A common refrain among proponents of the science of reading (SOR) is that teachers have been failing to adequately deliver instruction that addresses basic literacy skills (Hanford, 2018; Kilpatrick, 2016; Seidenberg, 2017; Willingham, 2017). Approaches considered to be consistent with SOR tend to place an emphasis on structured literacy, the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), and Scarborough’s Reading Rope (2001). In this article, I contrast different approaches to literacy instruction such as whole language and structured literacy to identify lessons that can inform tough decisions faced by teachers who wish to also privilege constructivist (Searle, 1995) and social-constructivist (Vygotsky, 1998) principles of instruction. My argument is that it is vital to acknowledge the complexities of the reading process including the life experiences of students and nuanced social and cultural factors.
Differing Approaches to Literacy Instruction
The differing sides in the so-called “reading wars” (Pearson, 2004) generally agree that decoding and phonics are important aspects of reading but disagree on issues such as the extent of phonics instruction, when to engage in the instruction, and what instruction methods to use. The benefits of systematic phonics instruction have been well documented (Balmuth, 2009; Ehri et al., 2001; Foorman et al., 2016), yet the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) also emphasized that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to teaching phonics which is best in all contexts. Ehri (2020) called into question instructional practices in which children focus on whole words prior to learning grapheme-phoneme relations and stressed that systematic phonics instruction should include games and high interest learning activities. Improved reading accuracy appears connected to systematic and direct phonics instruction, and further, systematic phonics has consistently been found to be more effective in producing literacy gains compared to a lack of phonics instruction or only haphazard phonics instruction (Ehri et al., 2001). However, there is a lack of consensus in the research literature on the long-term effects of systematic and direct phonics instruction on comprehension (Wilson et al., 2004).
Structured literacy is largely bottom-up. In structured literacy, children learn smaller parts of the reading process through a carefully planned scope and sequence that builds toward increasingly difficult concepts including whole words and whole texts. Multisensory instruction is an important component, highlighting the importance of the various senses such as tactile experiences in building literacy skills (Birsh & Carreker, 2019). Structured literacy emphasizes explicit instruction, extensive practice under the supervision of the teacher who provides corrective feedback, the use of examples as well as nonexamples as students practice skills, and the use of decodable texts (Spear-Swerling, 2019).
Whole language (Goodman, 2014) is an example of a largely top-down (Evans, Fox, Cremaso, & McKinnon, 2004) approach to teaching phonics. The cueing systems encouraged by whole language are often used within guided reading sessions, workshop conferences, or other discussions of a text. Chall (1967) critiqued whole language and favored systematic instruction of decoding and phonics in early literacy (Semingson & Kerns, 2021). Balanced literacy (Honig, 1996) traditionally is seen as different from whole language, combining literacy blocks featuring guided reading, literary response groupwork, reading workshops and writing workshops with blocks of explicit instruction in skill development. The umbrella term “balanced literacy” covers a wide variety of frameworks, but it has widely become associated with the structured programs of Fountas and Pinnell (2016) as well as Lucy Calkins (2020). Burkins and Yates (2021) provide guidance for teachers who have a background in balanced literacy and wish to adapt principles from SOR. Balanced literacy traditionally combines meaning-centered approaches of whole language such as guided reading, reading workshops and writing workshops, with instructional blocks that focus on the explicit instruction of basic skills.
A longstanding line of scholarship supports combining instruction in the use of reading strategies with wide reading that supports deep engagement with texts and explicit instruction of skills such as pho nics (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998). This is partof a tradition in literacy instruction to combine wide reading, strategy instruction, and context cues, with explcit
The Complexity of the Reading Field
Concerns about narrow conceptions of reading that shape policy initiatives are not new in the literacy field. Only quantitative studies were used to inform findings in the report of the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000). Concerns were raised that the NRP did not adequately consider a wide variety of factors in the reading process, including sociocultural and contextual factors (Knobel, 1999) and motivation (Baker, Dreher, & Guthrie, 2000). Once again, these concerns are being raised in response to SOR driven initiatives. The importance of considering broad perspectives in literacy research to inform practices was stressed by Reinking and Yaden (2020). They argued that having a clear understanding of theoretical foundations in reading is a key aspect of bridging the research to practice gap. Reinking and Yaden urged a rich dialogue over the role of theory and theorizing in literacy to address heated debates in the field as well as inform the practice of teaching.
