The Missouri Reader
• Is YOUR teacher magazine
• Is a peer reviewed professional journal
• Has been publishing for over 40 years
• Has articles on the latest literacy issues
Want to submit an article? See the last page for details about submissions. We especially welcome joint articles by teachers & professors collaborating on literacy projects. We try publish articles that will help teachers with their everyday teaching. We want to help you become that teacher we all wish we had had when we were in school.
22
By David L. Harrison
For the past five decades, the so-called “Great Debate” in reading has centered around the issue of the best ways to teach reading, especially beginning reading. Many educators believe this debate has resulted in a swinging pendulum, moving from one extreme to another. I’ve taken the position that instead of jumping between extremes, we should consider using the best, most effective practices from all points of view about reading. I call this taking a centrist approach. LINK This approach maintains there are alternate explanations about why things aren’t where we want them to be in the teaching of reading. LINK
Some points to consider when discussing the current iteration of “The Great Debate” in reading.
•
•
spread over several weeks or more LINK. I am not alone in criticizing these practices and the premises behind them. LINK
•
•
•
•
adopting programs, districts should require evidence that the programs improve both decoding and comprehension. This evidence should span several years. The comprehension test should directly measure all the content typically covered in our state reading achievement test. See box 1 of this document by Nell Duke for the “The range of knowledge, skills, and dispositions entailed in state reading tests “LINK
•
•
Final Thoughts
Recently I’ve had some discussions on social media from Science of Reading advocates claiming my position that some SOR folks do not TEACH comprehension is unfounded. I’ll begin by saying that many SOR advocates do attempt to assess comprehension and practice comprehension skills. The former is a good use of teaching time; the latter is not. I’ll go so far as to say reducing the amount of time on various activities to “practice” comprehension skills is a good idea. So, there is some common ground between my position and the position some SOR proponents take. However, practicing comprehension skills without first teaching them is like having baseball batters practice their swings without coaching on how to adjust their swings. The issue then becomes what we do about teaching comprehension strategies. It is on that point that we sharply differ. I call for using the Science of Reading Comprehension LINK. They don’t.
Many SOR advocates have adopted the position posited by Willingham that improving background knowledge is most of what it takes to improve comprehension. They call for teachers to significantly reduce the amount of time teachers spend teaching reading strategies. I’ll begin by pointing out that some major figures in the SOR world have questioned Willingham’s position. LINK I’ve written my own opinion. That opinion says that Willingham does not factor in several decades of research showing that teaching reading strategies using gradual release does result in improved reading scores. LINK I’ve also questioned whether the amount of time he advocates allocating to reading strategy instruction is adequate for teachers to implement a gradual release teaching model.
My inquiries on how these SOR advocates teach comprehension (as opposed to assessing or practicing comprehension skills) have been deflected rather than answered. One key question for those advocates is whether they support the teaching comprehension model that calls for teaching strategies using gradual release. The follow-up question is this- what percentage of their teaching time is spent teaching comprehension? Perhaps we need replication of Durkin’s seminal work in the 1980s about how much time teachers spend teaching comprehension. LINK. She found that “classroom observation of reading and social studies instruction shows that teachers are mentioners, assignment-givers, and interrogators.” During the era of the early 1980s, teachers did not TEACH comprehension. It’s not in anyone’s best interest to return to those times. We should not write off the three decades of progress the reading world has made in teaching reading comprehension.
In conclusion, I urge all policymakers, administrators, and teachers to consider all the research and best practices from all points of view as they decide how to help our children to become motivated lifelong readers and writers.
Dr. Sam Bommarito
As you know, Dr. Sam is the Co-Editor of this journal. He is retired from full-time teaching after a 51-year career in education. That career included teaching at almost every grade from K through graduate school. He taught reading courses to teachers at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. He’s made numerous presentations at ILA (formally IRA) conferences, including national conferences and, more recently, at conferences like LitCon. Most of his career was spent working in Title 1 buildings as a reading specialist and staff developer. Those buildings were often highly successful, as demonstrated by national awards from the Secretary of Education. In addition, he twitters daily about his various literacy endeavors (@DoctorSam7). He writes a weekly blog about literacy https://doctorsam7.blog/. Dr. Sam continues to search for common ground and common practices as we examine how best to teach literacy, especially early literacy.
.
22