Just how polarized are we about reading instruction?

10/29/2018

Last Friday Emily Hanford published an op-ed in the New York Times. It argued that there are errors of omission and of commission in the education of future teachers concerning how most children learn to read.
Curiously, but not unexpectedly, most of the comments on the New York Times website and on social media did not concern teacher education, but student learning, specifically whether or not phonics instruction is effective.

These comments put me in mind of the polarization of American politics, and this recent survey showing that relatively small percentages of those on the left and right are really far from the mainstream. In other words, we are not as polarized as the media and social media make it seem. Also, the people closer to the center are sick of the yammering anger of those on the far left and right.

I think that may be true of the controversy regarding the teaching of reading.

So have a look at these six statements about children learning to read.

The vast majority of children first learn to read by decoding sound. The extent to which children can learn to read in the absence of systematic phonics instruction varies (probably as a bell curve), depending on their phonemic awareness and other oral language skills when they enter school; the former helps a child to figure out decoding on her own, and the latter to compensate for difficulty in decoding.
Some children—an extremely small percentage, but greater than zero—teach themselves to decode with very minimal input from adults. Many more need just a little support.
The speed with which most children learn to decode will be slower if they receive haphazard instruction in phonics than it would be with systematic instruction. A substantial percentage will make very little progress without systematic phonics instruction.
Phonics instruction is not a literacy program. The lifeblood of a literacy program is real language, as experienced in read-alouds, children’s literature, and opportunities to speak, listen, and to write. Children also need to see teachers and parents take joy in literacy.
Although systematic phonics instruction seems like it might bore children, researchers examining the effect of phonics instruction on reading motivation report no effect.
That said, there’s certainly the potential for reading instruction to tilt too far in the direction of phonics instruction, a concern Jean Chall warned about in her 1967 report. Classrooms should devote much more time to the activities listed in #4 above than to phonics instruction.

I think all of the six statements above are true. The number of people who would defend only the even or odd numbered statements (and deny the others) is, I’m guessing, small. I would also say they are ignoring abundant research and have above average capacity to kid themselves.

Most people believe both sets of statements, but often emphasize only one. When challenged, they say “yes, yes, of course those others are true. That’s obvious. But you’re ignoring the statements I’m really passionate about!” Naturally if you mostly emphasize the odd-numbered statements or the even-numbered statements, people will bark about the other.

I’m sure that as you read these six statements you disagreed with the way one or another is phrased, or you thought it went a little too far. I won’t defend any of them vigorously—I didn’t spend that much time writing them, to be honest. The larger point is that the conflict is a waste of time and I suspect most people know it.

There's plenty of other work to be done .

Debbie Hepplewhite link

10/29/2018 09:34:06 am

Sadly, the heart of the conflict is about the provision for children and the unnecessary and sometimes devastating 'special needs' caused by flawed teaching (according to the research evidence on reading instruction) and/or weak teaching. This is a moral issue and thus the conflict will remain necessary until such time as all children are well-served - and this will not happen until all teachers are well-served by their initial teaching-training and continued professional development. The conflict is because many trainers and teachers are defending the indefensible in that we have the research evidence and the internet through which to access it, we have test results showing the effects of different types of teaching and quality of teaching. The conflict is also because of deep misunderstanding about the nature of the complex English alphabetic code (and this includes teachers and the general public) - the most complex alphabetic code in the world. The conflict is also because whilst people fight vociferously to defend their current understanding and beliefs - others, by necessity, feel obligated to fight the corner for the children who are not taught - for whom the clock ticks and opportunities are lost at an early age for the children. We must never make light of this state of affairs (the conflict) because it is real and it is virtually impossible to hold those to account who are in the strongest positions to do more about changing the status quo.

John Bald link

10/29/2018 01:09:02 pm

Debbie's comment is wise and thoughtful. The alphabetic code is indeed complex, but phonic in its basis. It is widely misunderstood either as something chaotic (rather than complex) or as more consistent than it is in reality. It needs to be understood in all of its aspects, and then presented clearly to children.

Andrew Smith link

10/29/2018 10:08:35 am

Can't help thinking it really needs a list of things that people don't agree on to go with it.

Jeffrey Bowers link

10/29/2018 02:32:31 pm

Dear Dan, what I find surprising is the near universal support for systematic phonics in the research literature when there is little or no empirical evidence for it. For detailed review of the literature see:

Bowers, J.S. (2018). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. PsyArXiv.https://psyarxiv.com/xz4yn/

For short summary of this paper go to the following blogpost (There is space there for anyone who would like to respond): https://jeffbowers.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/blog/phonics/

I have also published work that challenges the main theoretical motivation for phonics. For example:

Bowers, J.S., & Bowers, P.N. (2017). Beyond Phonics The Case for Teaching Children the Logic of the English Spelling System. Educational Psychologist, 52, 124–141. 2017

Bowers, J.S., and Bowers, P.N. (in press). Progress in reading instruction requires a better understanding of the English spelling system Current Directions in Psychological Science.

