Reading Approaches Reassessed
Journals,
newspapers, the national news on radio and TV have all
shouted that our children are not being presented with
appropriate reading instruction. For the past three years
there have been a number of articles in journals which have
strongly suggested that educators must stress phonemic
awareness in a systematic manner. They have also suggested
that we have to provide more instruction for the
sound/symbol relationship. Unfortunately, many educators
have not reacted positively to the suggestions that they
need to review what they are delivering to the children,
instead many have denied the evidence, feeling that the
bias of authors was the motivation for the theme of the
article.
However, the national exposure from the media has clearly
stated that there is a problem. As we have seen in the
past, it takes several years for the realization of the
need for a change, more time to accept what needs to be
done, and then time for training to make a proper change.
Further, as we know, the changes are not embraced by all
and this results in more delays. The results from our
acceptance of one approach only for reading can no longer
be hidden.
The anxiety I feel is that we will again overrespond to the
criticism and embrace an approach which is not adequately
balanced, and we will be entertaining the same type of
problem in another ten to fifteen years. Even more of a
problem is the fact that many training programs at the
college and university levels have stressed only one method
of reading instruction and they are still emphasizing one
method. The inexperienced teacher trained in only one
method does not have the background to easily change and
teach a more demanding direct instruction method - and it
is not the fault of the young teacher. I know at least one
Elementary Principal who, as a part of his interview with
candidates for teaching position, asks for the sound of
several of the letters. Unfortunately, he has found too
many who wish to teach at the primary level who are not
sure of the sound of the basic letters. Unbelievable? Yes -
but not the fault of the candidate. They are being
instructed that it is unnecessary.
SOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
The summer 1995 edition of the American Federation of
Teachers has four articles which are excellent. The first
is titled Learning To Read: Schooling's First Mission, and
it rather clearly states the problem. "In April of this
year, NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress]
announced the latest reading scores for students across the
country. Students in three grades in thirty-nine states
were tested. Overall, fewer than a third of them were
proficient in reading, that is, able to handle challenging
texts competently, and only a very few (2 percent to 5
percent depending on the grade) were reading at advanced
levels." Not encouraging news.
Further: "This we can say with certainty: If a child in a
modern society like ours does not learn to read, he doesn't
make it in life. If he doesn't learn to read well enough to
comprehend what he is reading, if he doesn't learn to read
effortlessly enough to render reading pleasurable, if he
doesn't learn to read fluently enough to read broadly and
reflectively across all the content areas, his chances for
a fulfilling life, by whatever measure - academic success,
financial success, the ability to find interesting work,
personal autonomy, self-esteem - are practically nil." This
quote seems to cover it all. We can't continue to accept
the rate of failure which is now becoming normal. Are you
aware that one New England state has labeled over 40% of
their public school children? Are you aware that it now is
acceptable, by a Federal government statement shared in
December, 1994, to consider that 25% of the children have
ADD or ADHD?
Unfortunately, we have too many people, teachers and
parents alike, accepting this type of information as
normal. There are two other categories which are gaining
more acceptance in some quarters - CD and TD - translation:
Curriculum Disabled and Teacher Disabled. We now have
enough information in the areas of child development, in
learning theory, in transfer theory, language development,
and in how to teach reading, that we can teach all children
who can speak normally to read. Some may be literal readers
due to cognitive limitations, but they can decode
effectively to the 6th to 9th grade level as they finish
school. Children who have normal cognitive maturity all
have the ability to read on grade level and it is happening
in some schools. (See MATRIX v8n2)
The article emphasizes that because of the central role of
reading - "There is no room for either confusion or
dogmatism, Too much is at stake." Absolutely! However, we
have many who are still advocating that their way is the
only way. One very articulate summary of all appropriate
research has been completed by Marilyn Jager Adams in
Beginning To Read: Thinking and Learning About Print
(1990), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. It is interesting to hear
her referred to as - "-a vampire;" "- we need a silver
stake;" "- she's sucking the blood out of our children."
