DOCSLIB.ORG

Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel I Developing Early Literacy REPORT OF THE NATIONAL EARLY LITERACY PANEL A Scientific Synthesis of Early Literacy Development and Implications for Intervention Developing Early Literacy REPORT OF THE NATIONAL EARLY LITERACY PANEL A Scientific Synthesis of Early Literacy Development and Implications for Intervention 2008 This publication was developed by the National Center for Family Literacy under a grant funded by Inter-agency agreement IAD-01-1701 and IAD-02-1790 between the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institute for Literacy. It was peer reviewed and copy edited under a contract with RAND Corporation and designed under a contract with Graves Fowler Creative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the policies of the National Institute for Literacy. No official endorsement by the National Institute for Literacy of any product, commodity, or enterprise in this publication is intended or should be inferred. The National Institute for Literacy, an agency in the Federal government, is authorized to help strengthen literacy across the lifespan. The Institute provides national leadership on literacy issues, including the improvement of reading instruction for children, youth, and adults by dissemination of information on scientifically based research and the application of those findings to instructional practice. Sandra Baxter, Director Lynn Reddy, Deputy Director The Partnership for Reading, a project administered by the National Institute for Literacy, is a collaborative effort of the National Institute for Literacy, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to make scientifically based reading research available to educators, parents, policy makers, and others with an interest in helping all people learn to read well. This report was peer reviewed by an independent panel of experts. RAND Corporation managed the peer review process. The National Institute for Literacy acknowledges editorial support from Rick Eden, Associate Director For Research Quality Assurance and Lisa Bernard, Research Editor of RAND Corporation; proofreading support through EEI and design support from Kathy Foltin of Graves Fowler Creative. Andrea Grimaldi served as the contracting officer’s technical representative and program officer for the writing, editing, design and peer review of this report and B. Denise Hawkins served as the contracting officer’s technical representative for the report design, and are staff of the National Institute for Literacy. For additional copies of this report download PDF or HTML versions at www.nifl.gov. To order print copies, contact the National Institute for Literacy at ED Pubs, PO Box 1398, Jessup, Maryland 20794-1398. Call 1-800-228-8813 or email [email protected] Members of the National Early Literacy Panel Chair: Timothy Shanahan Professor of Urban Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago Director, UIC Center for Literacy Anne Cunningham—Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Education and Director of the Joint Doctoral Program in Special Education at the University of California Berkeley Kathy C. Escamilla—Associate Professor in the School of Education at the University of Colorado and affiliated with the BUENO Center for ulticulturalM Education at the University of Colorado Janet Fischel—Professor of Pediatrics and Psychology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and Director of Pediatric Medical Evaluation, Director of the Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Director of the Stony Brook Reading and Language Laboratory, and Associate Director of the Pediatric Residency Training Program Susan Landry—Michael Matthew Knight Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and Chief of the Division of Developmental Pediatrics and the Director of the Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education (CIRCLE) in the Department of Pediatrics Christopher J. Lonigan—Professor in the Department of Psychology at Florida State University and Associate Director of the Florida Center for Reading Research Victoria J. Molfese—Professor and Ashland-Nystrand Chair at the University of Louisville and Director of the University’s Early Childhood Research Center Chris Schatschneider—Professor of Psychology at Florida State University and Associate Director of the Florida Center for Reading Research Dorothy Strickland—Professor of Reading and Samuel DeWitt Proctor Professor of Education at Rutgers University. Acknowledgements The National Early Literacy Panel wishes to express its gratitude to the following individuals for their contributions: David Dickinson Catherine Snow Lesley Morrow Carolee Howes Barbara Wasik Doug Powell Karen Diamond Kathy Roskos Bill Teale Elizabeth Sulzby Fred Morrison Susan Neuman Sue Bredekamp Laura Justice Larry Schweinhart Barry Zuckerman The National Institute for Literacy wishes to express its gratitude to the National Early Literacy Panel Members for their dedicated work and commitment to this report, The National Center for Family Literacy for their coordination of the panel and tireless work to identify and synthesize the findings of scientifically based research studies for this report, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for their early guidance in setting the parameters and scope for this report, RAND Corporation for overseeing the peer review process and editing of the final report and the peer review panelists for their thoughtful and constructive comments. Disclosure Background In 1999, the Head Start Bureau entered into a five-year cooperative agreement with the National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL) to administer the Head Start Family Literacy Project (HSFLP). In 2001 The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) entered into an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support the cooperative agreement between the Head Start Bureau and the National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL). Under this agreement, NCFL was tasked with organizing and overseeing the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). Beginning in 