Dr. Tim Rasinski and Dr. Lynne Kulich talk about their new book, The Fluency Development Lesson: Closing the Reading Gap: An Interview with Dr. Sam Bommarito

.

It was an honor to talk to Dr. Tim Rasinski and Dr. Lynne Kulich about their new book, The Fluency Development Lesson: Closing the Reading Gap Professional Development Book. The book is a real game-changer. It is research-based. It includes several support materials written specifically for the book. Those support materials are comprised of Word Ladders created by Tim Rasinski and poems written by their co-author, David Harrison. The poems are designed to support fluency, build background knowledge and improve comprehension. As the interview progressed, Tim and Lynn explained how the book evolved from a one-day lesson plan format created by Tim many years ago into a resource with a complete scope and sequence designed to work for younger and older students. It is meant to be a supplemental program. It is built on the premise that fluency can and should be taught directly and explicitly. It is rooted in Tim Rasinski’s research, which demonstrates the power of repeated readings. It overcomes the potential problems of repeated reading becoming boring or meaningless by using the concept of reading to perform. During the interview, Tim stresses the importance of reading to perform. He points out that the goal of repeated reading is not to read faster but rather to read better in a way that encourages the reader and listeners to make sense of what is being read.

The book is designed in a way that empowers teachers. The Fluency Development Lesson (FDL) format is clear and simple to use. As Lynn explains, it evolved from a one-day lesson plan first proposed by Tim into a full five-day set of lessons. The lessons are short (15-20 minutes or so). Teachers are given specific examples of materials that would fit into the lessons. Teachers can find things that best fit the age and stage of their particular students. The materials also lend themselves to helping the students read and master different content areas. As you will learn next week when I interview David Harrison and Georgia Heard, the ink wasn’t dry on this book before David and others began creating even more support materials for developing fluency and comprehension that can easily be used within FDL lessons.

Both Tim and Lynn are well known for their research. Stanford University’s 2023 study named Dr. Timothy Rasinski as one of the top 2% of scientists in the world. Lynn Kulich also has strong credentials as both an author, educator and researcher. I’ll have more to say about the FDL at the conclusion of this blog. Now, let’s look at Tim and Lynne’s biographies and hear what they say in the video interview.

BIOGRAPHIES

Here is the YouTube VIDEO

LINK

My thoughts about this interview:

First, I’d like to thank Tim and Lynn for taking the time to do this interview and for the wonderful contributions they have both made to the literacy field. I think the Fluency Development Lesson (FDL) is a real game changer. As they both indicated during the interview, for an investment of 15-20 minutes of daily lesson time, teachers and students can reap the benefits of what research demonstrates (LINK, LINK) is one of the most effective evidence-based interventions. The FDL can be used with virtually any literacy curriculum. Teachers are free to use the materials given in the book or to find similar materials on their own. I feel fluency can be taught and should be taught explicitly and directly. Fluency is not about reading fast. Fluency is about reading well, reading with prosody, reading for meaning. Fluency instruction can improve students’ knowledge of sound-symbol relations and the use of sound-symbol relations to solve unknown words. My next blog will continue this topic. I’ll be talking to David Harrison (the other co-author of this book) and Georgia Heard about their views on fluency instruction and about the many materials they have developed that help teachers implement fluency instruction. So, stay tuned- there’s more to come next week!

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.

Susan Vincent gives her take on the Science of Reading Recovery: 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. Recently, she posted a blog entitled The Science of Reading Recovery. As she explained in the interview, she believes there is a substantial body of research demonstrating both the short-term and long-term benefits of RR. However, as she also explains in her interview, her title for this particular blog post was meant to be a play on words- The Science of Reading (is in) Recovery. She views the recent pronouncements of major figures in the SOR world as indicating that SOR is in the process of undergoing a recovery from the extreme positions some SOR advocates took in the early stages of the formation of SOR.  For me, those same recent pronouncements helped me to continue to hope that there is a possibility of finding some common ground in what the various sides of the current debate about literacy are saying. Before exploring Susan’s thoughts, let’s look at her biography.

Here is the YouTube VIDEO

Instead of using my usual question-and-answer format for my blog posts, this blog’s format was to have Susan make a presentation using slides. During the course of her presentation, I had some discussions with her about what she was saying. What follows are the highlights of those slides and that discussion.

At 01:39, Susan explained her play on words in the title of her blog entry on the RR site LINK.

She explained that in the world of reading recovery, recovery means returning to the correct path. She views the recent pronouncements of major figures in the SOR world as actually being a course correction from the original course taken by the SOR movement. She explained that some of the recent chatter she was hearing from the SOR world sounded very much like what Marie Clay had said about teaching reading decades ago. That set the stage for her presentation, which delineated the ways those things that SOR folks are now saying fit what Marie Clay had said decades ago. Susan said she had found many SOR tenets in Marie Clay’s work:

She started with a slide that demonstrated that RR succeeded in the districts in which she taught (04:32 on the YouTube video) and that WHEN STUDENTS RETURN TO AN EFFECTIVE DISTRICT PROGRAM, the results of RR do stick long-term. For a more detailed look at this issue, please see my interview with Billy Molasso, where he explains the nuts and bolts of why some of the studies that claim that RR results don’t stick are inaccurate and misleading  LINK.

