Fucking education! How does it work?

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Predicting potential isn't making much sense to me in this case. Predicting what exactly? For when? Would the teacher not be able to easily determine through regular English word evaluations who needs additional support?

From Wildy's link:

These can all be done without nonsense words. This is exactly the kind of stuff I do to assess Kiddo...randomly changing the first letter, last letter, or vowel quickly eliminates guessing and memorization as the source of the word.

I don't think they are using nonsense words for everything, but there is a nonsense words part of the evaluation.

Nonsense word fluency is a measure of alphabetic principle and phonics.

[LadyShea]

I see what you are saying Wildy, but still don't understand why nonsense words are better at assessing letter sound knowledge than just the letter by itself or the letter used in real words?

What sound does S make? What sound does B make? What letter makes the b sound in bat?

I have been explaining to Kiddo that sounding out the letters is to help him connect the written word to the spoken word...that all written words correspond to a spoken word. Nonsense words completely counteract the whole point of reading, in my mind. That's why I am having such a hard time with it.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I see what you are saying Wildy, but still don't understand why nonsense words are better at assessing letter sound knowledge than just the letter by itself or the letter used in real words?

What sound does S make? What sound does B make? What letter makes the b sound in bat?

And those questions seem to be part of this, too. I don't think that anyone is saying that nonsense words are better than real words, but they do give another dimension for the teacher to understand how much the child knows about letters going with sounds.

It's just an additional way to measure, and takes away some of the noise that other testing might not.

I have been explaining to Kiddo that sounding out the letters is to help him connect the written word to the spoken word...that all written words correspond to a spoken word. Nonsense words completely counteract the whole point of reading, in my mind. That's why I am having such a hard time with it.

You have an advanced child and are an involved parent. There will be children in those schools who have never seen their parent read ANYTHING or tell them that S makes the s sound. Ever. They may have parents who communicate by grunts and slapping (no, I am totally serious) and the words "[name], NO"

They have no background in literacy, and they are going to need the most help in understanding that sounds correspond with letters. I really don't think that 2 minutes of attempting to read nonsense words a month (considering that they will need more frequent eval) will counteract their reading instruction.

[ceptimus]

All mimsy were the borrogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe.

[seebs]

"Nonsense word fluency" actually sounds sensical to me.

How else can you verify that the kid is handling phonetics, not just happening to know the test words?

[erimir]

I rather doubt the use of nonsense words will negatively impact their learning, and it eliminates a confounding factor (namely, sight reading) in evaluating an aspect of reading skills.

Linguists like using nonsense words to test a lot of things.

We use nonsense words to test a child's understanding of morphology as well.

For example, this classic:



This tells us whether they have acquired the rule that "-s" marks plurals. You can also check whether they have acquired the allomorphs. Orthographically, the plural marker is "-s", but a linguist would probably say it's basic form is /-z/, but the allomorph that you would probably be interested in is the /-iz/ form (as in "dresses"), since children acquire that later than the basic /-z/ and /-s/ allomorphs.

Yada yada, you can do it with past tense and progressive suffixes and so forth as well. You have to use nonsense words because initially children just memorize the forms - including all the regular nouns and verbs. In fact, what you'll see is that kids don't have any particular problem with irregular nouns and verbs initially (since they treat regular nouns and verbs the same), but once they master the rule, they'll begin to apply it to even nouns and verbs they already knew. So, a child that said "went" might later say "goed". But there's no guarantee that they would do that to a particular word. So the best way to test whether they have the rule is to present an unfamiliar word, and the best way to ensure that it's unfamiliar is to give them a nonsense word.

I don't think they typically test those in school, however, since only someone with a language disorder would have any particular problem with them - and a deficiency in morphology would be obvious, since it would manifest in speech as well as writing.

[LadyShea]

Thanks for the discussion guys. I still don't feel a solid case has been made for the generalized use of nonsense word fluency assessment or practice, but it is what it is.

Now I am off to make some state board of education people squirm regarding the statute, code, or regulation mandating individual participation in standardized tests. The assessment and accountability receptionist knows exactly zero about her department.

[erimir]

I still don't get what exactly about the test is enraging.