These statements were made at the IRA meeting to the
assembled masses by an advocate of one way, his way. We
have to get beyond this type of dogmatism. Unfortunately,
there are many who seem to have other agendas rather than
what really works with children.
The state of California is making very positive efforts to
address their problem with reading. The Department of
Education, under new leadership, accepted that there was a
problem and is attempting to resolve the problem by clear
communication with the teachers of the state, inservice,
and being honest with the parents. They are suggesting that
there should be a more "balanced" approach. A balanced
approach is also advocated by the articles in the AFT
journal.
There are appropriate activities in all of the approaches
for reading. We have to understand how to apply the good
characteristics of each approach, do this as the individual
children need them, and in the proper order. As someone who
has been teaching either undergraduate or graduate classes
for 34 years, I have found many insights into how children
learn within the classes in Educational Psychology, Child
Development, Adolescent Psychology, learning and transfer
theories. From a more comprehensive understanding of the
nature of child development there comes a better
understanding of who you are teaching, how they learn at
different ages, the fundamental nature of learning, that
there are stages of development which are similar for
children of all racial and ethnic groups, and that,
although all children are different, we must not forget all
of the ways in which we are alike. Methods and materials
may all be appropriate for some children, but the teachers
and the examiners first need to understand the child they
are trying to teach.
A classic example of not understanding the child is
reflected in the number of early primary children who are
classified ADD or ADHD. Understanding the nature of a 5-6
year old child would help educators understand that
children of 5-6 are in the pre-operational stage of growth
and that impulsivity and distractibility are normal
behavior patterns for 95% plus of that age. Hyperactivity
is too often the label instead applied rather than
understanding the nature of the young child. We used to
refer to impulsive and distractable behaviors as that of an
"all boy" - now we call the same child hyperactive and
refer and medicate. When the referral procedure is started,
we too often start a chain of events which results in
medicating the child, a lowering of expectations for both
academics and behavior, and the child lives up to the
label. We are now labeling 7-10 boys for each girl we
label. Does that make sense to any rational being? We need
to examine how boys differ from girls at this age and we
must change curriculum to meet the needs of both.
The other articles are entitled: The Role of Decoding In
Learning To Read; Resolving the 'Great Debate'; and The
Missing Foundation in Teacher Education. All of the
articles are superb. If you, like myself, do not belong to
the AFT, a call or note to them requesting the issue will
result in their sharing the articles.
OTHER SOURCES
The National Right to Read Foundation's Newsletter
advocates a strong phonic position. Dr. Patrick Groff, San
Diego State University, is often quoted in the newsletter.
Dr. Groff has been critical of the Whole Language emphasis
and, he and the Newsletter, give great information of what
is happening throughout the country legistatively as well
as information regarding phonic instruction.
The January 1996 issue of PRINCIPAL, a journal aimed at
Elementary Principals, has an article by Marie Carbo. The
article is entitled Whole Language vs. Phonics: The Great
Debate. Dr. Carbo's subtitle states: "Instead of choosing a
single approach to reading, we should focus on what works
best for the individual child." Her earlier writing tended
to be rather critical of phonics, now she appears to feel
that we should be blending the phonic and whole language
approaches. I believe that you are going to hear much more
about the need to select with greater skill the proper
approach for each child. If you teach from a multisensory
approach, it will not be difficult.
NEW EMPHASIS BY COMPANIES SELLING READING SERIES
Previous to 1978 children in a Basal Reading Series had to
learn 11 to 20 new words per week as first graders.
Previous to 1978, some skill instruction was part of all
series with great emphasis if they were in a phonic program
and less if in a whole word program. After 1978 they had to
learn 30 to 40 new words per week and the skills were
de-emphasized or, in many instances forbidden. All of the
Basal Series which will be published in 1997 will have
considerably more emphasis on phonemic awareness, reduced
number of words required per week, and generally will be
more appropriate than what we have had since 1978. I would
suggest that you look carefully before you buy a new
series.
-Dr. Phil McInnis
McInnis
ARL
2452
Route 364, Penn Yan, New York, 14527, US
All site content Copyright 2000-2005 McInnis ARL. You must
obtain written permission to use any content on these
pages.