Susan Vincent, a long-time educator, talks about what research really shows about different kinds of texts, including decodables and leveled texts: An interview with Dr. Sam Bommarito

I’ve been friends with Susan Vincent for a very long time. She is an amazing educator with an extensive background and experience. From her biography, you can see she is reading recovery trained, trained in OG, was a teacher leader, and eventually began teaching at a university. That is what she is doing currently. She is a teacher of teachers. This year at LitCon, I had the pleasure of attending her session. As soon as it was over, I knew I had to ask her if she would be willing to do an interview. Here’s why.

As a teacher and a teacher of teachers, Susan became interested in the whole issue of what books to use with students when teaching them how to read. Should we be using predictables, decodables, and trade books or? What does the research really say about that? What should classroom teachers be doing? In the interview, Susan did an expert job of answering those questions. Before turning to the interview, let’s have a look at Susan’s biography.

YouTube VIDEO

SCREEN CAPTURES FROM THE VIDEO:

(most existing research is on books used in intervention, so with students who need extra support)

Reading Research Quarterly: Text Types and Relation to Efficacy in EL

Birch, Ritchie, Sharp, Miller, Ledger: Literature Review on Decodable and Leveled Books

EdWeek: Decodables: Boring, Useful, or Both?

T. Shanahan: How Decodable do Decodables Need to Be? and Should We Teach with Decodables?

H.A. Mesmer on Heinemann’s blog: Fear Not the Decodable

Reading Rockets article: Using Decodable Books 

BOOKS:

Choosing and Using Decodable Texts, Wiley Blevins

Teaching Reading Sourcebook, CORE Learning, Honig, Diamond, Gutlohn

Also see my interview with Heidi Mesmer for more details about her work LINK.

Link to the Teaching Reading Sourcebook LINK.

FINAL THOUGHTS FOR THIS BLOG

As I listened to Susan’s presentation at LitCon, I realized she had some important insights into all the different text forms. She told us about the good, the bad and the ugly. She showed the text types at their weakest, using examples of texts that she had used early in her own work. She also shows us texts at their strongest, the exemplars of what that kind of text could be/should be. She shared criteria for evaluating text (all forms of text). She gleaned these criteria from several highly respected sources. She has her preservice teachers use these criteria to inform their decisions about what texts to use with their readers. Her criteria could constitute a powerful informal instrument teachers can use to inform their decisions about text selection. I think further research would be merited in the form of a study designed to fine-tune the instrument and evaluate its effectiveness.

Let’s also consider Susan’s overall conclusions about this topic:

As Susan points out, many of the new state laws surrounding what constitutes decodables are simply not based on what research has currently found. The state laws set unsupported criteria for what constitutes decodables and, in the process, limit book selection. In my opinion, that makes it highly likely that the books that pass their criteria will not be useful for comprehension instruction. Susan also points out that throwing away millions of dollars worth of books because they don’t meet the law’s criteria is problematic. That is especially true since research has not yet determined optimum decodability percentages. In addition, research has demonstrated that using various types of texts produces better results than limiting instruction to only one type of text. Susan is on the right track when she says educators need to contact state legislators and make them aware of what research actually demonstrates. One of my mantras has been to consider ALL the research before making decisions. No cherry-picking and no strawmen!!!

I want to build further on Susan’s ideas by highlighting the importance of the gradual release model.

The heart of gradual release is the principle of skillful scaffolding. If you under-scaffold, you will likely create situations where the students simply won’t learn because they need more help than you provide. If you over-scaffold, then students learn to be helpless. They never internalize and use the strategies they need to learn. Providing years and years and years of decodables is a sure path to learned helplessness. That opinion is bolstered by the facts reported by Susan, who stated that research does not support the use of decodables for very long.

Beginning with the First Grade Studies and through decades of research by folks like Richard Allenton LINK, LINK, LINK, we have learned that when it comes to improving reading and reading scores, teachers make more of a difference than programs. Here is what Seidenberg, a well-known Science of Reading advocate, had to say about this issue:

“I’d rather see money spent on supporting in-service teachers, developing a cadre of well-trained coaches, providing high-quality PD, adding support personnel and so on.”  LINK

In another blog entry where he described the Science of Reading as a “work in progress,” Seidenberg indicates that when given the choice of several curricula being considered by a district he was helping,  he would pick “none of the above”  LINK.  

Yet now we have state laws being passed that give districts a “choice” of mandated curricula, effectively stripping away local control. In my opinion, this benefits no one except the publishers of those programs. I have written extensively criticizing both the practice of outlawing effective programs LINK and the social media version of SOR, which has successfully campaigned for legislation that strips local districts of their power and strips teachers of many of their most effective tools LINK.  

So where does that leave us? I think practicing teachers would do well to consider the criteria suggested by Susan as they make book choices. When you find that new state laws are stripping you of valuable tools, you need to go to your state legislators and make them aware of ALL the research in order to get those laws revised. In the interim, I think you will find Susan’s criteria will help you make the best choices for using the currently available materials.

I’ll further explore the current situation in the reading world with my upcoming three-part interview with Dr. Hruby. He created the video What the Phonics is the Science of Reading. LINK. He was another person I saw at LitCon who agreed to share what he had to say. So, it will be an interesting and informative few weeks.

In the meantime- Happy Reading and Writing

Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)

Copyright 2024 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. Views/interpretations expressed here are solely this author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.