Raving Reviews
A look at today's best trade books & professional books
Name of the Book: Trusting Readers
by Jennifer Scoggin & Hannah Schneewind
Publisher: Heinemann
Date of Publication: 2020
Audience: Teachers
(Professional Development)
teachers as experts who consider the developmental and diverse student reader profiles (Solari, et al., 2020, p. 2).
Reading is more than just decoding. Emily Hanford (2019) has accurately discovered that, “When kids struggle to learn how to read, it can lead to a downward spiral in which behavior, vocabulary, knowledge and other cognitive skills are eventually affected by slow reading development.” This echoes a phenomena, The Matthew Effect, from thirty-five years ago explained by Stanovich (1986), specifically, “how individual differences in early reading acquisition were magnified by the differential cognitive, motivational, and educational experiences of children who vary in early reading development” (Stanovich, 1993, p. 281). Difficulties in word recognition impact comprehension and affect for reading, thus leading to less motivation for reading. A low volume of reading results in limited exposure to vocabulary and exposure to learning from text, thus creating a knowledge gap (Wexler, 2019/2020).
The MSV Dilemma--Getting a Cue
Do you teach the science of reading? Defending such a strong and singular position on the science of reading with claims on teacher unpreparedness to teach reading should be backed by scientific proof. Some have even stated that “teachers typically receive inadequate preparation in the selection and use of formative assessments to inform their practice” (Moats, 2020, p. 21). The accusation about inadequate preparation has resulted in the mislabeling of the "three cueing systems” or "MSV" as a harmful practice of word recognition of guessing words; another
misinterpretation rooted in such accusatory claims is that teachers don’t know what else to do to teach reading (Hanford, 2019). Individuals with praxis of psycholinguistic theories would recognize that MSV analysis is applied to the interpretation of data from assessments such as running records to evaluate the strategic application of word recognition within context. The implications for instruction, while present in some curricula and teacher practice, are more closely related to issues resulting from standardized implementation of prescribed programs. These so called “scripted curricula” or “teacher proof” programs (Moats, 2020, p. 3), contributed to the unbalance of Balanced Literacy, and to the use of misguided word recognition prompts that do not accurately reflect what is known from reading research. Prompts such as “look at the picture” or “look at the first letter and guess the word” are last resort assists and never were intended to be used as primary word recognition teaching strategies. In many instances teachers do not have control of what is taught or even how it is taught when they are presented with a district purchased curriculum (Hanford, 2019; Moats, 2020). The V in MSV, more precisely the graphophonic cueing system (Clay, 2005), still relies primarily on sound-symbol relationship, or phonological and orthographic processing (Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989). Although young readers may compensate and resort to using pictures found in many early readers, this meaning-making assist does not replace or occur prior to use of other research-supported instructional practice for decoding that support the development of orthographic mapping. And as for meaning, the m in MSV, asking a student to think about “what would make sense” is a strategy that appeals to self-monitoring, an important indication that comprehension is or is not occurring. After all, it would be linked to the importance of building background knowledge, which reading can supply and which contributes to inferencing and meaning-making (Moats, 2020). Such knowledge is also emphasized by Wexler (2019/2020) with the cautionary label, based on observations and teacher interviews, that lack of such knowledge gap is the downfall of ineffective teachers who do not adequately provide effective reading instruction and who often, despite emerging new evidence, are not able to discern between effective and ineffective theories. This background knowledge supports the goal of reading—comprehension or making meaning (Wexler, 2019/2020). Readers should be able to instantly recognize words, by sight, and without context (Hanford, 2019) in order to achieve fluency that supports comprehension. The intention of MSV is not for instruction of and with the cueing systems, but rather for assessment, a valuable piece of data that can guide instruction.
Print is what carries the message but while reading is not a natural act (Moats, 2020), it builds in stages as students progress from emergent, to basic, to proficient readers, who can effortlessly and instantly recognize words as units (Ehri, 2020), achieving adequate fluency that supports comprehension. Word recognition becomes the unnatural act that is automatic but more enjoyable once the message is deciphered and newfound vocabulary begins to make sense. Reading development is set on a continuum rather than a threshold milestone occurrence, and readers’ development should be nurtured well beyond word recognition (Alexander, 2020). It is about balanced literacy, meaning, there is a weighing of the emphasis for which one of the Big 5 (National Reading Panel; NRP, 2000) is prioritized and given emphasis based on grade level standards, development, and learner needs in core literacy instruction and during intervention from a multi-perspective approach that diversifies the instruction, with many tools and strategies, and empowers teachers as professional decision-makers. Such occurrences may “call for interdisciplinary inquiry and meaningful collaborations among teachers, researchers, parents, and
policymakers” (Alexander, 2020, p. 5). For this collaboration to occur, education professionals should turn for guidance to reading theories—the science of reading.