You can download all these papers here: https://jeffbowers.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/publications-edu-literacy/

These papers challenge the claim that English has a "complex" alphabetic system. Instead, English has a morphophonological system that encodes both phonology and meaning (through morphology). It is not phonic in its basis.

I’ve found it frustrating that proponents of systematic phonics have largely ignored this work. Any responses here or at my website welcome! All the best,

Jeff

Greg McVerry link

10/29/2018 03:28:40 pm

Jeff,

Citing the work of one person is far from enough evidence to suggest phonics instruction does not work. Though I do say we "know" it works more from corollary studies that explain variance in later reading achievement rather than actual experimental studies.

We also know, at least here in the US, when we try to scale up key reading findings we muck it up so bad and end up with programs like Response to Intervention that do more harm than good.

Jeffrey Bowers

10/29/2018 04:42:07 pm

Hi Greg, I agree that you should not take my word for this. The review article systematically goes through the literature. The work by Camilli et al. cited in the review article is especially important. Regarding the theory, it is just a basic fact of linguistics that the English spelling system is not "alphabetic". As the linguist Venezky (1967) put it:

"The simple fact is that the present orthography is not merely a letter-to- sound system riddled with imperfections, but instead, a more complex and more regular relationship wherein phoneme and morpheme share leading roles"

There is not even an argument about this in linguistics (and pretty much everything is controversial in linguistics).

Jeff

Michael pye

10/31/2018 02:46:01 pm

Please link to response to intervention, what it entails and how it went wrong.

DIANA L PETTIS

10/30/2018 06:43:36 pm

Can you send me these links because I am doing a talk with the teachers at my school about phonics.

Jeffrey Bowers

10/31/2018 03:05:17 pm

Links to all papers can be found at: https://jeffbowers.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/blog/phonics/

but perhaps start with: https://jeffbowers.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/blog/phonics/

Michael Pye

11/6/2018 11:34:21 am

Just read your link Jeffery. Your research is very much at odds with consensus and frankly challenging to follow. While the argument for phonics is largley based on only a few sources constantly quoting each other this is a normal issue in science in general. The main support for phonics is the fact those studies compared actual teaching approaches in large cohorts and concluded that SSP was the most effective. If you believe you have a more effective framework then articulate that theory, develop a teaching approach and then compare that approach gainst SSP. You seem a long way from doing that. You may be right but it is unlikely and your ideas are not currently relevant to a discussion about whole language vs SSP. That war seems to have been won, at least on an evidence base.

Gail Brown link

10/30/2018 05:51:05 pm

Thanks Dan, I like this post for lots of reasons - particularly that this conflict is wasteful of time and energy.From my reading, your post tries to focus us all on what works for students' learning - THAT is what I believe is the "core business" of schools = student's learning, each individual student. My work is in reading comprehension, and I know that's not what this post is about - however you hint at it in Statement 4 - oral language comprehension sets the scene for reading comprehension - just like phonemic awareness sets the scene for learning to decode. I like your approach using science, data and evidence of students' learning to plan and direct future instruction - that's what makes any strategy or method effective!;)) best always, Gail

Rachael Gabriel link

10/30/2018 09:36:33 pm

I completely agree that much of the debate isn't relevant at the classroom level where educators agree on more than they disagree. I have been wondering about who benefits when these ideological lines get drawn, redrawn and publicized as drama in the media (see here for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/09/25/straw-man-new-round-reading-wars/?utm_term=.a28dadee6259 or here if you can't get in to the WaPo: https://www.academia.edu/37664695/The_straw_man_in_the_new_round_of_the_reading_wars )

Michael

10/31/2018 03:10:49 pm

Dan I'm really confused about your conclusion. Below is my reasoning

1 .Systemic synthetic phonics out preforms other methods in multiple large scale studies helping most students but the weakest the most.(you have this as a principle)

2 we know that writing and oral literacy facilitate comprehension. (Another principle you mention)

3 I am confused why you are conflating 2 and 1. Phonics is the best way of teaching decoding but mixing in other phonemes with struggling students slows progress. Listening to reading, oral literacy, and restricted reading/writing practice (using only taught phonemes) don't slow progress.

4 . Not using the best evidence is unproffesional and neglect. If phonics is not the best way of teaching decoding (not literacy) please link to further reading.