Beginning at 04:38 on the YouTube interview, she provides slides and information demonstrating four things from the recent SOR “reset calls” that are actually found in Clay’s writings.

One example she gives is using sound boxes for PA and writing about an instructional, decodable text.

At 19:31 on the tape, she talks about how students write about the books they have read. Our discussion pointed out that this clearly puts comprehension at the center of the lesson and provides a way for teachers to use language experience as a highly effective teaching move.

At 21:03 in the video, she talks about how folks like Debbie Hepplewhite call for a reset because they feel SOR “is becoming restrictive and too prescriptive in the classroom.”

At 23:20 in the video, she discusses set for variability and how she sees set for variability as similar to the flexible use of MSV.

The preceding are some highlights from the video interview. The full interview is on YouTube. Susan sent me a PDF of all her slides and has agreed to my sharing them with anyone who wants them. Write to me at bommaritosam@yahoo using the subject heading “Susan’s Slides,” and I will send you that PDF.

FINAL THOUGHTS FOR THIS BLOG

As I listened to Susan’s presentation for this blog, I realized she had some important insights on how what is now being said by many SOR folks.  As they take part in a reset of the SOR position what they say dovetails nicely with what Clay said decades ago. Susan knows RR. But she also took the time to learn about SOR. That includes being trained in OG and going to and listening to the “chatter” happening at the SOR sites. Folks like Susan give me hope that the day will come that we might listen to each other and find common ground in the middle instead of taking sides and going to extremes.

Dare to dream.

I want to thank Susan for sharing her time, her willingness to listen to all sides, and her many insights about the current dialogue about teaching reading (and writing!). Perhaps there is still hope for finding common ground using common sense.

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.

Bringing Joy Back into Reading Instruction: A Centrist’s Perspective

by Dr. Sam Bommarito

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2024/05/19/science-of-reading-has-sucked-the-joy-out-of-learning-to-read-experts-say

A recent article in Forbes magazine has raised the question of whether the current rush to implement “Science of Reading” has resulted in an unintended consequence. The Joy is being taken out of the teaching of reading. Here is a screenshot of a key part of that article:

As a centrist who believes in taking the best elements from all sides of the issue of how to teach reading, here is a list of things we can do to help bring Joy back into the teaching of reading.

1. Put decodables in their place. Researchers like Meismer have said decodables are only needed very early in the reading process. My take on that is that there is no real use for them in the regular classroom past 1st grade. Even Tim Shanahan, a strong advocate for SOR, has said that the folks claiming we need years and years of decodable books are simply making that stuff up. It’s time to adjust our use of decodables to fit what research says about them. They are not silver bullets. They are a tool that is useful very early in the reading process. They can be useful in Tier 2 and Tier 3 settings. They can also be useful when teaching specific things like prefixes/suffixes (thanks to Leah Mermelstein for that idea- see comments). Let’s use them that way.
2. When picking decodables, please pay close attention to their content. Not all decodables are created equal. Some are devoid of any meaning. Others are well done and provide the kind of word-solving practice beginning readers need. Limiting district choices for decodables to those published by politically correct companies is not in the best interests of the students. As a centrist, the fact that some companies once associated exclusively with “balanced literacy” are now creating some well-done decodable books is a sign that folks are recognizing that you need to consider both sides (all sides) of the issue. Yet some folks are being stopped from buying decodables because the wrong company publishes them.  I’d love to hear from my readers about some of the “best of the best” decodables they have found.
3. There are Joyful ways to help students master the USE of sound-symbol relations in order to problem-solve their words. Tim Rasinski has been at the forefront of a movement designed to use what he has learned about repeated readings to foster a “learn by doing” approach to mastering sound-symbol relations. He and his colleagues include things like using songs, poetry and reader’s theatre to help students develop fluency and comprehension. I have an interview lined up with Tim and one of his co-authors in the very near future, so stay tuned for more information about the nuts and bolts of how that kind of approach can be implemented.
4. Part of bringing the joy back into reading instruction includes effectively using songs and read-alouds. Eric Litwin is a master of that. Though best known for his very popular children’s books, he has also written a research-based book about the topic. One of the things I always recommend to parents and students is that they find their favorite authors and explore all the books read by one of them. I often used Eric as a recommendation for an author to explore. Again, I’d love to hear from my readers about their ideas for recommended children’s authors at various grade levels.  
5. Last week I talked about Seidenberg’s newest ideas about SOR. My readers’ response to one of his newest ideas was overwhelming. He said, “The purpose of instruction is to enable the child to achieve escape velocity, not take them all the way to the moon” (bolding mine).” This was a follow-up to his idea that while beginning readers need a heavy dose of explicit instruction, the mix shifts to a greater reliance on implicit instruction as the child gains skill. Many of my RR friends saw this thought as dovetailing perfectly with Clay’s ideas of building the foundations for a self-extending system. Could it be that some common ground is starting to emerge here? I certainly hope so.