It angers you that your child would be asked to read, for a few minutes, words that don't mean anything?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by erimir

I still don't get what exactly about the test is enraging.

It angers you that your child would be asked to read, for a few minutes, words that don't mean anything?

Yes. Words have meaning, our language is symbolic of our thoughts. They are important. Using nonsense words in teaching feels like a lie to me. I don't know how else to explain it. From a practical standpoint, I feel it could be confusing for one thing...how would a new reader determine if an unfamiliar word is simply a new addition to their personal lexicon (prompting its adoption and use), or a nonsense word, if reading nonsense words is a regular part of their learning?

Let's switch it over to math. Would you feel that teaching a young child, just learning numeracy and basic math skills, that 1+1=5 is an okay thing to do, for any reason? How about having them try to determine the veracity of 1+1=5 when their skills are still in the counting stage?

Maybe other 4-6 year olds are more flexible, but my son is precise and incredibly sensitive to having things explained to him correctly/incorrectly.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by seebs

How else can you verify that the kid is handling phonetics, not just happening to know the test words?

By having them break the word down to it's phonemes rather than read it whole.

I did that this morning. Kiddo read a word flat out (turn), one I didn't know he was familiar with and didn't understand how he knew it. I asked him to sound it out slowly for me while pointing to the letter(s) that made the corresponding sound, and he did.

Additionally I change letters to make new words

Okay, what if we take away the t in turn and replace it with a b? What if we then replace the n in burn with a p? What if we remove the u in burn and make it an a?

[Ensign Steve]

lol burp.

[LadyShea]

If I use words like burp, fart, pee, etc. he enjoys his reading time more. He is still a 4yo boy for all his smart kid quirks.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's switch it over to math. Would you feel that teaching a young child, just learning numeracy and basic math skills, that 1+1=5 is an okay thing to do, for any reason?

That's not what's happening, though. It's not as though they are being taught invalid rules or anything. They're being asked to apply real rules in a sandbox composed of pretend words. A better math example might be, if I tell you that is greater than and is greater than , is greater than or less than ? Real rules, made up "numbers", to rule out you having memorized that, say, 3 is greater than 1.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From a practical standpoint, I feel it could be confusing for one thing...how would a new reader determine if an unfamiliar word is simply a new addition to their personal lexicon (prompting its adoption and use), or a nonsense word, if reading nonsense words is a regular part of their learning?

I wasn't under the impression that it would be a regular part of their learning. Merely an occasional part (if it's for evaluation purposes, wouldn't it only be once or twice a year, most likely?).

And by the same ways we decline to adopt any other word - we don't know the meaning, other people don't seem to understand it, there don't appear to be occasions appropriate for its use, etc. It can happen with "real" words as well, that you hear a strange word, and it ends up being one that you don't incorporate into your lexicon.

Let's switch it over to math. Would you feel that teaching a young child, just learning numeracy and basic math skills, that 1+1=5 is an okay thing to do, for any reason?

1+1=5 is a statement. It is an assertion of something false. "Wug" is not.

Would it make things easier if they pretended that these were names? It's not like "Noo-Noo" (a character from the Teletubbies) is anymore a "real" word than "wug" is.

How about having them try to determine the veracity of 1+1=5 when their skills are still in the counting stage?

But they're not measuring logic, they're measuring ability to identify the symbols with the sounds they represent.

It'd be more equivalent to wanting them to just be able to read out loud "two plus three equals five" than for them to solve a math equation.

It could be like asking kids to reproduce drawings of abstract, non-geometric shapes. Those shapes don't mean anything, don't represent anything, learning to recognize and reproduce those shapes in particular provides no benefit... but it would tell us something about the kids' ability to process things visually and other things involved in drawing.

It seems pretty harmless to me.

Maybe other 4-6 year olds are more flexible, but my son is precise and incredibly sensitive to having things explained to him correctly/incorrectly.

So, what's going to happen in the worst case scenario?

Is your child going to start calling certain arbitrary things "wugs" and "lons" and "puzzes"? And you won't be able to convince him that these aren't words? Or he'll think that all written words are lies because sometimes the letters represent sounds that don't mean anything?

[LadyShea]

I wasn't under the impression that it would be a regular part of their learning. Merely an occasional part (if it's for evaluation purposes, wouldn't it only be once or twice a year, most likely?).

