It was only last week the international league comparisons were announced. Didn’t you see them? They come out regularly. Have you ever seen them?
This surely can’t be news to you lads?
No.
If you believe they support your argument, you ought to post a link to them so that we can see them.
Here you go–but the evidence is pretty shaky.
Or maybe he meant to link here, but it’s still pretty off-base.
Or maybe this is what he meant to link to? If so, I don’t see the goal.
I found this link myself, but I didn’t get the full picture from their website.
I hope you lads have got it now.
Interestingly, if you mix up the letters of words APART from the first and last, you can still read it.
“A trap”? Okay.
Without taking sides in the discussion, I was simply pointing out that if you post all sorts of wild claims and then refuse to support them with evidence, no one is going to take you seriously.
My first post to this thread had refuted nearly all your wild claims, anyway, even before you ever posted. It is not that big a deal, to me; I was just offering some advice against sloppy behavior.
No. He is referring to claims released several years ago that indicated that most skilled readers of English recognize words even when misspelled as long as the first and last letters are in the proper location. Discussed here: People
Of course, the study involved proficient readers of the language and has very little bearing on how one should or should not teach a child to read. And, as noted in the linked article, while there is some truth to the observation, it is not universal even for skilled readers.
Maybe he meant “a prat”? Or, if he was trying to cover something, “a tarp”? (Unless he was discussing the male progenitor of a person creating beautiful things with the slang expression “art pa.”)
:smack: So I gotta apologize. This post I’m quoting was so poorly written and off-topic that, in seeking some explanation for it, I thought you were saying we should anagram the letters of the word “apart” to get “a trap,” i.e., that you’d caught us in a troll-trap. On rereading it, I realize that you were referencing the phenomenon of rearranging letters in a word but leaving the first and final letter intact, not at all going for something like an anagram. I’m sorry I misinterpreted you in this way.
That said, this is an excellent example of why teaching whole language–including writing for clarity and precision–is very important. If you’d like to reference that phenomenon and have folks understand, consider the following suggestions:
- Write something like, “Interestingly, if you mix up the letters of words, but leave the first and last letter in their original position, rraeeds wlil slitl dipcheer nalrey aynnhitg yrou’e albe to iganmie.”
- Don’t, and instead write something germane to the discussion.
According to the bottom of the screen I can’t post attachments but come on lads one has to assume some basic knowledge of the issues. I’m starting to think some of you lads are playing dim here i.e. trolling.
All this can’t be news to you.
It is against the rules to accuse others of trolling in these fora.
Beyond that, your complaint is silly. In a debate, (see the title of the forum), one is expected to present arguments and facts. If one cannot be bothered to provide the facts and references to support those facts, then one’s opposition is free to presume that one is simply imitating Trump and inventing whatever “fact” one needs to support one’s argument. If it is too much trouble to actually do one’s own homework and provide the references to support one’s views, then one should probably stick to IMHO or MPSIMS where raw opinion is accepted without the need to provide facts. (Although, this being the Straight Dope, even there one will be challenged to actually support one’s opinions.)
Are you saying you must assume I have some basic knowledge of the issues? Because I guarandamntee you I have more knowledge of the issues than you. Are you saying I should afford you the same courtesy? Because at this point, I’m unwilling to make any such assumption about you.
I’m well aware that people with a trivial or agenda-driven understanding of the stats have come to certain conclusions about their significance. Folks who’ve delved deeper into the stats tend to find that the superficial conclusions are undercut, in ways such as those I’ve repeatedly discussed in this thread.
Did you read my posts?
It can’t be that hard to “interpret” league tables, Professor. They are numbered, starting with no.1 and so on. It’s not hard to see where the USA and UK come.
Given that you’ve not specified which league tables you’re talking about, it’s actually pretty difficult to “interpret” them. If you want to specify what specific data you’re examining, we’ll join you.
Enneewun hoo noze ownlee fonix iz funcshunulee illiterit. Yoo simplee kant reed kwiklee eenuf, yoozing fonix ulone, for it too bee uv ennee signifikent yoose.
Or to restate that, Anyone who knows only phonics is functionally illiterate. You simply can’t read quickly enough, using phonics alone, for it to be of any significant use.
How easy was it to read the first version of that sentence? And yet, it’s phonetically equivalent to the second. If all you have is phonics, then absolutely everything is going to be that hard to read. Think about how much reading you’d actually do if it were all that hard. In order to attain any meaningful level of literacy, whole-language learning is essential.
The only debate, in my opinion, is to what extent whole-language has to actually be taught. Will students pick it up on their own without instruction, and to what extent?
Yes.
The point to which I responded was your claim that you had no need to support your claims with evidence. I am not involved in the topic discussion. I simply note that your specific claims that it is the responsibility of others to check your work for you is counterproductive.
You made several claims implying that the “international league comparisons” would support your argument. You have refused to actually show how that might be true. Left hand of Dorkness and amarinth have both provided links challenging your assertion, (well, mocking your unsupported claim), and you have done nothing to point to the evidence that you believe would support your position. Not a problem: if you do not want to actually provide evidence to defend your position, we can simply dismiss your claims as opinion, unsupported by facts.
(And if you ever get around to actually citing the OECD Pisa reports, you are going to have to follow that up with evidence that they have meaning rather than being one more silly game for educators to play to let them beat their chests in displays of bravado and then explain how such tests of 15-year-old students have any genuine relevance to the teaching of English to children in the lower grades of elementary schools, which is the actual topic of the thread.)
As I said it’s the international comparisons that come up periodically usually to much debate. The last one was reported the other week. I can’t believe this is news to you lot.
My posting rules at the bottom of my screen says: You may not post attachments