Talk:Learning to read

New article
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)

comment
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)

title is misleading. doesn't seem to me like it has anything to do with the actual content. most infomation could be gotten from dyslexia if not having some of this merged into it. also doesn't follow Manual of Style. i support afd.--Tainter 04:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This was tagged for speedy deletion as commercial spam. Iv've removed the tag as it doesn't appear to be so. It does, however, require cleaning up and Wikifying. DGG and Tainter, you are free to tag things for AfD yourselves if you wish, you do not need to vote on whether to tag or not. See this for the process, or give me a shout on my talk page if you need a hand. Tonywalton | Talk 12:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Name change
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)
 * Nobody commented, so I'll make the change. Lova Falk 09:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed mergers
The content of this page is less about the process of learning to read and more about the difficulties that can occur in the process of learning to read. In addition to the lead paragraphs focusing on the difficulties, there are a number of notes throughout the article regarding intervention programs that address particular difficulties that can obstruct the learning process. The article needs to be refocused on how the learning process takes place.

Since this article's title asserts that it is about acquiring reading skills, it is appropriate to include the Stages of Reading Development as a section in this article.

Difficulties encountered in the process of learning to read can be summarized and included as a separate section in this article. If this is done, the dyslexia merger suggestion can be handled by adding a reference to the dyslexia article. smoran 12:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No one has responded to my comments on this article yet. Can I assume that everyone currently interested in the article agrees that the article's title, "reading skills acquisition," implies that the topic covers a great deal more than difficulties that can obstruct the process of learning to read?


 * If no one responds in the next few days, I'll make the proposed changes.


 * Best,
 * Rosmoran 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

you are correct about the content not matching the article title. The content regarding the problems with learning to read should be either on the Reading Disabilities or Dyslexia Articles.

However there is a need for an Article to describe in depth the skills that humans need to develop to be able to read text. I am acutely aware that there is no Agreed Working Model for reading text. Yes varioius academic researchers have published their own thoughts, but there are no peer reviewed scientific papers on this topic.

What is required is to create defintions of the various skills required to carry out the task of reading. Define how these skills interact when performing the task of reading. And how these skills change or evolve as we become more experienced readers and discuss issues such as speed reading etc. This is not my area of speciality, but this needs to be done so that there si some basis to begin to discover why some have problems aquiring these skills which should be described in the other articles mentioned above.

Best wishes

dolfrog 00:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

the artilce "Developmental Stages of Reading" would probive this artilce with a good introducory section and would create a frame work for the structure of this article

best wishes

dolfrog 00:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Info removed from "Skills needed for proficient reading" section
I revised and tightened up this section, removing clearly POV statements and opinions. Info should now be much more encyclopedic; however, the section may need more in depth coverage of this topic area.

Removed text follows:


