A basic book on how children learn to read please

[Sleepymorningcuddles]

Hi, I'm delivering music instruction and trying (despite scarcity of time) to teach some pre-notation concepts (chord charts).

It's got me interested in how children convert squiggley symbols into silent sounds into meaning-I wondered if there is a succinct well written popular type book anyone could recommend that explains how we learn to read? It's to educate myself because of the environment I'm in. It doesn't need to be teacher-training material, just for general readers.

Thanks.

No, there isn't!

It is a very contentious issue, believe it or not.

You could have a look at this website www.phonicsinternational.com where there is lots of helpful information for parents.

Or you could take a look at some of the blogs here literacyblog.blogspot.co.uk/ Some of them touch on learning to read, the psychology of learning etc.

Otherwise there is an out of print book which you can get second hand called 'Why Children Can't Read' by Diane McGuinness but it is a bit outdated in what it says about 'phonics' in that she wasn't aware of the modern UK programmes when she wrote it.

Whatever you do, though, don't believe anything that says children will just pick up reading from being immersed in books! Or if it says nothing about systematic & explicit phonics teaching.

What age or Yr group are you aiming at?

I would have thought 'chord charts' (unless you mean pictorial ones showing a keyboard and the notes to be played ) would confuse children more, than starting to learn a few 'blobs on lines and spaces'.

I taught simple 'informal' recorder groups; some years, if children were up to it, we would learn B A G on on the stave. Other times we just learnt the fingerings and did it all from memory.

What I find causes most confusion for novice keyboard or piano players, is why treble and bass clef are different, and it is only if they are shown the 'grand staff' they can realise that each is a continuation of the other.

Year 3.

Thanks - I've tried standard notation and ukulele chord charts in the same year group and ukulele chord charts were far more successful as they are only one step away from a picture of the fretboard. If you google uke chord charts you'll see what I mean

Anyone else know a book about learning to read? Doesn't need to be aimed at teachers.

Hi,

agree there is no one answer that everyone agrees on, so there are numbers of books out there that will probably not agree with each other!

I think for your question you are more concerned with pre-reading skills actually, than with the intricacies of reading themselves. I read the early chapters of a book called 'Montessori Read and Write' - the early chapters covering pre-skills - and found it quite insightful and helpful for my understanding.

From memory,

• it discusses that children usually learn to associate lines on paper with meaning from early on - they know that that picture of a duck represents a duck. Means 'duck'. However a squiggle will only translate to a meaningful thing to them if the thing it represents means something to the child. E.g. they have seen a duck, or seen lots of pictures of ducks, or seen toy ducks, and know that these things they have seen are represented by the sound/word 'duck'. If ducks are totally foreign and new to a child, they won't be able to interpret a picture of a duck as being a picture of a duck.

• So a symbol needs to represent something that has meaning to me in order for me to 'learn' it. But individual sounds (letters) may not yet have 'meaning' to a child. Ok so the symbol 'b' represents the sound /b/. But so far a child may not have 'heard' individual sounds. The sound /b/ may not mean anything to a child. So it would be a bit like me telling you that the symbol '±' represents 'blibo' - if 'blibo' doesn't mean anything to you, it will be a bit confusing and leave you bewildered (and wondering why on earth you are meant to know that blibo is represented by ±). So, it makes sense to first help children to 'hear' the sounds. Once individual sounds have meaning, it is much easier to learn to associate a symbol with that sound - which now has a meaning.

• it discusses that in phonetic languages, the meaning of a word lies in the sound (of the word) rather than in the symbol. So if you write 'duck' then the letters by themselves don't 'mean' anything, but when you sound it out, and hear 'duck', then there's the meaning. It is different with numbers - 18 carries the meaning of 18 by itself, independent of how you sound it - if it is dix-huit, achtzehn, or eighteen, it is still '18'. Similarly Chinese symbols carry their meaning independently of the sound. They can be read by Japanese people, who will pronounce the symbols differently, but the meaning remains the same.

That's why in phonetic languages, you have to take the 'detour' of going via sound. That's why when learning to read, you don't just learn to associate certain squiggles with meanings, but rather, you learn to associate certain squiggles with sounds, and then the sounds (put together/blended, but that is another story) carry the meaning.

Now I don't know anything about music theory - so could be totally wrong here - but it would seem to me that musical notation is more like numbers than like phonetic language. The 'meaning' of the squiggle is a specific sound. It will sound a bit different depending on which instrument you play the sound with, but it will still be the same sound. Like 18 is the same number no matter what language you say it in.
Or you could say that the squiggle is an instruction. The notation for 'b flat' does not represent a sound at all, but rather represents an instruction for which key to press / how to hold your hand on the strings / which holes to cover on the recorder / etc. And then that action results in a sound. So like in reading, where letters represent sounds and the sounds hold meaning, in this case it would be that the notation represents an instruction, and the instruction results in a sound.