2002, Timothy Shanahan of the University of Illinois at Chicago began serving as the panel chair of the NELP. In this role Professor Shanahan acted as a facilitator for the panel. Several months later, he also assumed a voluntary advisory board position with NCFL. In 2006, he was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve on the Advisory Board of the National Institute for Literacy. By this date, the active work of the panel and panel chair in preparing for the writing of the final report was complete. As an advisory board member, Professor Shanahan abides by the rules of Federal Statute U.S.C. §208 (a), and played no role in the creation and funding of this project or supervision of project staff during his work on the NELP and in his role as an advisory board member. Authorization NIFL was authorized to engage in this agreement with HHS by section 2258 of the Reading Excellence Act (REA), Title II, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, which requires NIFL to disseminate information on scientifically-based reading research. P.L. 97-35 (the Head Start Statute) authorizes the underlying cooperative agreement between HHS and NCFL. Contents D E V E L O P I N G E A R L Y L I T E R A C Y : REPO R T O F T HE NATIO N AL E A R LY L ITE R ACY PA N EL The National Early Literacy Panel ............................................................................................. iii Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... v Introduction to the Report of the National Early Literacy Panel .............................................. xiii Chapter 1: Methodology of the National Early Literacy Panel...................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Identification of Children’s Skills and Abilities Linked to Later Outcomes in Reading, Writing, and Spelling ................................................................... 55 Chapter 3: Impact of Code-Focused Interventions on Young Children’s Early Literacy Skills ..................................................................................... 107 Chapter 4: Impact of Shared-Reading Interventions on Young Children’s Early Literacy Skills ..................................................................................... 153 Chapter 5: Impact of Parent and Home Programs on Young Children’s Early Literacy Skills ..................................................................................... 173 Chapter 6: Impact of Preschool and Kindergarten Programs on Young Children’s Early Literacy Skills ..................................................................................... 189 Chapter 7: Impact of Language Enhancement Interventions on Young Children’s Early Literacy Skills ..................................................................................... 211 DEVELOPING EARLY LITERACY: REPORT OF THE NATIONAL EARLY LITERACY PANEL i Report OF THE NATIO N AL E A R LY L ITE R ACY PA N EL The National Early Literacy Panel The National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) was convened in 2002 to conduct a synthesis of the scientific research on the development of early literacy skills in children ages zero to five. The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Can Learning Disabilities Explain Low Literacy Performance?
    Now and Tomorrow Excellence in Everything We Do Can Learning Disabilities Explain Low Literacy Performance? By Gregory S. McKenna September, 2010 Learning Policy Directorate Strategic Policy and Research Human Resources and Skills Development Canada SP-959-07-10E Can Learning Disabilities Explain Low Literacy Performance? By Gregory S. McKenna July, 2010 Learning Policy Directorate Strategic Policy and Research Human Resources and Skills Development Canada The views expressed in papers published by the Learning Policy Directorate are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada or of the federal government. Note: the departmental catalogue number is placed on the front cover, bottom left hand side. You can order this publication by contacting: Publications Services Human Resources and Skills Development Canada 140, promenade du Portage Phase IV, 12th Floor Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0J9 Fax: 819-953-7260 Online: http://www12.hrsdc.gc.ca This document is available on demand in alternate formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Cassette, Audio CD, e-Text Diskette, e-Text CD, or DAISY), by contacting 1 800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232). If you have a hearing or speech impairment and use a teletypewriter (TTY), call 1-800-926-9105. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010 Paper Cat. No.: HS38-22/2010E ISBN: 978-1-100-16366-6 PDF Cat. No.: HS38-22/2010E-PDF ISBN: 978-1-100-16367-3 Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Mr. Mathieu Audet, Dr. Bagala Biswal, Dr. Urvashi Dhawan-Biswal and Dr. Satya Brink for their assistance and support in developing this line of research.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Corps Research Base – K-3 Model
    Reading Corps Research Base – K-3 Model This document provides the evidence-base for the Reading Corps K-3 model. Specifically, research supporting the assessment tools and strategies, reading interventions, and the importance of coaching, are presented within a Response to Intervention (RtI) framework. Response to Intervention: Response to Intervention (RtI) is an instructional framework that systematically utilizes assessment data to make instructional decisions, as well as decisions regarding resource allocation (Burns & Gibbons, 2008; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012). As such, RtI is placed within the general education context because it requires quality core instruction for all students (Tier 1), and calls for universal screening for all students. The assessment data collected in Tier 1 allows educators to determine whether students require additional support to reach proficiency in a particular academic skill area (i.e., reading and math). The Reading Corps model aligns well with the RtI framework because students who are served by Reading Corps members are essentially receiving Tier 2 support; students are eligible for the program based on screening data. Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach at reducing special education referral rates (Marston, et al., 2003; Bollman, Silberglitt, & Gibbons, 2007; Burns & Gibbons, 2008; VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, 2007), and improving reading outcomes (Callender, 2007; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2007; O’Connor, Harty, & Fulmer, 2005; Vellutino, et al.,