3 times a year here. And, they teach to the test, so there is practice during classes of this specifically. You can find online practice programs as well.

Is your child going to start calling certain arbitrary things "wugs" and "lons" and "puzzes"? And you won't be able to convince him that these aren't words? Or he'll think that all written words are lies because sometimes the letters represent sounds that don't mean anything?

He won't know what are real words and what are made up words unless somebody tells him, specifically, because made up words are a part of his educational environment.

Am I really the only person that sees that as problematic when I am trying to teach a kid to read by connecting the written word with the spoken word? If so, I am really surprised.

[Crumb]

And, they teach to the test, so there is practice during classes of this specifically.

That's the problem. Teaching to the test reduces its effectiveness as well as potentially confusing your son.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes. Words have meaning, our language is symbolic of our thoughts. They are important. Using nonsense words in teaching feels like a lie to me. I don't know how else to explain it. From a practical standpoint, I feel it could be confusing for one thing...how would a new reader determine if an unfamiliar word is simply a new addition to their personal lexicon (prompting its adoption and use), or a nonsense word, if reading nonsense words is a regular part of their learning?

Nothing on the DIBELS page indicates that the children will be learning nonsense words like vocabulary, though. In fact, learning nonsense words as vocabulary would invalidate the test. Where do you see that the school would be teaching nonsense words on a regular basis to students instead of using nonsense words for testing purposes?

What it seems to be is that reading nonsense words tests whether they have learned some particular rules, without confounding the results with sight words. The nonsense word evaluation is two minutes long on an individual basis, and it doesn't appear that this evaluation is always used. Basically, it looks like the student would be evaluated 3x a year, using some (but not all) of the variety of measures within the DIBELS program to measure overall reading potential. If a child is not at the appropriate benchmark, they might be evaluated more frequently using one of the tests, including the nonsense word test.

I think it might help if you contacted the school your child would attend and asked the principal for help in understanding exactly how the DIBELS system works.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

3 times a year here. And, they teach to the test, so there is practice during classes of this specifically. You can find online practice programs as well.

That would depend on what they consist of, I suppose.

But yeah, it would seem to defeat the purpose to have them practice with nonsense words. The only purpose of the nonsense words is to ensure that they are novel words - that they haven't memorized the words in whole. But that's for evaluation, not for teaching the concepts.

Practicing with nonsense words wouldn't seem to have any purpose.

He won't know what are real words and what are made up words unless somebody tells him, specifically, because made up words are a part of his educational environment. If so, I am really surprised.

The difference would be that real words have referents. When children learn words, a very large number of them don't involve being explicitly told what the word refers to, but them figuring it out themselves. But the thing is that they can use context, such as the sentence or the adult's gaze to figure it out. Those things wouldn't accompany the nonsense words. Unless they are teaching them that these made up words have meanings that refer to real things (as opposed to something like that drawing of a "wug"), which I doubt that they would be doing.

Am I really the only person that sees that as problematic when I am trying to teach a kid to read by connecting the written word with the spoken word?

I have greater confidence in your son's ability to learn words which are meaningful to him and forget the words which either have no meaning, or no meaning that is apparent to him (which would include many real words).

And if he happens to pick up some idiosyncratic words, he'll stop using them eventually with no lasting damage when he realizes that nobody else uses those words and they don't understand them. My older brother used to use "deeda" to mean "up(stairs)" and "cuncunca" to mean "thank you". His language skills are just fine.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But if they are reading, why is it necessary for phonics rule integration to be tested?

Possibly because ability to work with phonics is a big predictor for future ability to read new words?

Why is it important that non words be used?

Probably to eliminate the gap between students who've already seen a given word and students who haven't.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He won't know what are real words and what are made up words unless somebody tells him, specifically, because made up words are a part of his educational environment.

I never had a problem with that. The real words, people will tell you what they mean. Fake words, they tell you it's just a way of writing a sound.

Am I really the only person that sees that as problematic when I am trying to teach a kid to read by connecting the written word with the spoken word? If so, I am really surprised.

