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
Social and Cultural Factors in Reading
This section prioritizes the importance of looking at social and cultural influences on the reading development and meaning making of children, including attendant issues of power, privilege, and justice. Alexander (2020) pointed out that a focus on debates between phonics-centric approaches (bottom-up) and approaches that emphasize whole word recognition (top-down) run the risk of belying the complexity of the reading process. Instead, Alexander proposes that research and teaching in the field needs to take into account the lifelong process of developing literacy skills, and the influence of social and cultural factors in addition to the importance of building skill in reading digital texts. The importance of factors beyond decoding debates was echoed by multiple articles in the two special editions of the Reading Research Quarterly that focused on the science of reading, including calls for discourse on literacy to include reading of digital texts (Coiro, 2021) and the connection between read and writing (Graham, 2020).
Consideration for supporting the needs of English Language Learners should include careful attention to oral language proficiency, according to Goldenberg (2020). Goldenberg noted that the literature is clear that lack of proficiency in learning the English language hinders the development of reading skills. Academic language is a particular challenge for English Language Learners. If classroom instruction does not adequately provide supports for the English Language Development needs of English Language Learners, reading development is hindered. Supports shown to be effective that Goldenberg noted include a structured curriculum, explicit instruction, instructional discourse at an appropriate readiness level of the student, sheltered instruction, scaffolded cues and supports, and the use of multimodal supports (e.g., video).
Milner (2020) drew on the emerging concept of “disruptive movement” to critique discourse over the who, the what, and the why surrounding the research on how children learn to read. Milner warns that a focus on labels such as “at risk” or “dyslexic” can stigmatize Black families and promote a deficit lens through which children who are Black may be placed into remedial and exceptional education. However, the literacy field writ large can also be critiqued for systemic racial bias. Milner argues that white, male lenses have traditionally dominated publications, calling for greater racial and ethnic diversity among scholars conducting research in the literacy field. Beyond this, Milner also encourages increased diversity in the methods of qualitative and quantitative research used to shed light on the reading process as well as publication of important scholarship in a wider range of journal outlets. Pushing against the marginalization of the voices of researchers who are women, Black, or other people of color will be aided by the consideration of a wide array of research methods. Finally, in line with a greater diversity of research methods including qualitative, Milner also urges scholarship that is humanizing rather than objectifying of research subjects, with the aim of contributing to tangible benefits for communities and the lives of people.
Auckerman and Schuldt (2021) raised concern that inadequate consideration of social and cultural factors in the development of reading can lead to failure to identify strengths that students possess and potentially contribute to the over-representation of students of color in remedial and exceptional education. The authors proposed a framework that focuses on textual dexterity, which is the ability to make meaning of diverse, multimodal texts in flexible and adaptive ways. Readers exercise textual dexterity during the decoding, comprehension, application, and critique of texts. Further, the framework of Auckerman and Schultz prioritizes the fostering of dispositions among readers to engage meaningfully with a text, find intrinsic motivation to read a text, and gain the confidence in one’s ability to successfully read increasingly challenging texts with success.
Literacy Instruction from a Sociocultural Lens
Sociocultural Learning Theory is better understood as an umbrella for a collection of frameworks (Cole & Engeström, 1993; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990) each drawing on the work of Lev Vygotsky (1998) rather than a wholistic, unified theory. A stance that learning is shaped by social interaction and environments provides the grounding for sociocultural learning theory. This stance drives instructional choices that prioritize the activity, dialogue, and collaboration (Daniels, 2016). Three themes of Vygotsky’s scholarship identified by Wertsch (1991) can deeply inform instructional decision making. First, social interaction is at the root of learning, including the development of reading skills. This theme implies that it is vital for teachers to consider the classroom learning environment and lived experiences of students when planning literacy instruction. The second theme is that actions are shaped by signs and tools in communication and meaning making. So, teachers would be well-advised to purposely consider the tools (types of pens and crayons, use of a computer) and signs (words spoken, words on a printed page or a screen) when considering how to shape the development of reading skills. The third theme is that the learning of students should be studied developmentally, with an eye on continuous change. Students are not passive or static, and neither are their literacy skills, teachers need to be active observers and participants in the ongoing growth of literacy development.
Literacy instruction that is responsive to sociocultural factors privileges the role of interactions in shaping the understanding of how students learn to read. Yet, the approach also includes the purposeful scaffolding of instruction in basic skills such as phonemic awareness, decoding, and phonics, with the teacher active in the child’s learning every step of the way. Instruction should be dynamic, open to continuous re-evaluation. The following is a bare bones group of five principles that can aid teachers in adjusting to demands for SOR-alignment guided by a sociocultural framework: (a) ensure that the social and cultural context of the development of reading skill remains a key aspect instruction; (b) ensure that instruction includes purposeful scaffolding, goal-setting, and monitoring of student learning; (c) ensure that student interest, student voice, and issues related to power and privilege remain an important component of instruction, (d) ensure that motivation and creativity remain important aspects of instruction, and (e) explicitly and purposefully guide students through the development of both basic skills and meaning making within a zone of proximal development, using formal and informal means of assessment to monitor progression toward independence in the mastery of skills.
The discourse over SOR often is polemic (Evans, 2020). The renewal of long-held sharp divides of a “reading war” is not healthy for the field. Promising steps can be taken by educators to listen and learn from one another (Burkins & Yates, 2021). The active view of reading model (Duke & Cartwright, 2021) is a noteworthy move in the direction of acknowledging reading processes that the Simple View of Reading and Scarborough’s Reading Rope point to as important, while also bringing in situational and cultural context as urged by social constructivists. A strong case can be made that many teachers will benefit from increased knowledge of decoding and phonics, and that teacher education and professional development programs can make improvements in helping to ensure that teachers have adequate knowledge and skill in these areas. Early detection of the reasons for why students may struggle – including possible decoding difficulties – will help ensure that intervention is purposeful and meets the needs of the student.
Instruction that is advocated by SOR is narrowly confined, lacking sensitivity to the social and cultural aspects of reading as well as a wide variety of factors that need to be considered in promoting comprehension of texts. Now more than ever, it is time to work together at bridging the research to practice gap, ensuring that classroom instruction is reflective of evidence from the literature of how students become proficient and highly engaged lifelong readers. This requires studying the literature from the wide lens of the various frameworks and models of reading, rather than becoming siloed into opposing camps. Draw on instructional tools from a “toolbelt” that is diverse, knowing how, why, and when to use these tools for a given context and student, present to the needs and interests – the passions – of the student. Students deserve the opportunity to love reading throughout their lives. This means building skill and fostering motivation as well as deep engagement in diverse texts. It can be done, and it takes hard work, placing the focus on teaching the child not the program.
.
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text lll
Double-click to add lll
Double-click to add txxx