The names on this list have been submitted by relatives, friends, neighbours and others who wish to remember them, if you have any names to add or any recollections or photos of those listed, please Add a Name to this List The Wartime Memories Project is the original WW1 and WW2 commemoration website. If you would like to send us a present, a donation, no matter how small, would be much appreciated, annually we need to raise enough funds to pay for our web hosting or this site will vanish from the web. To commemorate the 70th anniversary of VE Day, we are launching a new feature, Second World War Day by Day and also a new Library to allow access to records which have previously been held in our offline archive.
Learning to read is a natural process. It has long been argued that learning to read, like learning to understand spoken language, is a natural phenomenon.
It has often been suggested that children will learn to read if they are simply immersed in a literacy-rich environment and allowed to develop literacy skills in their own way. This pernicious belief that learning to read is a natural process resulting from rich text experiences is surprisingly prevalent in education—despite the fact that learning to read is not only unnatural, it is one of the most unnatural things humans do.
There is a difference between learning to read text and learning to understand a spoken language. Learning to understand speech is indeed a natural process; starting before birth, children tune in to spoken language in their environment, and as soon as they are able, they begin to incorporate a language.
If the linguistic environment is not sufficiently rich or if it is confusing, the innate drive to find a language is so strong that, if necessary, children will create a language of their own examples of this include twin languages and pidgin languages. Given the opportunity, children will naturally develop all of the essential comprehension skills for the language to which they are exposed with little structured or formal guidance.
By contrast, reading acquisition is not natural. While the ability to understand speech evolved over many, many thousands of years, reading and writing are human inventions that have been around for merely a few thousand years.
It has been only within the past few generations that some cultures have made any serious attempt to make literacy universal among their citizens. These staggering numbers provide evidence that reading is a skill that is quite unnatural and difficult to learn.
Children will eventually learn to read if given enough time. This is arguably the second most pernicious myth, and it is closely related to the first. Many who claim that reading is natural also claim that children should be given time to develop reading skills at their own pace.
This is a double-edged sword because, while it is true that children should be taught to read in developmentally appropriate ways, we should not simply wait for children to develop reading skills in their own time. When a child is not developing reading skills along with his or her peers, that situation should be of great concern.
Over time, the gap between children who have well-developed literacy skills and those who do not gets wider and wider.
In the early grades, the literacy gap is relatively easy to cross, and with diagnostic, focused instruction, effective teachers can help children who have poor literacy skills become children with rich literacy skills.
However, if literacy instruction needs are not met early, then the gap widens—the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer—until it gets so wide that bridging it requires extensive, intensive, expensive, and frustrating remedial instruction. The gap reaches this nearly insurmountable point very early.
Research has shown that if a child is not reading grade-appropriate materials by the time he or she is in the fourth grade, the odds of that child ever developing good reading skills are slim.
Reading programs are "successful. There are a few programs that, if properly implemented, could help a school move in the right direction, but nothing could ever take the place of a knowledgeable and talented teacher. Although such reading programs can be a useful part of a larger reading curriculum, no reading program by itself has ever been shown to be truly "successful"—not with all children and all teachers.
And no reading program by itself has been shown to accelerate all children to advanced levels of performance. Some of these programs, when properly implemented, have been shown to improve overall reading scores significantly especially in low-performing schoolsbut that improvement is often a long way from what anyone should describe as "success.
Typically these programs do not provide substantial professional development for teachers beyond the basic training teachers need to implement the program in their classrooms.
Research has repeatedly indicated that the single most important variable in any reading program is the knowledge and skill of the teacher implementing the program, so why do we persist in trying to develop "teacher-proof" programs?
Some would argue that it is our overdependence on such programs that prevents us from cultivating more knowledgeable and effective teachers. To achieve success for all children, teachers must become extremely sophisticated and diagnostic in their approach to reading instruction, and substantial resources must be devoted toward professional development for teachers.
Every child is different: A program cannot be sensitive to the varied and rapidly evolving learning needs of individual children, but a knowledgeable teacher certainly can. We used to do a better job of teaching children to read. We have, in fact, never done a better job of teaching children to read than we do today.
We are basically just as successful today as we have always been—which is not very successful. This assessment has been given to children aged 9, 13, and 17 across the country since Student performance at those three age levels has not changed substantially in over 30 years—consistently between 24 percent and 39 percent of students have scored in the "below basic" category depending on the age testedand between 3 percent and 7 percent have scored in the "advanced" category.
Other investigations have found that literacy rates have not really changed in this country since World War II. While the literacy rates have not changed substantially, the demand and need for literacy has increased markedly.
Literacy now is a prerequisite for success. In the future, the ability to read will be an increasingly indispensable skill given the growing technology and information explosion. Clearly we do not need to get back to the old ways of teaching children to read—the old ways were really no better than and some would argue, no different from the current ways.
Relatively recent research has given us great insights into why some children have difficulty learning to read, and the next frontier in reading education is to help teachers understand and apply that research information.Summary: APA (American Psychological Association) style is most commonly used to cite sources within the social sciences.
This resource, revised according to the 6 th edition, second printing of the APA manual, offers examples for the general format of APA research papers, in-text citations, endnotes/footnotes, and the reference page.
For . Polygamy (from Late Greek πολυγαμία, polygamía, "state of marriage to many spouses") is the practice of marrying multiple spouses. When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, sociologists call this kaja-net.com a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called kaja-net.com a marriage includes multiple husbands and .
This means that, as teachers of reading, we must be cognizant of our underlying beliefs or theories of literacy development: how one begins to learn to read and how one develops from that point into an increasingly effective reader with a broadening range of texts •.
Dec 07, · Gough () Information Processing Theory This article by Philip Gough () is a text-based analysis of reading, in which he cites research evidence of his own and others in putting forth a scientific analysis of how we read and what is going on hypothetically inside our minds to create meaning from the orthographic symbols of print.
Given these data, Gough's model seemed like a lead balloon.
Few would have predicted that the weight of research would end up on Gough's side, some 20 years later (see Stanovich, ). What was Gough's model? The following description is very brief, and very simple.
But the intent is to give the flavour of the model, rather than a technical description. Michael Pressley, in his excellent book, Reading Instruction that Works, concluded with a discussion of what he considered to be "Ten Dumb and Dangerous Claims About Reading Instruction."All of the points he made were quite compelling, but one wonders if these are his top ten picks for the most dangerous myths about reading instruction.