I have readers from all around the world and over 100 different countries. They include folks of many different backgrounds and religions. I hope everyone has a wonderful Holiday Season. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Heri za Kwanzaa, and Happy New Year (just to name a few). As we enter the New Year, let us remember that the key to a successful education is to fit programs to the needs of the kids (not the other way around!). Let’s use ALL the research in order to do just that!
What works with one child doesn’t always work with another: The case for a nuanced approach to the teaching of reading by Dr. Sam Bommarito
I’ve spent the last 5 decades of my life in the reading field. I’ve taught reading in every grade from kindergarten through graduate school. Many of the programs I’ve worked with were among the most successful of their time. Back in the day, Frank Smith characterized the great debate around how reading should be taught as “The Never-Ending Debate.” Unfortunately, his assessment still applies to the current dialogue around the best ways to teach reading. But wait a minute, Dr. Sam. Hasn’t the science of reading settled all that? Don’t we now know “the answer,” thanks to SOR? The short answer is NO!
In recent years. I’ve written many blogs around the topic of SOR. Here is the upshot of what I’ve discovered:
After looking at ALL the research and what ALL the researchers have to say on the topic, I think the most sensible view about teaching reading is to view things as the Sciences of Reading. This LINK is to a blog entry/YouTube Video where I make the case for using the Sciences of Reading Perspective (Sciences with an s!)
I had the privilege of interviewing P.D. Pearson on the topic of the best ways to teach reading. The blog entry includes his thoughts and links to his extensive look into issues raised by SOR. This includes a free, well-researched book about this topic. He also talked about Scanlon’s large body of research, which supports including context clues as part of teaching word recognition. LINK.
I’ve also interviewed both Dr. Andy Johnson LINK and Dr. P.L Thomas LINK. Both these researchers have pushed back on what I have come to call the Social Media version of SOR. Dr. Johnson rightly points out that given that reading scores have been essentially flat for at least 3 decades, the claims of a “reading crisis” caused by Balanced Literacy simply do not hold up when all the research is considered.
It takes more than providing background knowledge to improve reading comprehension. LINK. The key to effective strategy instruction is to go beyond simply naming the strategy, describing the strategy or “practicing” the strategy. The key to effective strategy instruction is to learn how to internalize and use the strategy.
Rather than looking at Balanced Literacy at its worst, essentially strawman versions of BL, we should be looking at both the strengths and weaknesses of Balanced Literacy. Let’s start looking at more than just strawman versions of BL practices like Guided Reading, Reading Recovery and Workshop teaching. LINK.
SOR is not the cure-all some make it out to be. Consider Bower’s findings LINK and the lack of progress in England despite 10 years of mandated systematic synthetic phonics instruction. On this side of the pond, some parents have begun to question the efficacy of some SOR-based programs LINK. Even SOR supporters like Shanahan have questioned some of the conclusions of what I have come to call the social media version of SOR. LINK, LINK.
In another blog, I reported that SOR advocates like Seidenberg said 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:” That sounds suspiciously like Clay’s self-extending system. Perhaps there is more common ground than we might think. LINK.
Most of my readers are familiar with the idea of the swinging pendulum in the discussions around best reading practices. In my time in the reading world, I’ve seen several swings from one extreme (overemphasis on phonics, underemphasis on comprehension) to the other (overemphasis on comprehension, underemphasis on phonics/decoding). Underlying these swings is the fact that “What works with one child doesn’t always work with another.” When we look at things through opposing sides (BL vs SOR) or other similar dichotomies, some children get left out, and some children are not served well by one approach or the other. When it becomes apparent the newest ways aren’t working for everyone, we shift yet again, and the pendulum continues to swing.
Lately I have seen some movement in online discussions toward looking at things in a more nuanced way. Leah Mermelstein makes this case in the following Facebook post LINK:
IN CONCLUSION: The blog entry summarizes some of the things I’ve learned and talked about this year. As we get ready to move into the New Year, let’s consider adopting a more nuanced stance toward the teaching of reading. Adopting a curriculum should not be determined by folks pushing their products or approaches. It should be determined by local districts using ALL the research to locate methods and resources that best fit the needs of their particular students. It should involve empowering teachers to use those methods and resources in the spirit of carrying out the Art and Science of Reading LINK. Dare to dream.
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.
An overview of the newly released Poetry Issue of The Missouri Reader by Dr. Sam Bommarito
The Missouri Reader has been around for over 40 years. It started as a “paper journal.” Now, we publish digitally. We have two issues each year. We are peer-reviewed, and over the years, our editorial board has included many highly qualified people (see the sidebar on the Table of Contents page of the journal). We publish many articles by well-known experts in the reading field. However, we also encourage teachers to publish, especially action research, book reviews, and app reviews. The last page of each issue explains how to submit an article for review. We are an official publication of the Missouri Literacy Association. Missouri Literacy Association is an ILA affiliate.
The newest issue of The Missouri Reader is out. Its focus is on the use of poetry in the teaching of reading. This issue joins two previous issues around that topic. The materials from the three issues will give teachers of all grades many ideas and effective FREE materials to work with.
A few reminders- The poetry issues were originally the brainchild of David Harrison. David is the Missouri poet laureate. Over the past few years, he has worked closely with folks like Tim Rasinski and George Heard. See the interview in the journal for details about that. He has written content-area poems that have been included in several recent publications co-authored with Rasinski and others.