5 your political analogy seems accurate but you forgot to map across the general lack of knowledge and interest. Most people don't care about the phonics debate which is why the compromise fallacy seems just as likely a candidate.

6 finally to my knowledge phonics is a good candidate for most evidence based educational practice. If I accept your argument then I feel I should stop advocating for evidence based teaching. It simply wouldn't be developed enough. Feel free to mention other evidence based practices which you feel are more supported.

I should mention I am a maths teacher so this stuff is at the limit of my knowledge. I was also confused by a posters phonology/morphology argument. Of course morphology is needed for understanding but it rarely leads to bad decoding except in the case of irregular verbs. It obviously leads to poor grammar and comprehension when tenses are garbled.

Thanks Michael

Fritz Mosher link

11/1/2018 12:44:35 am

Nicely done, Dan. Nuanced and, dare I say, "balanced." :-) You anticipate quibbles, and I have just a minor one -- in the first statement in your list. I think it is not "decoding sound" but rather decoding text to get to "sound" and thus to words, and hopefully to "meaning," with room for some back and forth among the latter two, and the larger textual, genre, and discourse context.

I too am curious about why the public discourse about reading instruction seems to be suffering from a new littering of horse carcasses and heaps of straw. Perhaps it is rooted at least in part in a fear that the weakening of the strictures associated with the Federal accountability regime may undercut some of the advantages enjoyed by purveyors of more "systematic " and "scientific" approaches to reading instruction, and that we will descend into an era of "free beer and no police." But I certainly agree with you that stark either/or positions are counterproductive, and a waste of time and resources that could better be devoted to designing and continually improving multifaceted instructional regimes that support teachers in attending to their students' individual progress and problems, so they can adjust their approach and dosage as needed to help their students keep moving ahead.

I was provoked by Jeffrey Bowers’ comments to read his “Reconsidering the evidence…” article and to look at the video of a teacher using one of his suggested alternative approaches. I think he probably is quite right that the existing research evidence does not “prove” that systematic phonics is more effective than any alternative approach, though part of the force of his argument lies in his, to me quite amusing, review of many of the major studies purporting to offer such proof, which really demonstrates that it is very hard to prove anything about the relative effectiveness of a seriously underspecified and uncertainly implemented treatment compared to even less well defined, loosely implemented, and contaminated, alternative-, or “business as usual”-, treatments, all with under-controlled teacher and student populations. His point about English orthography’s being a mix of grapho-phonemic and grapho-morphemic coding is more fundamental, and to me it highlights the point that the label “systematic phonics” simply papers over the fact that there is no one well-specified, agreed “systematic” order and manner in which the codings should be taught – or for that matter for how long, for whom – beyond the hard to believe that anyone ever said it, and truly stupid, idea that the code should be taught thoroughly before any attention is paid to meaning and to the fact that the code exists to enable human beings to communicate information and tell stories in forms that extend the reach (and complexity) of spoken language through time and space. This is a foolishness right up there with the idea that we should waste the representational efficiency bequeathed to us by the invention of grapho-phonemic systems (coupled with and maybe diluted by grapho-morphemic coding systems) by teaching kids that reading is a word-solving, cueing puzzle game (and in so doing perhaps tending to limit real reading competence to a privileged Mandarin class?). I think we would be better off if we would just substitute the word “explicit” for “systematic” at this point, and save “systematic” for a time when we know a lot more about in what order and how much for whom, though even then the phonics should be understood to co-exist with, and support a focus on, ways of representing, communicating, and understanding other levels of meaning.
Rachel Gabriel’s piece that she refers to in her comment here (flagged by Valerie Strauss in the Washington Post) is a longer version of the same argument you are making – also nicely balanced, thoughtful, and humane. It is well worth reading – and a calm rejoinder to Emily Hanford’s op ed and audio-documentary, and perhaps as well as to Susan Pimentel’s October 26 Ed Week Commentary, though Pimentel does seem to want to accept Hanford’s worries and then move on toward “balance” ? by adding a focus on “content knowledge” (referring to some other wise things you have said) and well-designed curriculum, so maybe she too is heading in a more sensible direction. We will see, but certainly your six statements are a constructive nudge showing the way. So, thank you for that.

