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 views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.
PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts. Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.
Moving from Reading Instruction to Language Literacy Development: Bruce Howett Talks About the Changing Face of Reading Instruction by Sam Bommarito
I’ve often spoken to Bruce Howett and his colleagues. I’ve also interviewed Jan Wasowicz and Nora Chahbazi. Bruce is a researcher/practitioner. He is on a quest to end the reading wars. As he tells us in his biography below, his current efforts attempt to shift reading instruction to language-literacy development by unifying the four major aspects of spoken language with orthography. Let’s have a look at that biography.
BIOGRAPHY
Bruce Howlett hated reading instruction because nothing alleviated his reading disfluency, accuracy, spelling, and sentence writing difficulties until he began working with a speech therapist at age 42 while building phonemic, and fluency interventions and software. All it took was a few months of weekly sessions before reading, writing and listening became enjoyable.
Bruce loved science and after attending four colleges in five years he graduated with a degree in Biology. He later worked in biological research at Cornell University, where he learned the nuances of scientific research and the importance of continuously questioning current knowledge.
After 12 years, Bruce went to teach science at a residential school for teens with combined learning and emotional regulation difficulties. There he realized that his students’ literacy difficulties weren’t that different from his students. Bruce then started a 20-year project to create literacy enrichment, and intervention lessons based on current research.
His current efforts attempt to shift reading instruction to language-literacy development. Sparking the Reading Shift: Language-literacy Development unifies the four major aspects of spoken language with orthography. Each lesson has the student reading, spelling and writing words, phrases and sentences that include multisyllabic and poly-morpheme words. See ReadingShift.com for more information.
Here are the timed stamped talking points for the interview (so, you can go to the sections that interest you the most first)
Here is a link to the U-Tube Interview:
A Slide from Seidenberg’s presentation at the SLL Summit this summer:
First, keep in mind the four components of spoken language that Bruce uses in conjunction with orthography:
Phonemic awareness
Morphological awareness
Semantic awareness
Syntactic awareness
Then, keep in mind the importance of what Seidenberg is saying about the current state of SOR. My take is that he is saying that there is a time and place for direct instruction at the start, but then there needs to be a shift to what he calls implicit instruction. That involves the students using what they learned in the explicit instruction stage and using that to teach themselves what they need to know reading and how to read. He says, “The purpose of instruction is to enable the child to achieve escape velocity, not to take them all the way to the moon.”
When I first visited Nora Chahbazi at EBLI, this was when she already had a fairly large following. My biggest takeaway from that visit was that she wasn’t taking years and years and years to teach kids how to break the code. Her folks were doing that in a matter of months, usually in less than a year. She used the speech-to-print method that Bruce Howett used. Her success with that explains the remarkable growth of EBLI over in the years since that first visit. Along with several different organizations, EBLI organized the Accelerate Literacy a Structured Linguistic Literacy Summit (SSL) this summer to spread the word about the many effective practices folks now employ. Seidenberg’s presentation was part of that conference.
The upshot of things is this. There are major changes afoot in the world of SOR. What Bruce called SOR 1.0 is being replaced by something new. Folks like Jan Wasowicz are giving folks like Bruce a platform to talk about new ways of doing things. How does all this affect the reading wars?
For the past five years, I’ve strongly favored a centrist approach that uses ideas and practices from all sides of the great debate in reading. It seems to me that the things Bruce and other SOR advocates are saying include many of the things missing in SOR 1.0. Most importantly, they bring meaning into reading instruction from the get-go. As a centrist, this gives me hope that it will be possible to identify common ground, assuming we are willing to use common sense to do so. Dare to dream!
Next week I’ll have more to say about the implications of Seidenberg’s latest thinking.
So, until next week, 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 views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.
PS If you found the blog through Facebook or Twitter, please consider following it to ensure you won’t miss future posts. Use the “follow” entry on the sidebar of the blog.
More advice on getting your literacy program off to a good start: Janet Steinberg, a long-time teacher/educator/staff developer, gives us some practical ideas by Dr. Sam Bommarito
The start of the school year is upon us. Many of you have already had your first day of school. For the past few weeks, I’ve been trying to pick the brains of some of the top literacy experts in the field about what things to have in place to get your literacy program off to a good start this year. This week, I talked to Janet Steinberg about that topic. Here is some information about Janet.
BIOGRAPHY
Janet Steinberg was a teacher literacy coach and a data specialist in the Bronx She has helped with standards in multiple states and in writing tests as well as intervention and success criteria. She has a deep interest in using data to support instruction, and in finding principled ways to respond to the pressures around us without losing our way in the dark. She has special expertise in content-area literacies, especially in history, in Teacher Effectiveness work, in supporting high-needs students, and in using a knowledge of high-stakes assessments to allow us to be in a position to influence policy. That position of influence comes, in part, from achieving on measures that others deem important, and Janet has a laser-like focus on doing that, while holding tight to the principles and the rigor and authenticity of reading and writing workshop instruction.