The above is just a starter set of ideas about how to bring Joy back into reading instruction. For the future, it is important that we proceed in a way that empowers teachers and lets them be treated as professionals. This post about teachers as professionals appeared recently on Facebook:

In my interview with George Hruby, he pointed out that teachers don’t want to be babysitters, tied as a room monitor to groups of kids using prescriptive online programs. They want to be professionals who are allowed to carry out programs of instruction based on the years and years of education, professional development and training many of them have. I would add that that needs to be done within the confines of the district’s programs and curriculum. Good, experienced teachers are leaving the teaching field in droves. If we want the remaining teachers to stay, it’s time to bring Joy back into reading instruction and treat teachers as the dedicated professionals they truly are.

As I indicated earlier, I’ll talk to Tim Rasinski in a few weeks. Next week, Susan Vincent returns to talk about her insights into the current state of reading instruction. So- stay tuned!

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.

The Ever Changing World of Literacy- My Analysis of What  Seidenberg is now saying about SOR

 by Dr. Bommarito

I’ll start by sharing two slides from Seidenberg’s presentation at the Accelerated Literacy  Conference this summer. (Here is a link to more information about that conference LINK).

My interpretation of what Seidenberg is getting at in these two slides is as follows: He is saying there comes a time when the need for direct, explicit instruction diminishes (ends?). His use of the term “achieve escape velocity” is revealing. In the end game of reading instruction, skilled readers “continue to increase reading skill, knowledge of language, knowledge of the world. Entirely implicit. No Teacher. Feedback is self-generated:” (bolding is mine)

If I wanted to, I could take the path some journalists took in 2022 when they reported Lucy Calkins was backing away from workshop teaching. In fact, Calkins was simply recognizing that some of the things she had been doing needed revising and she was willing to make those revisions. I wrote about that at the time LINK.

Now that some in the SOR camp seem to be backing off some of their previous positions,  rather than “return fire” on SOR, I think it’s best to take this for what I think it is. It is an attempt to fix some things that the original version of SOR got wrong and it is becoming increasingly clear that there are some things that they got wrong. Remember that I am a centrist, someone who is interested in what we can use from all sides. I have been on a five-year quest to find common ground using common sense. Dichotomous thinking and moving to extremes has kept the pendulum of instruction swinging for all of the five decades I have been in education. The issue is not phonics vs no phonics but rather how much and what kind of phonics. The end game is not creating decoders; it is creating readers who reach that escape velocity and use all they have learned to finish the job and teach themselves how to read. The two sides share much more than most folks are willing to acknowledge. So rather than focus our attention on how the extremes of the two sides differ, why not talk more about things that all sides might agree on? Let me present you with a tentative list of areas of agreement.

The development of orthographic knowledge is crucial. However, such knowledge is useless if students don’t learn how to apply it to the process of problem-solving their words.

Background knowledge is necessary for comprehension, but it is not sufficient. There are strategies that readers can and should learn to use when making meaning, and reading is primarily a meaning-making process.

Decodable texts can be useful at the very beginning of the reading process, but as folks like Meismer have pointed out, the transition to other text forms needs to be made very early. Shanahan has soundly criticized those who call for years and years and years of using decodable texts.

We need both explicit instruction and implicit instruction. My own take on that is that explicit instruction has its philosophical roots in Aristotle’s thinking, and implicit instruction’s roots lie in Socrates’ thinking. Those two philosophies have been around for over 2000 years. One has never replaced the other. We need both. We need to learn when and how to use both.

There are no silver bullets. What works for one child does not always work for another. What works in one setting does not always work in another. The trick of it is for districts to find a cluster of practices that works for them. When districts are successful (and some already have been), we should look at the details of why what they did worked for them and ask ourselves how we can ADAPT THAT TO FIT OUR SITUATION.

(This item added at the suggestion from Leah Mermelstien commenting on the original post)- Understanding the implications of set for variability is crucial to developing a good program of literacy instruction.

This is only a partial list- a starter set. I would love to hear from you on other things all sides might agree on. Ultimately, I would love to see this evolve into a situation where there are no sides (dare to dream!). That can’t happen if we continue to use strawmen versions of the two sides. That can only happen if we admit that there are places where each of the two sides’ methods have worked rather than claim that one side or the other has been a total failure. Next week, I’ll be talking to Susan Vincent about her ideas on the Science of Reading Recovery (and yes, there is science supporting what RR does, and there is evidence that RR can work in many settings). In the following weeks, I hope to continue talking to folks from all sides and will focus my questions on what works and why. As I said earlier, I look forward to the day when the areas of agreement become large enough that there are no sides. Dare to Dream!

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.