 * 1)  Auditory skills -- students with auditory processing difficulties often have problems learning to read. It takes a lot of auditory attention and memory to read.
 * 2)  Phoneme discrimination-- is almost as important to learning to read as phonemic awareness. Almost all the reasons that students have problems learning phonics are related to phoneme discrimination. Think about how hard the "short" vowel sounds for the letters a, e, i, o and u are to discriminate or how close the /m/, /n/ and /ng/ sound are and you will understand how discrimination issues impact reading.
 * 3)  Phonemic awareness -- regardless of age, students with reading difficulties have difficulties processing (hearing) all the sounds in words. ALL students with reading difficulties should be tested for phonemic awareness issues,  using the C-TOPP (Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. These tests reveal that students with reading problems don't hear and pronounce words accurately. Common phonemic awareness problems are the inability to accurately hear middle vowel sounds (related to the discrimination issue) so they hear bit for bat and pure for poor, or they don't hear all the sounds in consonant blends (yes, this is a phonemic problem not a phonics problem) so they hear bat instead of brat and coat for coast. Phonemic awareness in English requires much more than the simple segment and blend exercises used in some phonics programs. Phoneme manipulation is used in Sound Reading (www.SoundReading.com) and Reading Reflex (www.readamerica.net)
 * 4)  Phonics -- is essential for reading an alphabetic language like English but shouldn't be a primary reading intervention. The National Reading Panel clearly states that phonemic awareness is essential for learning phonics. Why do some students learn phonics in a few months in first grade while others take years to learn phonics? Simply a lack of phoneme discrimination and phonemic awareness. Letters don't stick until the sound structure of a language is in place. The NRP didn't find any difference between phonics programs. Phonics programs that require massive amounts of training  and years of instruction, such as Wilson Language (www.WilsonLanguage.com) are no more effective than brief, intensive programs like Sonday (www.sondaysystem.com).
 * 5)  Phonological Recoding is an advance on phonics, or decoding, programs. Many noted researchers, including Bruce McCandliss, Donald Shankweiler, DL Share, GB Thompson, CM Fletcher-Flinn and Howlett (in press) are crafting powerful alternatives to systematic phonics. Skilled readers use a lot more information to decode words than just sounds and symbols. We have phonological and semantic information about the word from speech. And English has many homophones and words that are similar in sound, so "contextual checking" is essential. Think about these sentences -- He wound the cloth around the wound. Do you produce produce? Polish men don't polish. Recoding uses all the information we have about a word, or knowledge source, to recode a written word into a meaningful spoken word. McCandliss' Word Building and Sound Reading Solutions  are example of recoding instruction. If a student is taking a long time to learn phonics and it is not translating into reading power recoding may be the answer.
 * 6)  Fluency -- recent research by Good (creator of (DIBELS) and Torgesen have found that about 95% of students that read at greater than 110 words a minute pass fourth grade state assessments and about 80% who read at less than 80 words per minute fail to meet state reading standards. Teaching decoding without teaching fluency is of little value. Fluency instruction includes two important parts -- rapid naming practice so students become fluent in the reading of sounds, syllables and words, followed by timed repeated reading of short, easy-to-read passages. Fluency Foundation uses both and Read Naturally is a good program using timed, repeated reading.
 * 7)  Comprehension is also a two-level system. Most comprehension instruction focuses on higher-level language comprehension and strategies, which are very important. Most of these skills and strategies are taught in elementary school, so older students who were struggling to read will need basic comprehension instruction. They must learn to think about the meaning of print, from predicting to inferring. But many students who struggle with comprehension have overlooked input, or receptive language, comprehension  issues. They struggle with accurately reading words, do it too slowly to keep words in memory, with word and sentence meaning. This is often the result of auditory and phonological issues.
 * 8)  Read, read some more, then read -- This works best when students are reading accurately and fluently. Most students who resist reading are labored readers who struggle with decoding and fluency. Have your child or student read out loud. If the reading is labored at all then reading more may not help. If the student is reading well then encourage reading, even if it is Captain Underpants!

Skills required for proficient reading
This section seems to be largely redundant with the introduction. While it does contain expansion of ideas, I'm not sure that the same information cannot be conveyed through simple wikilinking. Is there any objection to removing the section? --Moonriddengirl 18:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are, of course, infinite ways to present information, and the content of this section is no exception. However, the "expanded" content of the section should remain in the article. This material could be combined into a more extensive lead section, which is a model used by many Wiki articles.


 * As long as we don't lose any content, I don't care how it's presented.


 * Best,


 * Rosmoran 05:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Chall piece
I am not sure I understand why the Chall section is included. There is no doubt that Chall was influential and that her ideas were great, but I think it might make more sense to supplement the NRP component with the simple view of reading and Scarborough's "rope" of reading (2001 in the Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy, Dickinson and Neuman Eds. ... If you haven't seen it, Google Scholar the book and find the graphic; it's on p. 90 or so). This is more contemporary and much more widely known than the Chall approach. The simple view actually might be a better way to lead and the NRP would then dovetail nicely with this. What are others' thoughts? Kearnsdm (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There was another article called "Developmental Stages of Reading" that contained the Chall information. Several months ago there was a decision made to merge the two articles, making the Chall information a section in this article.


 * I don't have an issue with your suggestion --- it's a good idea. Plus, including graphics is "good" for visual presentation and would make the article look more polished.