Teachers of Reading for All
A definition is of relevance when considering if teachers are prepared to effectively teach students to read--advanced, on grade level, struggling, and at risk or diagnosed with dyslexia. Elliot (2020) warns of ““much science but little wisdom” that “seemingly scientifically based construction of the dyslexic individual, often buoyed by vested interests, typically favors more socially privileged students and often undermines attempts to identify and help all of those who struggle to learn to read” (abstract). Dyslexia, as defined by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) is,
Elliot (2020) states that “for dyslexia, there are no clear and consistent criteria (only various features commonly found for all poor readers), thus leading to inconsistent usage and interpretation” (p. 8) and “the needs of the majority are unlikely to be resolved by maintaining dyslexia as a distinct and diagnosable problem separate from reading disability” (p. 10).
It is the teacher, not the program, that makes the difference. Many such arguments have been made by the same proponents of the self-proclaimed, new-found science of reading. In an Education Week article, Blythe Wood, an instructional coach in a special education program and vice president of the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) of Central Ohio, points out that, “The knowledge base of the teacher, and being able to identify the needs of the student, are more important than a boxed program...We are not going to meet every kid with one box” (Schwartz, 2019). Using one model that describes a very wide and deep body of research such as research on learning to read and its application in instruction can be described with many terms to convey the same message. One single approach should not be the only way—that is one tool in the toolbox for a classroom where readers’ ability levels vary and require targeted instruction that draws from varied theoretical models and frameworks. It is well established in the literature over time that foundational skills necessary for word recognition and support for orthographic mapping lead to automaticity, which in turn, frees up cognitive energy to be devoted for comprehension (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Stanovich, 1986; NRP, 2000; Ehri, 2020). Ehri (2020) describes this process,
Decisions about what is taught to pre-service teachers in their educational preparation program should then reflect the multi-perspective theories and models, to incorporate a “range of approaches” (Wetzel et al., 2020, p. 6). This training pathway prepares them to meet the varying reading abilities of students and to be an active participant and team contributor with administrators in the selection of and supplementation of reading curriculum.
Theoretical knowledge and practical experiences allow preservice teachers to gain insight of how to adapt instruction to the diverse reader profiles of their future students. The classroom teacher as a professional must be skilled at evaluating, selecting, and administering various assessments, analyzing and interpreting data, and drawing conclusions about instruction and effectiveness. The theoretical knowledge about frameworks and approaches to teaching reading based on students’ data allows the classroom teacher to identify research and evidence-based targeted instruction matched to individual needs, including explicit, systematic instruction in phonics for struggling readers and students with dyslexia.
Conclusions
Teaching reading has always involved a “science” from multiple disciplines, perspectives, and frameworks; the “science of reading” (SOR) as used by some reflects a more singular perspective. The current dyslexia debate values a definition for SOR that is representative of new research (i.e., brain scans, fMRIs) focused on only certain types of readers (i.e., dyslexic) that comes out of certain types of research studies (i.e., basic, empirical) conducted by certain fields (i.e., cognitive psychology). This definition of SOR is used to usurp what is known from reading research across centuries (from Aristotle and Plato, to Allington and Pearson) that informs reading and reading instruction for a variety of readers (i.e., “good readers” research and diverse reader profiles, including those who struggle) using a variety of methodologies (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, mixed, etc.) and from a range of fields and disciplines (i.e., language and literacy, linguistics, psycholinguistics, anthropology, developmental psychology, special education, curriculum and instruction, neuroscience, speech-language pathology, as well as cognitive psychology). Teacher educators strive to present how having multiple perspectives allows pre-service teachers to access different approaches, including structured literacy, language, and cognitive psychology perspectives embedded in a lot of the literature on dyslexia, that address the needs of their diverse learners (readers) rather than the needs of a specific curriculum or program. We know it is teachers that make the difference, not programs. Acknowledging teachers as competent professionals includes extending an invitation to be involved in the reading curriculum and assessments selection, ongoing professional development, and trust in their professional judgement about best practice for core and remedial reading instruction.
.
.
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
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