Either way, if you choose to go along the lines of that Montessori book I mentioned, I would try to assure that the children know the 'thing' that is represented by the 'squiggle' - are able to hear, do, differentiate it from others - before you try to make them learn which squiggle represents this thing which may yet be totally meaningless to them.

But as I said, I believe there is no consensus on these things - ask someone else, read a different book, and you might well reach different conclusions!

Wow, what a helpful post, thank you!

"Standard notation" in music is like this:
"Now I don't know anything about music theory - so could be totally wrong here - but it would seem to me that musical notation is more like numbers than like phonetic language. The 'meaning' of the squiggle is a specific sound. It will sound a bit different depending on which instrument you play the sound with, but it will still be the same sound. Like 18 is the same number no matter what language you say it in."

Whereas ukulele chord charts are like this:
"Or you could say that the squiggle is an instruction. The notation for 'b flat' does not represent a sound at all, but rather represents an instruction for which key to press / how to hold your hand on the strings / which holes to cover on the recorder / etc. And then that action results in a sound. So like in reading, where letters represent sounds and the sounds hold meaning, in this case it would be that the notation represents an instruction, and the instruction results in a sound."

The problem I have with Meita's explanation is that I think that first learning the individual phonemes (sounds) without any reference to letters would be equally puzzling to a child as they have no purpose in isolation. That is why a good phonics proramme teaches both together.

I don't know about Montessori; I have read her own account of teaching reading (which she did through spelling) but I don't know what modern Montessori practice is. I had assumed it was similar to a modern synthetic/linguistic phonics programme.

Just as a matter of interest, Chinese characters contain phonetic information as well as meaning. Also, learning to read them apparently takes far, far longer than learning to read English!

If I understood that particular book correctly, the way they learn to 'hear' individual sounds is pretty much the same as I believe happens in EYFS (again, if I understood correctly) - by playing lots of 'I spy' type of games. Starting with learning to identify the first sound of a word but then continuing towards learning to identify sounds in other positions e.g. which of these three things (jug, bed, mat - the book recommends to have actual items/small world items in front of you) has a /g/ sound at the end; or which of them contains an /a/ sound anywhere; or how many objects can you find in this room that contain a /ch/ sound.
To me that sounds pretty meaningful without any need to know the symbols for /a/ or /g/ or /ch/ already - though if a child shows interest in letters, I would not hesitate to show them the letter at the same time. And I would think that Montessori would too. But it is not a requirement - if a child has no interest whatsoever in letters yet, they can still learn to 'hear' (discriminate) the individual sounds in words. Then later when they are ready it will be a logical straightforward step to learn the symbols that represent the sounds that they are well versed in 'hearing'/discriminating.

They don't learn sounds in isolation in EYFS even if following a programme that teaches one sound a day. Ít is always in the context of words and as soon as enough sounds are taught they will be used to read and spell simple words.

They definitely shouldn't be learning the sound as the initial sound but in different positions in words right from the start. So a child may only have been taught "s" but will be presented with sun, grass, nest for example and asked if they can hear the sound "s".
Other programmes start with words and teach multiple sounds from the start.

I agree that it makes sense to teach sounds in contexts of words. I don't think I claimed differently - just that it is possible (and, IMO, can be meaningful) to learn to discriminate sounds (in spoken words) without at the same time learning the symbols for the sounds.

Getting back to how that might translate into teaching 'reading music notation' it makes me wonder what the equivalent to a word would be, a 'musical word' so to say. Rather than just playing a b-flat note and then expecting that to have any 'meaning' to a learner (for in the next step to introduce the symbol for b-flat); would it make sense/be necessary to learn to hear the various notes in the context of them making up a 'jingle' (for want of better ideas)? With my very limited musicality, I am totally lost when asked to identify a single tone, but can easily discriminate two tones from each other when played subsequently. And could make a guess at intervals (if that is the correct term).
But then I'm just thinking aloud here - probably starting to contradict myself ;)

IIRC that particular book I mentioned earlier, recommends starting to learn to discriminate the sounds (in words - spoken words) for average 2-3 year olds - as I said, pre-reading skills. Some children that age will be interested in the symbols for the sounds, some won't; and there is plenty of time for the symbols yet for those who aren't (IMO). By the time children are in reception, I suspect (but couldn't claim to know) that most will 'hear' the various sounds making up a word already. Reception teachers will be building on/extending that skill that many in their class will already have, at least partially. For many kids they won't actually need to 'teach' them to hear a particular sound; they will just have to tell them that this sound /s/ (which they have already learned to hear/detect in words; maybe a bit of reminding/reinforcing is needed) is represented by the grapheme . And I assume (again without knowing) that if a child in reception struggles to discriminate between sounds, e.g. dog and dot sound the same to them, or they struggle with identifying if the word 'cat' contains an /a/ sound, then the teacher would try to help them with this.