 * Rosmoran (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

deleted non-global example
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)

Class Assignment Editing
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:
 * 1) expanded
 * 2) include overview of contents fround throughout the article
 * 3) there needs to be a reference for the definition
 * 4) make a specific reference that this article is for parents who have children learning to read or people who helping teach others to read.
 * 5) put in that the brain and genetics influence reading, but that is not the focus of this article
 * 6) move the links to phonics and synthetic phonics down the section on methods of teaching reading

Writing Systems

In this section we feel that:


 * 1) the title and purpose should be changed to towards focusing more on the history of learning to read.
 * 2) references are needed in this section

Cognitive Skills of Reading

We feel this this section contains a lot of good useful information, but:
 * 1) it needs to be expanded more.
 * 2) needs to include the whole word method
 * 3) described the benefits and drawbacks of each approach
 * 4) moved down a section below skills required to read
 * 5) and also change the title to cognitive styles of reading

Skills required for proficient reading when using a Latin alphabet writing system


 * 1) include all of the skills listed by the NRP in the descriptions
 * 2) Skill definitions need references
 * 3) Edits to all skill definitions
 * 4) Add back in from discussion page Auditory Skills
 * 5) 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:
 * 1) needs an introduction
 * 2) and edits need to be made to each section
 * 3) and include whole word method

Reading Difficulties This section needs to be:
 * 1) defined beyond the definition
 * 2) linked to the official dyslexia article

Those are our ideas for improving this page.

Alk4hgirl (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Sngriffi (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alk4hgirl and Sngriffi.

It appears you have taken on a rather contentious article! Be sure you have considered carefully the talk history before you proceed. Clearly there have been many issues and changes to this piece. They must be kept in mind as you edit. A few comments at this early point.

Although I think your change of title is an interesting idea, I think that it would be controversial. This is particularly true since I don't see much that you plan to do that focusses on English. Are there other articles about reading other scripts that could be linked or mentioned that might warrant a focus at least on alphabetic scripts? This is worth considering.

You suggest indicating that the article is about children learning to read OR teaching someone to read. Do you mean children? Would the information here be relevant to teaching an adult to read? Could/Should it be made relevant?

Why is there a Writing Systems section at all if it doesn't link to reading? Might this be a place to indicate whether the many different writing systems place differing or identical demands on the reader. This would be a way to acknowledge that all readers don't read English and set up a situation where those who know more about reading in non-alphabetic systems could add a section addressing that.

I frankly don't understand the Cognitive Skills of Reading section, nor do I find that changing to Cognitive Styles is any clearer. I would consider removing this all together. It seems to repeat what will be said elsewhere about teaching styles.

Not clear why the super long title using Latin Alphabet system is needed. Could it be shortened? Is it the case that non-Latin but still alphabetic languages are read differently? Here is a place where you really need to attend tot eh discussion If you are putting back in skills that were removed, you need to have a good reason for doing so and furthermore say what the reason is here on the talk page.

I can see why you want to clarify the very wordy definition of dyslexia that is used. I would however be careful not to try to say too much. A link to a resaonably well developed page (as I believe Dyslexia is) should not drown in extra information. The most important thing to do would be to link learning to read (the subject of this article) with dyslexia.

I don't see where Alk4hgirl is going to put her info on the prereading experiences that set the stage for reading. Am I missing that? Otherwise, this is looking very good.

Paula Marentette (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys! I saw that the DYK nomination has run into some problems. Looking at the article, in addition to the points raised by the DYK reviewer, here are some other things that need to be fixed: Let me know if you need clarification on any of those points. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Need specific page numbers for the Wolf source, not just total number of pages in the book
 * Tone needs to be neutral and encyclopedic. Keep in mind that this isn't an essay or persuasive work
 * Writing systems section needs citation
 * Bare URLs need to be properly formatted to include title, publisher and access date

Hey sngriffi, Overall, very interesting topic, I suggest re-reading it to look for grammatical errors, maybe read it out loud with punctuation in mind (take breaths at the commas and pause for the periods) and see how it sounds? Some examples of what I am talking about are: "Other important skills are: rapid automatized naming (RAN),[65][66] a general understanding of the Orthography of the language .[67] [68] and practice. [69] [70]" Either the sentence is using the wrong punctuation or it is different thoughts, it needs to be clarified. "reader understands the word if it is in the reader's spoken vocabulary. Otherwise, the reader must" I think that it should be "vocabulary, otherwise, the reader must . . ."

