Editors Note: The following article is a reprint from Dr. Sam's June 12th blog post. It mentions or uses excerpts from thi current edition of The Missouri Reader. Thanks to Dr. Sam for giving permission for this reprint.
I taught several courses in how to teach reading for a number of decades. I often began those courses by promising my teachers a list of all the methods that work with every single child every single time. I would then project a transparency (that was a really long time ago), or a PowerPoint presentation (more recently) onto the screen. The resulting picture was always blank. The point was made. There is no one size fits all answer when it comes to teaching reading. What works with one child/group of children, does not always work with another. If all sides in the dialogue about how to best teach reading would be willing to admit that their favorite method(s) have limits and limitations and that they could sometimes use a little help from methods they usually do not use, I think the current dialogue around how to teach reading could become more productive. There are a number of things we can and should do to end the bickering (as opposed to dialogue) that has all too often dominated our conversations about reading.
The first thing to do is to change our view of what the dialogue is about.
In this edition of The Missouri Reader the article,"Metaphors Matter: Changing the Metaphor" by Brian Cambourne and Debra Crouch suggests the following:
“Instead of a pendulum metaphor or a war metaphor, both of which imply sides, stances, and diametrically opposed viewpoints, the profession needs a metaphor which honors each learner’s construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction of meaning. This is true for the whole range of learners found in learning settings. Everyone—young children, classroom teachers, leaders of schools, parents, and beyond—is learning together. We suggest a metaphor of quilting might more aptly describe the realities of most learning experiences. Quilting invokes a purposeful process of selecting and creatively reshaping existing pieces of fabric in new and interesting ways, reflecting the definition of creativity offered by Jacob Getzel and Philip Jackson (1962). We believe this way of thinking more accurately describes the reality of most classrooms. Whatever metaphor is held and used, it is crucial for educators to become consciously aware of how these metaphors influence their instructional language and behaviors. Educators need to ask themselves this question: Are the embedded metaphors in the language I use and my behaviors aligned with my values and beliefs about learning and learners? The way we answer this question should ultimately determine how we approach professional discussions and go about teaching children to read and write. As cited in Rothman’s original piece on the ‘reading wars (1990),’ Steven Stahl, professor of education at the University of Illinois, suggested “the real hope for a consensus in reading is with teachers…[Teachers] are inherently reasonable…[They] get the best things out of whatever’s out there…[If] there is a synthesis, it’s going on in the classroom.”
The second is to include ALL the relevant research in the dialogue. That means including both qualitative and quantitative research. Let’s remember that both qualitative and quantitative research are able to answer the crucial question- "How likely is it that the results of the study are simply from chance?" One of the most comprehensive looks at recent research can be found in the Reading Research Quarterly’s Executive Summary. I’ve written about this document before. Here is a link to the Summary:
Of special interest are these titles:
o “Using Context as an Assist in Word Solving: The Contributions of 25 Years of Research on the Interactive Strategies Approach” by Donna M. Scanlon and Kimberly L. Anderson
o “It’s Time to Be Scientific About Dyslexia” by Julian G. Elliott
o “How the Reading for Understanding Initiative’s Research Complicates the Simple View of Reading Invoked in the Science of Reading” by Gina N. Cervetti, P. David Pearson, Annemarie S. Palincsar, Peter Afflerbach, Panayiota Kendeou, Gina Biancarosa, Jennifer Higgs, Miranda S. Fitzgerald, and Amy I. Berman
o . “A Confluence of Complexity: Intersections Among Reading Theory, Neuroscience, and Observations of Young Readers” by Catherine F. Compton-Lilly, Ayan Mitra, Mary Guay, and Lucy K. Spence
o “What Constitutes a Science of Reading Instruction?” by Timothy Shanahan
.
Double-click to add text
Double-click to add text
@2TWO ol two oclock
Double-click to add text