Fritz Mosher link

11/1/2018 12:02:25 pm

ooops, the url associated with my name in the comment above seems to have been garbled. Here's another try:

https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/97/

These are CPRE reports -- The Consortium for Policy Research in Education -- where I am a Senior Research Consultant -- Senior
means I'm old enough that I should know better than to try to make sense of all this stuff, but hope springs eternal :-)

Michael Pye

11/1/2018 02:22:37 pm

Phonics is considered proved in the sense that it has a strong theoretical basis and multiple large scale comparison studies that show it outperforms alternative approaches. This doesn't mean it is certain but it is a high standard for a social science and to my knowledge a candidate for the most evidence based intervetion, rather then principle, in education. If this is not sufficient then we'll we'l you are a postmodernist and truth is purely relative. Know if you can show me some evidence of alternative methods out preforming systemic synthetic phonics I will be forced to reconsider. Note proof of principle studies that don't compete with stronger opponents are not relavent evidence. See Hattie for his everything works in education argument. The Hawthorne effect is also worth a recap. Please can people engage with the arguments logically rather then in value unfalsifiable ways. We do not need total knowledge in any domain to make predictions otherwise we would know nothing. The shaky epistomologepis foundations of all knowledge, while fascinating, is an irritating distraction from implementing any human knowledge.

Sandie Barrie Blackley link

11/1/2018 06:25:49 pm

I am the co-founder of Lexercise, a provider of teletherapy services for struggling readers and writers. We have provided services for >100,000 struggling readers.(Seehttps://www.lexercise.com/) I think you are underestimating the degree to which schools and educators across the globe (including the USA) understand the scientific principles for teaching reading. We have worked with thousands of struggling readers who have not been taught to read and spell using methods endorsed by consensus science. Science suggests most of them would not be struggling if they had been taught using a scientifically sound method. Is it "a waste of time " to address this? I would suggest this is the very best use we could make of time and money in education!

Daniel Peter

11/3/2018 10:37:57 pm

Phonics at best is temporary at the very early stages because as anyone who has taken Linguistics 101 knows - English is NOT a phonetically based language. A temporary assist/transition yes, but no competent reader reads phonetically. Ontario Canada scores top 10 in the world in reading and systematic phonics disappeared a couple decades ago. How do you guys in the US score on PISA?

Michael Pye

11/6/2018 11:42:44 am

The argument is that you learn to decode more effectively by using phonics, especially new words. This includes learning alternative spelling arrangements. No one thinks you continue to do this as you become a competent reader, this argument is about the most effective way of learning how to read.
John Bald's website is a good place to research this argument.

P.s the idea of needing to consciously learn a skills before it becomes automatic or even unnecessary is hardly new to education either in academics or sport.

Fritz Mosher

11/4/2018 03:44:13 pm

Well yes, and you guys have Trudeau – and we have Trump, so rub it in. But both phenomena leave some room for further discussion about causation. The point is not that there isn’t strong evidence that explicitly calling learners’ attention to the grapho-phonemic code and providing them with extensive opportunities to make and practice the relevant associations is correlated with their chances of becoming fluent decoders and “readers,” or that interventions of this sort aren’t particularly helpful for students who otherwise are having difficulty in learning to read. There is, and they do seem to be.

Nor is there a denial that instructional regimes that rely solely on exposure to meaningful text and on word solving and cueing, with little or no explicit attention to phonics, if there are such regimes, are likely to result in significant proportions of their students having limited success in learning to read.

The point is that, while some level of fluency in decoding is undoubtedly necessary, it is not likely to be sufficient, for high levels of comprehension of more complex text, and the discourses and genres associated with it. “Systematic Phonics” is hardly a single, well-defined, curriculum or instructional regime, in the same way that “balanced-literacy” or “whole language” also are not. If there truly were a hard-line version of systematic phonics that in practice actually withheld any focus on meaning until decoding was assured, I would bet that it would lose when pitted against some well-designed form of balanced literacy, if the outcome measures included comprehension of complex text at some later level of schooling. However, I would hope that teachers would be too sensible and humane to allow such a study to be carried out.

Neither reading nor writing are unitary “skills.” Becoming effective in any or all of the genres of literate communication, both sending and receiving, and using them for all the purposes such genres serve, requires time, practice, exposure, and feedback – for each of them. Effective instructional designs have to be multi-faceted, sustained , building up over time, and sensitive and responsive to individual variations in needs, backgrounds, and ability. They are not really appropriate for big, one-shot, random-assignment , controlled evaluations – rather they should be refined in long-term design – trial and revise – processes, probably piecemeal in nature. This is the reason to be impatient with the reading wars, and why one might think we have better things to do. Because we do. And I think that is not just an expression of epistemological perfectionism but rather a matter of urgent practical worry.

(Oh, and the English language is of course “phonemic,” as is seems are all natural languages – it is English orthography that is more complicated than is dreamt of in our phonics, as we should have learned in Linguistics 101. But it is very helpful to be reminded of this by you folks from other, and earlier, English-speaking countries. 😊 Still, “temporary” seems a bit harsh, but maybe “transitional,” or better – “just an important part of the story” – would be apt. )

Comments are closed.

Just how polarized are we about reading instruction?

Purpose

Archives

Categories