One of the things to be aware of is that the effect sizes of teaching fluency are greater than effect sizes of teaching systematic phonics. Hansford reported on that in a paper found on Rasinski’s website LINK.
I mention this research not to suggest we replace systematic phonics with fluency instruction, I advocate using both. However, I don’t think that the tremendous impact fluency instruction can have on reading is as widely known as it should be. Please spread the word. Using poems provides the kind of instruction and practice students of all ages need to improve their fluency. Rasinski has said many times that fluency is the bridge to comprehension. It is an important, powerful bridge. The information from these special issues will help teachers include that bridge in their overall instruction.
Let’s have a look at the newest issue. Anyone with the following link can read the current issue for free; no special software is needed:
This issue has several articles that talk about the nuts and bolts of using poetry to TEACH fluency. Kershaw & Gregory give us an overview of why poetry is effective. Amos and Marcy’s The Poet’s Dozen, gives readers information on a dozen novels that provide great resources for teaching poetry. Altier’s article explains how students can create their own content area poems. Harrsion and Hurd give the story of how the Fluency Development Lesson evolved from a single day lesson to a semester long complete set of daily lessons.
Poems have the advantage of packing a lot of meaning into relatively short texts. Add to that the teaching move of creating content area themed poems and teachers will find they have a powerful set of materials to teach from. Don’t forget to explore the previous two poetry issues for more ideas and materials. LINK, LINK. We want to thank all the various authors who have contributed to these issues.
Part of our way of distributing The Missouri Reader is using what we call “word of cyberspace.” We ask our readers to share the links to the magazine with other readers. As a result, we are now read all around the world. So, if you like what you see in these issues, please share the links. They’re all free. THANKS!
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.
A Centrist Perspective on What Tim Shanahan Had to Say in his latest blog post: Analyzing SOR 2.0 by Dr. Sam Bommarito
The “my way or the highway” views expressed by what I call the social media version of SOR are not the only views being shared in the SOR community. I’ve already talked about Seidenberg’s latest pronouncements indicating that while direct, explicit phonics instruction (synthetic phonics instruction) is needed in the early stages of reading development, readers eventually need to have the focus of instruction shift from explicit to implicit instruction. He called this “achieving escape velocity”. I wrote an entire blog about this point and how this take-off point is seen by many to correspond to what Clay called a self-extending system LINK. I call this newest vision of SOR, SOR 2.0. I see Shanahan’s latest blog as an example of the kind of thinking that goes into SOR 2.0.
Tim Shanahan has a long-standing friendship and collaboration with Tim Rasinski. Tim Rasinski co-authors the book Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading. In that book, Tim and his co-authors maintain that teaching is both an Art and a Science. In a recent Facebook post, Leah Mermelstein called what Shanahan had to say in his post a nuanced point of view. I agree with Leah. Let’s look at the post to see what is involved in that nuanced point of view.
“Science may contribute to that, but it will never be sufficient. Art must have a place.”
“Maybe we educators start from a better spot. Witness Chase Young, David Paige, and Tim Rasinski’s book, Artfully Teaching the Science of Reading. That title certainly argues for a unity in this regard.”
“Yes, with research, we can identify potentially positive practices. What we can’t do is tell teachers how best to implement these insights in real classrooms. Having everyone mindlessly read a purpose-setting script at the start of a lesson may be a no-brainer. Noticing that some kids neglect that purpose, seems more in the realm of art.”
“Science and art are both about trying to maximize student learning. (bolding is mine)
Science powerfully identifies what has been proven to be workable. I believe only foolish educators would ignore the valuable insights it offers. But those educators must recognize that these findings cannot be implemented successfully without a lot of effort aimed at making them work.
Art, on the other hand, includes everything else that teachers do to increase success. For me, William Faulkner’s definition of art is best: “Art means anything consciously well done.” That’s where patience, careful listening, empathy, rapport, clarity, and persistence come in. Knowing when to double down and when to back off. Implementing a science of reading successfully requires a thoughtful dose of such ingredients – items that may not have shown up in the research study, but which certainly were in the classrooms with the greatest learning.
Remember the old commercial? “Peanut butter and chocolate, chocolate and peanut butter, two great flavors that taste great together.”
Perhaps we need to hire an advertising exec to come up with something like, “Art and science, science and art… two great sources of success that work great together.” (bolding is mine) I doubt that will sell anything, but its heart is in the right place.”
My thoughts about Shanahan’s blog entry.
I’m not saying that Shanahan and Seidenberg view themselves as centrists. I am saying that the ideas they have expressed lately (what I have dubbed SOR 2.0) hold out hope that taking a centrist approach is not only plausible but also ones that I would highly recommend. We may yet be able to find common ground using common sense. Here is the chart I use to explain what I think the centrist approach is all about.
We must all recognize that, over the years, no one approach has given us all the answers. There is no one science of reading. There is only the Sciences of Reading and all that that implies LINK. As Shanahan rightly points out, the teacher should not have carte blanche to leave out instruction, especially in teaching phonics. On the other hand, I think that the questions of how and when to implement particular practices is clearly part of the art of teaching. We need laws that empower teachers, not restrict them. We need to take the kind of nuanced view about this subject that folks like Shanahan seem to be embracing. 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.