Also, for having multiple references attached to 1 you need to find the first citation and put in the <> ref name= "whatever you want to call the short cut"  then put in your reference then end the reference, and the next time you use the reference go <>ref name= whatever you called it / Hope this helps, if that doesn't make sense go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources and look at the repeated sources section. Good luck with the submission! Hkyoung01 (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

stages of development
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)

In the description of the decoding stage, it is stated (slightly indirectly) that together should be analyzed to-get-her. I find this preposterous. This analysis separated two letters that together represent ONE phoneme, th=, see e.g. English language. Does the source really say this? Is it reliable? --Ettrig (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In considering the first comment by Ettrig, I wonder if the Acquiring Language section should somehow be combined with the Emerging Prereader stage. They appear to be addressing the same time period and focussed on the same achievements. The Acquiring Language section is more specific. Is there a reason to keep them separate? I do agree that saying that children produce first words around age 1 seems out of context given that this is no specific link to reading.

Paula Marentette (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am also in complete agreement with Ettig about the "together" example. There is absolutely no "her" in together and the sooner a child figures out that th can't come apart, the better. A more appropriate example, likely with morphologically relevant examples is needed. Paula Marentette (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes to meet Good Article requirements
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)

Also I put in a Biemiller cite that is to an open source pdf, but the ref list shows his name as a broken link (even though there is a functional external link to the article). Not sure how to fix that. Marentette (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Novice reader section, might it be advantageous to put together the two bits that are about decoding the text, and separate out the part about phonological awareness? Right now they are mixed together.

Paula Marentette (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Decoding reader section, there is a problem with the example of "together" as mentioned above. Much of the text appears is framed as what fluent readers can do, rather than what decoding readers are learning to do. I think an example of what a decoding readers does while reading might be advantageous. Paula Marentette (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Culturally biased
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)

I appreciate this comment, and we can certainly make changes to indicate what aspects are restricted to reading alphabetic languages. Neither myself nor my students will be able to add content about reading other writing systems. There is a small set of research articles on learning reading Chinese for example, but I do not cover this area in class. From my perspective it is hard to have a general article that crosses writing systems, as a result, most aspects of this article are particularly about phonetic systems. I have not removed the global tag because I recognize that this is an issue. My preferred solution would be to make the article "learning to read alphabetic languages" and have separate articles for different writing systems. Given we are new to Wikipedia, my students and I thought this too bold a change for a first outing. Paula Marentette (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed text
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)

Acquiring reading naturally
In a recent proposal, it has been claimed that reading can be acquired naturally if print is constantly available at an early age in the same manner as spoken language. If an appropriate form of written text is made available before formal schooling begins, reading should be learned inductively, emerge naturally, and with no significant negative consequences. This proposal advances knowledge and understanding because it challenges the commonly held belief that written language requires formal instruction and schooling. Its success would change current views of literacy and schooling. Utilizing developments in behavioral science and technology, an interactive system (Technology Assisted Reading Acquisition, TARA) is prpposed to enable young pre-literate children to accurately perceive and learn various properties of written language by simply exposure to the written form.

Age to introduce literacy learning
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)

External links modified
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)

Conflict with intent of article?
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 actually is about reading! Shenme (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)

Unsubstantiated statements
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)

Suggested merger
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)


 * I have added a "history" section with a view to merging Reading education in the United States with Learning to read. I Have attempted to use as much of the good material and references as possible from Reading education in the United States. I realize a great deal of work has gone into that article.

I have also added a section called Reading achievement: National and international reports. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. I may continue to tweak this section.

Thank you. John NH (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Material copied from Reading education in the United States to Learning to read
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)

Preparation for merger of "Reading education in the United States" with "Learning to read"
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)

The Tag on the "Reading development" section
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)

Suggested merger of Teaching reading: whole language and phonics with Learning to read
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)

Merged "Teaching reading: whole language and phonics" to this article
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)

Reading development section seems to be too wordy
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)

Merging two sections: Skills required for proficient reading and Learning to read
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)

Proposed merger of Learning to read with Reading
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)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Alberta—Augustana Campus supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)