Special Edition - Beyond the Reading Wars Vol. 44, Issue 3 | Page 14

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.  

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.

 

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.  

References

Auckerman, M., & Schuldt, L.C. (2021). What matters most? Toward a robust and socially just science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S85-S103.

 Alexander, P.A. (2020). What research has shown about readers’ struggles with comprehension in the digital age: Moving beyond the phonics versus whole language debate. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S89-S97. 

Baker, L., Dreher, M. J., & Guthrie, J. T. (2000). Why teachers should promote reading engagement. In L. Baker, M. J. Dreher, and J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation (pp.1– 16). New York, NY: Guilford Press

Balmuth, M. (2009). The root of phonics: A historical introduction (Rev. ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Birsh, J., & Carreker, S. (2019). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills, 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

.

Burkins, J., & Yates, K. (2021). Shifting the balance: 6 ways to bring the science of reading into the balanced literacy classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse.

Calkins, L. (2020). Teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 

Cervetti, G.N., Pearson, P.D., Palinscar, A.S., Afflerbach, P., & Kendeou, P., Biancarosa, G., Higgs, J., Fitzgerald, M.S., & Berman, A.I. (2020). How the reading for understanding’s research complicates the simple view of reading invoked in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S161-S172.

Chall, J.S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G.

Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 1–46). Cambridge University Press. Daniels, H. (2016). Vygotsky and pedagogy (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Duke, N.K., & Cartwright, K.B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25-S44.

Ehri, L.C. (2020). The science of learning to read: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S45-S60.

Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Stahl, S.A. and Willows, D. M. (2001) Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis, Review of Educational Research, 71(3): 393-447.

Evans, A.D. (2020). A discourse analysis of the science of reading through the lens of a social media Twitter hashtag (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 28258428)

Flesch, R.F. (1955). Why Johnny can’t read—and what you can do about it. New York, NY: William Morrow

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C.A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, W. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website:  http://whatworks.ed.gov

Goodman, K.S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126–135.

Goodman, K. (1989). Whole-language research: Foundations and development. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 207-221

Goodman, K. (1993). Phonics phacts. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goodman, K.S. (2014). What’s whole in whole language in the 21st century? New York, NY: Garn.

Goodman, Y.M., Watson, D.J., & Burke, C.L. (2005). Reading miscue inventory: From evaluation to instruction (2nd ed.). Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.

Goodman, Y. (1989). Roots of the whole-language movement. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 113-127.

Gough, P.B., &reading, and reading disability.  (1), 6– 10.

Graham, S. (2020). The sciences of reading and writing must become more fully integrated. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S35-S44.

Gray, W.S. (1948). On their own in reading. Chicago, IL: Scott Foresman. 

Gray, W.S. (1956). The new fun with Dick and Jane. Chicago, IL: Scott Foresman

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

Hanford, E. (2018, October 26). Why are we still teaching reading the wrong way? The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www. nytimes.com/2018/10/26/opinion/sunday/phonics-teaching-readingwrong-way.html

Harste, J., & Burke, C. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both teaching and learning of reading are theoretically based. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading: Theory, research, and practice: 26th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 32–40). St. Paul, MN: Mason.

Hoover, W.A., & Tunmer, W.E. (2020). The cognitive foundations of reading and its acquisition. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Kilpatrick, D.A. (2016). Equipped for reading success: A comprehensive step-by-step program for developing phonemic awareness and fluent word recognition.  Syracuse, NY: Casey & Kirsch.

Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday literacies: Students, discourse, and social practice. New York: Peter Lang.

Kress, G. (1985). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Milner, H.R. IV (2020). Disrupting racism and whiteness in researching a science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S249-S253.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/ publications/nrp/report.htm

Pearson, P.D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216– 252.

Pearson, P.D., Palincsar, A.S., Biancarosa, G., & Berman, A.I. (Eds.). (2020). Reaping the rewards of the Reading for Understanding initiative. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.

Reinking, D., & Yaden, D.B. (2020). Do we need more productive theorizing? A commentary. Reading Research Quarterly. doi:10.1002/rrq.318 

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance, Vol. 6 (pp. 573-603). New York: Academic Press.

Rumelhart, D.E. (1980) ‘Schemata: the building blocks of cognition’, in R.J. Spiro, B.C.Bruce and W.F.Brewer (eds) Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of light: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. New York: Basic Books.

Scanlon, D.M., & Anderson, K.L. (2020). Using context as an assist in word solving: The contributions of 25 years of research on the interactive strategies approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S19-S34.

Scarborough, H.S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97-110). New York: Guilford Press. 

Semingson, P. & Kerns, W. (2021). Where’s the evidence? Looking back to Jeanne Chall and enduring debates about the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (S1), S157-S169.

 Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S235–S247.

Smith, F. (1992). Learning to Read: The Never-Ending Debate. The Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (6) 432-435, 438- 441.

Smith, F. (2011). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Smith, N.B. (2002). American reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Spear-Swerling, L. (2019). Structured literacy versus typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51 (3), 201-211.

Stahl, S.A. (2000). Jeanne S. Chall (1921-1999): An appreciation. Educational Researcher, 29 (5), 41-43. 

Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32-71.

Willingham, D.T. (2017). The reading mind: A cognitive approach to understanding how the mind reads. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Wilson, P.G., Martens, P., Arya, P., & Altwerger, B. (2004). Readers, instruction, and the NRP. Phi Delta Kappan, 3, 242-246.

.

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

Double-click to add text

Double-click to add text

Double-click to add text zzzz

Double-click to add text