MM> VH> I just read an interesting study that found that READING to children
MM> VH> has little effect -- but HAVING books in the house and valuing them
MM> VH> ("Oh, look, Suzie!  Grandma gave you a BOOK!") does
have an effect.

MM>When I was a country teacher,  the number of homes visited which
MM>had no books in sight was apalling - and I suspect its worse now
MM>with TV, games and suchlike ...  shudder, shudder !

MM>As to reading to kids,  get hold of Robinson Forbes's "Reading
MM>Revolution" (ISBN 0-9597902-1-7);  this ex-headmaster developed
MM>and tested his read-aloud-and-point scheme which works like magic
MM>on all levels of beginning reading.
MM>.

MM>He uses an epidiascope to project a kid's favourite book up in
MM>front of a reading class,  reading aloud from it WHILE pointing at
MM>the clumps, words or syllables being voiced.

MM>His data shows that doing this for 30 minutes twice a week
MM>accelorates all beginning readers at significant rates.

MM>My spin on this is that reading to kids is 80% wasted effort if
MM>the reader isn't showing the child what's being voiced - at all
MM>ages.  "Monkey see, monkey do" is exactly how youngsters learn.

I agree -- INTERACTIVE reading is what's needed.

MM> VH> I agree -- I think, however, in the US at least, we simply by fad have
MM> VH> some answers.

MM>Same the whole world over... with most of them bought to amuse Dad
MM>or Mum.

MM> VH> How about "Neonatal cognitive learning?"

MM>Or just "Early learning" ... did you know that recent ultra-sound
MM>and MRI scans have confirmed surgical and observational findings
MM>from 2 centuries back that fetuses learn and rehearse behaviours
MM>before birth ?  Grasping, mouthing and breathing feature
MM>prominently, of course - and undoubtedly similar activities will
MM>be taking place in the brain....

The National Geographic has a wonderful DVD called "In the Womb" which
takes a little girl from conception to birth and includes shots of twins
playing in the womb, surgery in the womb, and so on.  It uses General
Electric 4-D Sonogram, which is almost like looking through a window at
the child in the womb.

The pro-choice supporters are outraged by it -- because it shows how
HUMAN the unborn child is at a very early age.

MM>We're celebrating Dyslexic Week here in NZ,  and the flood of
MM>articles all proclaim that reading is a new behaviour that has
MM>popped up in the last 5000 years - without having any evolved
MM>brain parts to support it.

That doesn't make sense -- reading is all about symbols, and Man was
using symbols, drawings and so on long ago.

MM>I'm developing a contary view that brains evolved to permit the
MM>`reading' of tracks, weather, the behaviour of others, social
MM>situations and the like -  along with the bits needed to converse
MM>verbally - over the last 50,000 years or more.

At least that early.  One point in favor of that is the independent
development of writing in many parts of the world.  If there is no brain
structure to support it, why does it keep popping up all over, from the
Near East to Centeral America?

MM>What has developed over the last 5,000 years or more is our
MM>ability to represent experience by marks on flat surfaces that
MM>make sense to that `reading' capability.

I suspect there was rudamentary reading much earlier -- a picture of an
animal with marks beside it to mean, "We killed three gazelle."

MM>In short,  that reading came first - writing is what we developed
MM>ourselves over the last 5,000 years.

MM>How does that sit with you ?

Again, the independent development of writing -- and of different
SYSTEMS -- alphabet, heiroglyphics, sylabaries, ideographs and so on --
tend to show you are right.  Writing took advantage of what was already
there.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5