As you can tell from her biography, Janet has a tremendous background which includes a wide variety of experiences. She continues to work in the Bronx. During the summer, she was able to visit school sites from around the country. As a centrist, I like to promote the idea that we need to draw our practices from all the various points of view about how to best teach literacy. Throughout her career, Janet has done just that. She understands the need to be data-driven but also understands the need to include the qualitative information that leads to a program becoming both effective and motivating. Let’s have a look at what Janet had to say during the interview.
Here are the timed stamped talking points for the interview (so, you can go to the sections that interest you the most first)
Here is a link to the U-Tube Interview:
Final Thoughts:
First, keep in mind some of the advice Janet gave as you start the school year:
The beginning of the school year is a time to welcome the kids, find out about them, and make sure you have books that attend to every student and what they love.
The best charts for the beginning of the year are teacher-made charts. These provide a way to welcome the students and review what they learned last year.
Teachers have to believe in themselves. Stay true to yourself.
Review your curriculum and decide on what kind of scaffolding is needed. Sometimes the curriculum may not be challenging enough, and sometimes, it can be too challenging. Review the quantitative and qualitative data about the kids and adjust your instruction accordingly.
Create a culture of thinking and provide time for discussion. Provide a variety of learning experiences.
Think about the classroom environment. Janet provides a variety of places for her students to carry out their work, including tables, beanbag chairs etc.
It was a delight to talk to Janet. She is still in the field, working with students from the Bronx every day. She has years of experience using ideas and methods from many points of view. She shared some very important ideas on how to get the school year off to a good start. From my perspective, Janet has outlined how to implement a program that empowers teachers yet still maintains fidelity to the district curriculum. It is the opposite of implementing a one-size-fits-all, teacher-proof curriculum. It is a path I hope you all will consider following in the coming school year.
So, until next week, 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 views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.
Dr. Sam’s Advice for the Start of the School Year: Follow the Child, not the Program
For the past five years, I’ve advocated for a centrist approach to literacy instruction. That means using ideas, practices, and programs from all sides. What should that look like as we start the school year? What that should look like is allowing teachers to follow both the Art and Science of reading instruction, as Tim Rasinski’s book title suggests, let’s Artfully Teach the Science of Reading. What follows is my take on what that could/should look like.
First teachers should take care to directly and explicitly teach the students the strategies they need for both decoding and comprehension. As I indicated last week, that means using a gradual release model. Most importantly, that means making sure strategy instruction goes beyond naming strategies or applying strategies. Instruction needs to include helping students INTERNALIZE AND USE STRATEGIES. A simple way to check whether this is happening is to periodically ask students to share what strategies/combinations of strategies they’ve used lately. That thought- that they need to learn to use combinations of strategies is often overlooked. However, it is supported by research going back as far as the NRP report.
When P.D. Pearson wrote his landmark piece in 1983 about gradual release, he alluded to the fact that the whole issue of whether to teach phonics had been settled. Unfortunately, not all his contemporaries agreed. Some still doubted the need for explicit, systematic phonics instruction. Here is my take on that.
Explicit, systematic phonics instruction should be a necessary but not sufficient component of each district’s literacy program. It can take the form of a synthetic phonics program; for many students, that is the only Program that will work for them. So, districts (and teachers) should ensure such programs are an important part of their literacy instruction.
There are two problems.
First, the exclusive mandated use of synthetic phonics programs has produced equivocal results. Too often, what happens is that decoding improves, but comprehension does not. Read the research from England. Read the research from the United States indicating that reading achievement scores have remained flat for decades and that includes the era since the SOR movement has taken hold. Check out what folks like Bowers, Johnson, Thomas, Wyse, and Bradbury have reported about the research cited in the current rush to use what some call SOR. In addition to these critics, some folks in the SOR community have championed alternatives to OG-style synthetic phonics, such as linguistic-based phonics. Programs using that form of phonics have consistently outperformed the more traditional OG-based phonics. Also, check out what Seidenberg has said about OG and its limits and limitations. A close look at ALL the research will indicate that it is far from settled science. Choosing what form of phonics program to use is often a buyer-beware situation.