The renewed discourse of “reading wars” oversimplifies the discussions about the reading process and the instruction of reading. For example, advocates of interactive models of reading (Rumelhart, 1977; Stanovich, 1980) favor drawing on both bottom-up and top-down approaches in an interactive way, so that readers can interchangeably use these strategies. Yaden, Reinking and Smagorinsky (2021) critiqued the narrowly confined view of literacy that is found in the science of reading discourse and in discussion about reading wars. The binaries implied by the phrase “reading war” imply positions that are in such fierce opposition as to be irreconcilable. Instead, the authors call for research and practice in reading to seek areas of synergy between binary debates such as the nature versus nurture discussion. They find that the SOR discourse tends to rely on experimental methods of research, with explanations tending to be grounded in biological, neurological, and cognitive sciences. Additionally, they argue that SOR claims do not adequately consider social and environmental contexts of literacy and rely heavily on experimental design research while dismissing findings from other research methods.
The Complexity of the Reading Process
The Simple View of Reading (SVR) (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) underlies approaches that are favored by SOR. It emphasizes the importance of decoding and language comprehension. Definitions from the later cognitive foundations framework (Hoover & Tunmer, 2020) ground this discussion of the simple view of reading. The cognitive foundations framework (Hoover & Tunmer, 2020) builds on the constructs of the simple view of reading based on more than three decades of research into the concept. Decoding is seen as a necessary step that enables children to comprehend what they are reading. The Simple View is mathematically expressed as follows. Reading Comprehension (RC) is the product of language comprehension (LC) multiplied by decoding (D), or RC = LC x D. Hoover and Tunmer emphasize a view of decoding that goes beyond the use of phonics rules to sound out words, but also includes recognition of familiar and unfamiliar words. Word recognition and decoding are seen as teachable skills while comprehension is a complex mental process not easily taught.
Recent investigations into the validity of claims made by SVR were funded by the Reading for Understanding Initiative (Cervetti et al., 2020; Pearson et al., 2020). The research team found strengths and weaknesses to SVR. Cervetti et al. (2020) concluded that at a broad heuristic level, SVR is useful in explaining some processes that contribute to comprehension. However, questions were raised in several areas. For example, the role of memory and attention in the model was found to need future investigation. Further, the research team involved in the RfU studies questioned whether the SVR’s two key components (decoding and listening comprehension) can adequately provide guidance for instruction that will have a longitudinal impact on reading comprehension. Indeed, the research raised concerns that a focus on SVR may obscure teachers from considering paths toward comprehension (such as contextual factors, the use of textual strategies, knowledge, and skillful use of academic language) that are not considered within the model.
Duke and Cartwright (2021) proposed an active view of reading model as an expansion of the simple view of reading. The active reading model includes those aspects of reading that are within the simple view of reading but considers the simple view and incomplete model. The key components of the simple view remain important, so word recognition and language comprehension are important components of the proposed active view of reading. Word recognition processes include phonological awareness, the alphabetic principle, phonics, decoding, and sight words. The concept of language comprehension is expanded from the simple view of reading. It includes socio-cultural informed background knowledge, text-specific background knowledge such as text structure, verbal reasoning including the use of metaphor or comparisons, language structure, and the ability to imagine the cognitive and emotional states of others. Duke and Cartwright emphasized an array of processes that form bridges between language comprehension and word recognition to aid in the reading process. These bridging processes include concepts of print, fluence, vocabulary, morphological awareness, and flexibility in the ability to make sense of letter-sound relationships. Active self-regulation (motivation, engagement, and the use of strategies) is involved as the reader engages in word recognition, language comprehension, and the bridging processes. The active view of reading has a great deal of common ground with Scarborough’s rope model of reading (2001) which is familiar in SOR discussions. However, the emphasis on the ability to imagine the cognitive and emotional states of others (theory of mind) is an added component to language comprehension not found in the rope model. Additionally, the active model adds self-regulation processes and bridging processes to the rope model.
.
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add textbb
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text