I guess, I'm not understanding what the problem is. I had no trouble distinguishing between made-up test cases to test understanding and real information when I was a kid. I mean, teachers do a LOT of things, intentionally or otherwise, that tell you which are which. Or at least which they think are which.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now I am off to make some state board of education people squirm regarding the statute, code, or regulation mandating individual participation in standardized tests. The assessment and accountability receptionist knows exactly zero about her department.

Sent on the 6th to the head of the Assessment and Accountability at the Alabama Dept. of Education after a brief phone conversation where she told me how to find a buried .pdf on the website

Dear Ms. Poage,

Thank you for helping me find the interpretive guide on your website. Unfortunately I did not find the answer to my question. The guide indicates a goal of 95% participation for the schools, it mentioned that schools are required to administer the various tests, however does not mention how participation by any individual student is enforced.

What if, as a matter of conscience, a parent does not allow their child to participate in a standardized test? I am thinking specifically younger students such as the DIBEL for K-2 and the assessments in the elementary grades 3-6. Is there a mechanism for opting out? Are there individual consequences for not participating, such as a truancy hearing, or disallowing the student to promote to the next grade?

Thank you for your time,

Sent today

Ms. Poage,

I sent this a week ago, and have not heard back. Please respond at your earliest convenience.

I am an Alabama resident, business and property owner, and parent; my article is being written due to the importance of the topic to me and others.

ETA: Reply received

Ms. Shea,

Your recent email concerning Alabama’s student assessment program was forwarded to me for response. Alabama’s student assessment program is a system of assessments that measures the knowledge and abilities of students in Alabama’s public schools for the following purposes:

To provide information to educators and parents regarding the educational strengths and weaknesses of individual students.

To provide information to assist local and state educational personnel in reviewing and planning for instructional and curricular improvements.

To provide information to local and state educational personnel, policy makers, and the general public regarding the educational performance of Alabama’s students.

In order for the assessment program to meet each of these intended purposes, it is imperative that all students participate in the assessments. The assessment program is designed to be an integral part of the instructional program and provides the data that is needed to inform instruction and to help in making curricular decisions for individual students and for groups of students. Please note that the assessments measure the content that is specified in our state courses of study which is the content that students are required, by state law, to be taught.

Alabama does not have a mechanism for opting out. As I stated earlier, testing is considered a part of the instructional program. Students that are in attendance on the day of testing are tested just as they are provided instruction if they are in attendance. I hope this information is helpful to you.

So, what she seems to be saying is, students that aren't in attendance on testing day are not tested. Weasely, but yeah my question is answered.

[erimir]

Still don't get what supposed harm would be caused by such a test.

Linguists have done more "wrong" things than that ("wrong" in this case meaning playing language games that involve learning things that aren't "real" words or language rules), and I haven't heard of any harm coming of it.

[LadyShea]

Oh I have a problem with all high stakes standardized testing, which is my original purpose in looking into this. It causes huge amounts of stress for everyone, including the teachers, administrators, parents and especially students. Despite all their justifications to the contrary, they are only used to get funded...they have no meaningful application beyond that.

The nonsense word fluency thing just struck me as especially stupid and possibly harmful. The opinion of possible harm is based on my currently teaching my son to read, and witnessing how he is learning and processing the information presented. Had I not taken this on, I wouldn't have any opinion at all on that aspect, however I would still be opposed to high stakes testing.

[erimir]

Oh yeah, I agree that there's too much standardized testing in the US.

It never bothered me as a child tho, because besides the fact that I'm pretty smart, I'm an excellent test-taker. I know other people who are about the same intelligence but who don't do nearly as well on standardized tests, so the stress of the tests and such has more effect on some people than others.

[LadyShea]

It never bothered me as a child tho, because besides the fact that I'm pretty smart, I'm an excellent test-taker.

Me too

I know other people who are about the same intelligence but who don't do nearly as well on standardized tests, so the stress of the tests and such has more effect on some people than others.

True, but these days the stress put on the tests, due to NCLB and other supposed "accountability" measures, as well as some states use of the tests for grade promotion (including with LD kids, like my dyslexic nephew who has to pass a test to go to 5th grade despite his diagnosis,IEP and almost paralyzing test anxiety), it's just out of control. I don't remember them being called "high stakes" when I was a kid...you're younger though so maybe you had it.