    [Show full text]
  • Research and the Reading Wars James S
    CHAPTER 4 Research and the Reading Wars James S. Kim Controversy over the role of phonics in reading instruction has persisted for over 100 years, making the reading wars seem like an inevitable fact of American history. In the mid-nineteenth century, Horace Mann, the secre- tary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, railed against the teaching of the alphabetic code—the idea that letters represented sounds—as an imped- iment to reading for meaning. Mann excoriated the letters of the alphabet as “bloodless, ghostly apparitions,” and argued that children should first learn to read whole words) The 1886 publication of James Cattell’s pioneer- ing eye movement study showed that adults perceived words more rapidly 2 than letters, providing an ostensibly scientific basis for Mann’s assertions. In the twentieth century, state education officials like Mann have contin- ued to voice strong opinions about reading policy and practice, aiding the rapid implementation of whole language—inspired curriculum frameworks and texts during the late 1980s. And scientists like Cattell have shed light on theprocesses underlying skillful reading, contributing to a growing scientific 3 consensus that culminated in the 2000 National Reading Panel report. This chapter traces the history of the reading wars in both the political arena and the scientific community. The narrative is organized into three sections. The first offers the history of reading research in the 1950s, when the “conventional wisdom” in reading was established by acclaimed lead- ers in the field like William Gray, who encouraged teachers to instruct chil- dren how to read whole words while avoiding isolated phonics drills.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Literacy Intervention on Achievement Outcomes of Children with Developmental Language Disorders: a Systematic Review
    Impact of Literacy Intervention on Achievement Outcomes of Children With Developmental Language Disorders: A Systematic Review Jaumeiko J. Coleman and Rebecca A. Venediktov National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Rockville, MD Gary A. Troia Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Beverly P. Wang National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Rockville, MD ASHA’s National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders • July 2013 ABSTRACT The American Speech-Language-Hearing Purpose: In this systematic review, the Association’s National Center for Evidence- authors examined the impact of literacy Based Practice (N-CEP) was charged with intervention on achievement outcomes of developing an evidence-based systematic school-age children with developmental review (EBSR) of studies reporting on the language disorders. impact of written language (i.e., reading and writing) interventions on achievement Method: Databases containing peer- outcomes of school-aged children with reviewed academic studies were searched developmental language disorder (DLD). for randomized and nonrandomized The relatively recent adoption of the controlled trials that reported efficacy and Common Core State Standards by the bulk comparative efficacy findings in English. of the United States and its territories Methodological quality and strength of underscores the importance of this topic evidence were also evaluated. (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012). The standards were created to Results: Nine reading intervention studies promote quality and consistency in were accepted; no writing intervention education for all students so as to adequately studies were identified that met the inclusion prepare them for college and the workforce.
    [Show full text]
  • Concerning the Folly of Teaching the Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary
    A Study Concerning the Folly of Teaching the Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary In which we will prove that it is unnecessary and undesirable to teach any sight-words with whole-word memorization techniques to beginning reading students Using Samuel L. Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics (2005) Program as Our Intensive Phonics Standard of Comparison Copyright © 2010 by Donald L. Potter www.donpotter.net Recommendations Concerning Teaching Sight-Words I suggest that all teachers in America immediately quit teaching the Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary with whole word memorization for the following reasons: 1. It creates a blockage against seeing words phonetically. Once the sight-word habit is established, it becomes difficult to develop a good phonics reflex for accurate and fluent reading and spelling. 2. It is totally unnecessary since the vast majority of the words will be learned naturally in their spelling-family as the students learn to read and spell with Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics. This is the focus of this study. 3. Student who read by sight-words and context guessing are severely limited when it comes to building vocabulary independently from general reading because they cannot get to the sounds of the words without the teacher telling them the pronunciation of the words. 4. There is no need to waste valuable instructional time to teach 220 Dolch Basic Sight Vocabulary when we could be teaching 3,033 separate words in Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics words in even less time. 5. The reading ability of students taught to read with Blumenfeld’s Alpha-Phonics is significantly higher than students trained in Dolch sight-vocabulary memorization.
    [Show full text]
  • Dyslexia Or Ld in Reading: What Is the Difference?
