Talk:Reading readiness

[Untitled]
Reading readiness is not emergnet literacy, nor early literacy. In fact, they are two extremes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.245.44 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Questionable content and point of view
This article is questionable in a number of ways, the most important of which are:


 * The title (Reading readiness) does not seem to match content of article (early reading acquisition)
 * The article makes comparisons and recommendations based on the writer's point of view, not from a referenced source

Needs complete re-vamp, starting from what information is needed to explicate the topic of "reading readiness."

Best,

Rosmoran 06:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

I think this article does have some references at the botom of the page, but the links in the article to the references have been lost. The authopr could be like me and totally confused by the complexities of working in WIKI, which for me is an aloen way of thinking, more of a problem for me than My APD causes me in processing everyday language. WIKI has structures all of its own which are alien to all but those who are able to work in such a strangely structured system. However to get the truth in article is sometimes worth ther stress.

The other issues that comes accross is that in Canada there seems to be a calmer more unified approach to this topic. Like the Canadian input tot he Dyslexia article regarding definitios of dyslexia, more informative and less devisive.

This ould be a new host for the "Reading skills acquisition" article

best wishes

dolfrog 01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently a grad student obtaining my masters in literacy, the content of this article does not reflect the Reading Readiness belief. In fact, it discusses elements of the Emergent Literacy belief. Which are two compeletly different ways of understanding how one learns to read and write. I would re-evaluate the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.150.197 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dubious tag regarding Reading Recovery claim
The following statement is a claim currently in the lead section of this article:

"Fortunately, through the reading recovery program children who are struggling with reading are given extra support."

There are many issues with this statement WRT Wikipedia. Here are the first 3 that come to mind:
 * The statement is very POV
 * Reading Recovery is a commercial program; claims such as this do not belong in Wikipedia (b/c it sounds like Wikipedia is endorsing Reading Recovery)
 * There is no balance in the statement about Reading Recovery -- RR has highly visible supporters and detractors, and both views must be presented and each given "due weight".

This statement should either be removed from the article entirely, or moved someplace after the lead section where the controversial aspects of the program can be addressed.

I think that the best approach would be to state that research-based interventions are available to help children read, and to provide links to information resources.

Best,

Rosmoran 09:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous Advertising
I removed the following:

A new approach is gaining attention. Independent research exposes advantages of organizing information according to what is HEARD. Learners spell-out speech sounds (phonemes), word by word. No skipping. No guessing. Almost 100 vowel sound spellings are explicitly taught, as needed, using the author's vocabulary, and preferably ahead of time! More at WordsAhead.org.

If anything in there is accurate, salvageable and relevant, by all means, put it back. Fëaluinix 07:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

non-phonology related writing systems
This article seems to treat alphabetic, abjadic, syllabic, and phonetic writing systems, thus allocates phonetic readings of text as a requirement, except that there is no such relation when applied to ideographic, logographic, pictographic systems, or that the written and oral language forms may have different grammars -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)