this article

message: In my view the reading development section part attributed to Maryanne Wolf is still too wordy. I propose to slim it down a bit, leaving the essential details, unless someone has an objection.John NH (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reading development section seems to be too wordy

message: It seems to me that it would be easier on our readers if we merged these two sections. As a result, readers would not have to search around to make sense of it all. I am happy to do this and welcome suggestions. John NH (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging two sections: Skills required for proficient reading and Learning to read

message: I propose we merge Learning to read with Reading. This would enable our readers to find information more easily. It may be that many readers go to Reading when they really want more in-depth information about reading acquisition or teaching reading, etc., and don't know where to find it. Many readers, perhaps a majority, read Wikipedia on a smart phone so they may not see the "Reading" menu.
I welcome your comments. If there is an agreement to do the merger, I am happy to begin the process. John NH (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger of Learning to read with Reading