Product Description
“This book is destined to become a classic work on early reading instruction.” — Judith A. Bowey, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Beginning to Read reconciles the debate that has divided theorists for decades over the “right” way to help children learn to read. Drawing on a rich array of research on the nature and development of reading proficiency, Adams shows educators that they need not remain trapped in the phonics versus teaching-for-m… More >>
Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print
Tags: About, Beginning, decades, early reading, education, journal of experimental psychology, learning, Phonics, Print, quarterly journal of experimental psychology, Read, reading instruction, reading proficiency, rich array, theorists, Thinking
#1 by Anonymous on January 30, 2010 - 3:58 am
Recent eye movement research by Dr. Eric Paulson refutes most of the finding in this text.
Rating: 1 / 5
#2 by P.o.E. on January 30, 2010 - 5:10 am
Adams’ text is seminal in the field of literacy, especially early literacy. Of course, originally published in 1990, the text is slightly out-dated, especially considering the vast body of educational and psychological research which has emerged in the past 18 years. However, as a seminal text, its influence is quite profound. The only reason it’s marked a four instead of five is that Adams forgets that phonics is part of whole language (see Weaver’s and Goodman’s research and texts on reading) and was not meant to be separated from whole language. Instead, phonics instruction is contextual and authentic (based on reading/writing activities in which the students participate). Read Frank Smith, Ken Goodman, Yetta Goodman & Eileen Burke, and Constance Weaver for some good analyses of reading – and definitely look for their research studies.
Rating: 4 / 5
#3 by Debra Wynkoop on January 30, 2010 - 5:17 am
If you are a reading teacher that is interested in learning how chldren learn to read and what methods work best, this is a fantastic book. Every possible variable is objectively broken down and examined. I learned more about teaching reading from this book than any other book I’ve read.
Rating: 5 / 5
#4 by Pam Tee on January 30, 2010 - 7:00 am
This book contains gems: there is no question about that. The `reading-literacy’ project was given solid funding by the government and Ms. Adams has done a superlative job of surveying the literature and coming up with reasonable conclusions.
That said, there is a problem. And the problem is that “Beginning to Read” was written for bureaucrats. The straightforward language we might expect from an educator and researcher is therefore made obscure, obtuse, and overly `officious’. [No doubt pleasing to the edu-crats.]
For example, (from page 413; the summary): “It is because of the process of comprehension consists of actively searching the overlap among words for syntactic and semantic coherence that reading depends so critically on the speed and automaticity of word recognition.”
[Or, in other words, reading comprehension depends on speed and automatic word recognition so that the nascent reader can make use of syntax and semantics. ]
Not incomprehensible in it’s original form, Adam’s verbiage is awkward and somehow embarrassing for a book that is supposed to be about `reading’ and `comprehension’.
Three Stars. A comprehensive survey of current and past literature, this book attempts–and in my opinion succeeds– in reconciling the phonics versus whole language camps. However, expect a slog of it. [Unless of course you are an edu-crat in which case the officiousness will sound very convincing indeed-lol]
Anyone else interested in this topic but with less time might find the same information in a `tastier’ format in the following books: Mem Fox’s “Reading Magic”; and the slightly less digestible “Raising Lifelong Learners” by Lucy McCormick Calkins.
Pam T.
Rating: 2 / 5
#5 by Willem Van Den Broeck on January 30, 2010 - 9:23 am
This book offers a wealth of information about reading development. It is a terrific source, as well for the scientist, as for the interested layman. Although it is biased toward the Seidenberg and McClelland model, the wealth of empirical data is more than compensating. It is an heroic attemt to synthesize different viewpoints.
Rating: 5 / 5