RE: How do we read?

["Cindy Kight" <Cindy -dot- Kight -at- DataMaxGroup -dot- com>]

Yes, this was an interesting and fun exercise.  Though I joked it took three times as long, it was actually very easy.

Now, let the volunteer reading tutor in me rant for a minute:

<rant>
We could all breeze through this because we're already good readers and spellers.  Once you have already learned to read, your mind speeds up and you process the information differently than when you're learning.

However, my concern is studies like this, studying people who can already read, often lead to bizarre new theories about TEACHING reading that leave children confused and unable to read well.

I've tutored a number of teenagers who were taught to look at the beginning and end of words.  While that worked for simple words when they were younger, they had a tough time later on. When reading, any 'co...tion' word would often be read as 'communication', whether that word was 'constitution', 'compilation', 'conjugation', 'conflagration', 'cohabitation', or whatever. It's hard for people who can read well to understand just how destructive some educational theories are to marginal students. 

Don't even get me started on the 'Whole Language' fiasco we had here in California a while back.  (Though a friend of mine made a very good living tutoring reading as a result.)
</rant>

Tech writing tie-in:
On the plus side, when people can't write or spell well, writers become more valuable.
On the other hand, when people can't read, who needs writers?

Not that Sean meant to spark a debate on educational theory - especially on a Friday!

Cindy Kight