In addition, some students thrive on using an analytic approach to phonics rather than a synthetic phonics approach. Yet, despite this, these students are often denied access to this approach. The Achilles heel of the analytic approach is that it is sometimes done in a way that is not systematic. There is a simple fix to that problem. When using “follow the child” schemes like those advocated by folks like Billy Molasso, teachers need to track what sounds have been taught and periodically fill in any gaps that may arise. As a centrist, I strongly advocate ensuring that children have access to all the forms of phonics so that the program can fit each child’s needs. Well-designed three-tiered instruction can allow this to happen. So…, my advice around this issue is simple. Make sure you fit the student’s phonics instruction to what each student needs. Make sure that both synthetic and analytic phonics instruction is available to students as needed. Both these forms of instruction can scaffold students to use the orthographic information readers need to decode text effectively.
Motivation matters. Recently there has been some pointed criticism of SOR programs around the issue of motivation. Teaching reading should be done in a way that scaffolds the student into wanting to read. Rasinski’s research around repeated reading and his newly minted Fluency Development Lesson provides instruction that builds fluency and comprehension while motivating students of all ages to want to read. Work by folks like Eric Litwin, Ann Chase, Chase Young and David Harrison have clearly demonstrated the efficacy of using music, poetry and readers theatre to develop the fluency skills readers need. When I am asked what to do for older readers who have not yet developed their sound-symbol knowledge, I often recommend teachers investigate ways to use music, poetry, and Reader’s Theatre to build that information. It is a win/win situation since the readers not only develop the needed sound-symbol knowledge but are also motivated to use it to read.
Wide reading in self-selected material matters. Somewhere in the rancor of the current debate about reading instruction, an important fact has been ignored. Wide reading in self-selected text builds readers’ background knowledge, the kind of background knowledge that is crucial to reading comprehension and the kind of background knowledge that builds a student’s vocabulary. In the process of reading self-selected materials that the student finds relevant to their lives, students’ reading does improve. Look into Juluis Anthony’s award-winning Believe project in St. Louis to see what this might look like.
I could add more things to the to-do list for getting off on the right foot this school year, but I think I’ve given you a good starter set of ideas. I’m currently lining up other educators to talk to about how to get literacy instruction off to a good start. At the end of the day, my answer to that remains-use practices informed by all the research, include direct explicit instruction in BOTH decoding and comprehension, make sure you balance the time you spend on decoding and comprehension instruction, and make motivation a key component in all that you do.
So, until next week, 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 views and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization.
Applying Gradual Release is crucial to choosing which texts to use in your lessons: A teaching tip from Dr. Sam Bommarito
During my 50-plus years in education, I’ve taken many reading courses and attended (and have given) hundreds of hours of PD training. I will share with you the one piece of advice I was given that has been the most useful in helping me help my students. Here it is:
When designing lessons, make sure you know what work you are leaving for the student and why.
If you follow the above advice, you will find yourself using the gradual release model developed by P.D. Pearson and others in 1983. The key here is properly scaffolding the instruction. Over-scaffold and you can create learned helplessness. Under-scaffold and you can create frustration for the student.
One immediate use of this line of thinking has to do with choosing what text to use in your lesson. If your current goal for a student (or group of students) is to teach the application of decoding skills, then teaching from a decodable text makes perfect sense. Not all decodable texts are well done (that’s true of every text form). You want to choose a decodable text that makes sense and has a storyline. You also want a text that provides multiple chances to APPLY the particular decoding skill you are trying to teach. (e.g., decoding short-a words or final-e words).
There is also a place for leveled texts in some lessons. Leveling systems like those done by F&P go beyond simple ranking books by decodability. They also include information about various text features. At the beginning levels it might be a feature like return sweeps. At higher levels it might be looking at the features of different kinds of texts. for instance learning about expository vs narrative texts. Assuming your lesson goal is to teach students how to handle such text features, you would want a text that is easily decoded for the students but includes the relevant features so they can focus their energy on learning and applying the strategies needed for texts with those features.
Finally, there is always a place for trade books in lessons. At the end of the day, we want students who want to and can read trade books. As they do, they should apply both the decoding and comprehension strategies you taught them. Remember that there is more to teaching reading strategies than simply naming them or describing them. You must teach the students to internalize and use each strategy. Be sure to assess whether or not they are doing that. One simple way to do that is to periodically provide time for the students to share with you and the class what strategies they used each week and how they used them. By the way, using a variety of texts (as opposed to focusing on using only one kind of text) is supported by the latest research; for example, see the 2022 research review by Birch, Miller, Ritchie and Ledger.
As we get closer and closer to the start of school, I’ll try to continue to share some of the best teaching tips I have gotten over the years. I’m also trying to line up additional interviews with literacy folks. So, until next week:
Happy Reading and Writing
Dr. Sam Bommarito (aka, the guy in the middle taking flak from all sides)
Copyright 2024 by Dr. Sam Bommarito. The views/interpretations expressed here are solely those of this author and do not necessarily reflect those of any other person or organization.