Be that as it may. I am not claiming that Montessori in general or this book in particular is 'right' and anyway may memory of what the book says may be poor. Just putting one approach out there.

I think that my own conclusion from my thinking on this thread would be that if I were to attempt to teach musical notation (which is only going to happen in a thought experiment :) ), I would start by finding out if my students had a grasp of that thing that the notation is meant to represent. If they did, all good - get on with teaching the notation. If not, I would try to find ways to help them gain at least a basic grasp, so that the notation then actually means something to them.

If you are thinking of musical notation as similar to numbers, i.e. the symbol carries the meaning, then perhaps you need to be researching how children learn to count/understand numbers/understand amounts, rather than how they learn to read! :)

Meita, that Montessori book sounds quite interesting. I liked your explanation about pre-reading skills.

By the way, in reference to your comment: “I agree that it makes sense to teach sounds in contexts of words. I don't think I claimed differently - just that it is possible (and, IMO, can be meaningful) to learn to discriminate sounds (in spoken words) without at the same time learning the symbols for the sounds.”

I agree with you. I saw this with my son. Our home language is Spanish, which I believe is a purely phonetic language. When he was 3 years old, completely on his own he suddenly told me very excited that “ma” (the syllable “ma”) was in “mamá” (mother) and in “mano” (hand). And then he started naming various words that started with the same syllable, or had that syllable in the middle or at the end of the words. It was as if he had been thinking about it for some reason and it had suddenly clicked and he was able to see connections in how the words he knew were made.

I then thought, great, if he can discriminate sounds (syllables), he could also connect them with the written syllable, and read them. But he was not interested whatsoever in the written syllables, even though he already knew the names of the letters in the alphabet and all the numbers and could recognise them in written form.

I left it at that, and it was a whole year until I tried again (he had just turned 4). This time he took it in and learned to recognise the symbols (syllables) that matched the sounds he already knew and then learned how to read.

I don't think I mentioned you melts? However it's important that the OP realises that children aren't taught that way.

I also think it's important to remember that spoken language development is a natural process for most children but written language is an artificial concept and doesn't develop the same way.

The "babbling" stage where children repeat sounds "mamamama" and "dada" being amongst the earliest is speech development but aren't linked to reading or writing.

I'm enjoying the answers and wishing I knew more now....just to go back to Meita, here is a uke chord chart:

swww.dummies.com/how-to/content/ukulele-for-dummies-cheat-sheet-uk-edition.html

It's an instruction about where to put your fingers. All I say is that writing it down is a way to remember a chord. The finger patterns have no significance in themselves. But music education is absolutely as you say Meita - the first thing is to have a song to remember - only then is there a need to think about how you will remember it.

My next step would be to list the chords left to right and get the kids to think about logical ways of spacing them out. That would gradually give opportunities to introduce elements of "standard" notation.

Sorry, there is a rogue s at the beginning of the link

www.amazon.co.uk/Language-Development-Learning-Read-Scientific/dp/026263340X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426102497&sr=8-1&keywords=diane+mcguinness+and+learning+to+reading

Thank you Mrz. I bet people on this will find that very useful. It may be at a higher level than I can cope with though - I work my way through the music ed. equivalents and it's hard work!

In a previous life, I had to learn about behaviourism and was pointed to a book called "Don't Shoot the Dog" which is written by an expert but is the sort of thing you can fead on the train.
Hmm, I wonder f someone ke David Crystal has written anything?

www.amazon.co.uk/How-Language-Works-Meaning-Languages/dp/0141015527/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426109066&sr=1-1&keywords=how+language+works

As said there isn't a basic book

Looks promising, thanks.

There's a gap in the market!

I wonder f someone ke David Crystal has written anything?

I wouldn't recommend it if he had. He writes about language and from what I've read of his I don't think he quite understands about how reading and the English alphabetic code really works.

Enjoying the music/reading analogies.

I do think the montessori description is in tune with pre-reading skills as taught at the nursery stage of EYFS. It has goals like "hears and says the initial sounds in words", "continues a rhyming string", "can segment the sounds in simple words and blend them together" before any mention of written letters. The "Letters and Sounds" programme for example explicitly talks about teaching oral segmenting and blending in phase 1, before starting to introduce GPCs.
Don't all toddlers like finding things beginning with the same "letter" as their name? By which they mean sound, they're not looking at things written down.

Actually, this one is reasonably basic, I seem to recall:

www.amazon.co.uk/Reading-Development-Difficulties-Introduction-Psychology/dp/1405151552/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426189725&sr=1-1&keywords=kate+cain

The expressions you would hear in music ed would be "sound before symbol" and "fluency first and last".

Ideas about having musical meanings to notate before you notate them are common to all pedagogies.

Meita raises really interesting points. Meita -when it comes to pitch, "songs" is not made of notes but rather of relationships between notes, and any note can be "key". As you'd already figured out!

Re the question of whether notation is more like numbers - I oversimplified that....

Thanks kestrel!