    DYSLEXIA OR LD IN READING: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? Anise Flowers & Donna Black, Pearson Dyslexia or LD in Reading? TCASE 2017 Image by Photographer’s Name (Credit in black type) or Image by Photographer’s Name (Credit in white type) International Dyslexia Association Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin. It is characterized by Dyslexia or LD in Reading: What difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word is the Difference? recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of Presented by effective classroom instruction. Secondary Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Donna Black, LSSP consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience TCASE that can impede growth of vocabulary and January 2017 background knowledge. Presentation Title Arial Bold 7 pt 1 2 Dyslexia Identification and Services in Texas Dyslexia Definition (in Texas) Texas Education Code (TEC)§38.003 defines Texas Education Code (TEC)§38.003 definition: dyslexia and mandates testing and the provision of 1. “Dyslexia” means a disorder of constitutional instruction origin manifested by a difficulty in learning to State Board of Education (SBOE) adopts rules and read, write, or spell, despite conventional standards for administering testing and instruction instruction, adequate intelligence, and TEC §7.028(b) relegates responsibility for school sociocultural opportunity. compliance to the local school board 2. “Related disorders” include disorders similar to or 19 (TAC)§74.28 outlines responsibilities of districts related to dyslexia such as developmental auditory and charter schools in the delivery of services to imperceptions, dysphasia, specific developmental students with dyslexia dyslexia, developmental dysgraphia, and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §504, establishes developmental spelling disability.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Fluency
    ß What is reading fluency? ß Why is fluency important? Reading ß What instruction helps students Fluency develop fluency? ß How can we adapt instruction for students with special needs? ß How can we monitor students’ progress in fluency? ©2002 UT System/TEA Effective Fluency Instruction and Progress Monitoring 1 Fluency: reading quickly, accurately, and with expression ß Combines rate and accuracy ß Requires automaticity Fluency ß Includes reading with prosody Rate + Accuracy Fluency Comprehension ©2002 UT System/TEA Effective Fluency Instruction and Progress Monitoring 2 Automaticity: ß Is quick, accurate recognition of letters and words Automaticity ß Frees cognitive resources to process meaning ß Is achieved through corrected practice ©2002 UT System/TEA Effective Fluency Instruction and Progress Monitoring 3 What does fluent reading sound like? Fluent Reading . Fluent reading flows. It sounds smooth, with natural pauses. ©2002 UT System/TEA Effective Fluency Instruction and Progress Monitoring 4 ß “Fluency provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension.” —National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), Why Is 2001, p. 22 Reading ß Fluent readers are able to focus Fluency their attention on understanding Important? text. ß Because non-fluent readers focus much of their attention on figuring out words, they have less attention to devote to comprehension. ©2002 UT System/TEA Effective Fluency Instruction and Progress Monitoring 5 What ß How to decode words (in isolation and in Students connected text) Need to ß How to automatically
    [Show full text]
  • A Dissertation Entitled the Effects of an Orton-Gillingham-Based
    A Dissertation entitled The Effects of an Orton-Gillingham-based Reading Intervention on Students with Emotional/Behavior Disorders by James Breckinridge Davis, M.Ed. Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Special Education. Richard Welsch, Ph.D., Committee Chair Laurie Dinnebeil, Ph.D., Committee Member Edward Cancio, Ph.D., Committee Member Lynne Hamer, Ph.D., Committee Member Dr. Patricia R. Komuniecki, Ph.D., Dean College of Graduate Studies The University of Toledo December 2011 Copyright. 2011, James Breckinridge Davis This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of The Effects of an Orton-Gillingham-based Reading Intervention on Students with Emotional/Behavior Disorders by James Breckinridge Davis, M.Ed. Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Special Education. The University of Toledo December 2011 This study was performed with 4 male students enrolled in a specialized public school for students with emotional/behavior disorders (E/BD). All of the students participated in a 16-week, one-to-one, multisensory reading intervention. The study was a single subject, multiple baseline design. The independent variable was an Orton- Gillingham-based reading intervention for 45 minute sessions. The dependent variable was the students‘ performance on daily probes of words read correctly and the use of pre- and post-test measures on the Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). The intervention consisted of 6 different parts: (a) visual, (b) auditory, (c) blending, (d) introduction of a new skill, (e) oral reading, and (f) 10-point probe.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Disabilities
    Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Disabilities Nari Carter, PhD Instructional Designer Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Disabilities | 1 Background Before the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) was enacted in 1975, millions of children and adolescents with disabilities were receiving inappropriate education or were completely excluded from public schools. Legislators passed EAHCA to end discriminatory practices and to ensure students with disabilities were afforded public education. Central to the EACHA was the principle of free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities. This act was later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004. Appropriate education has been defined in case law as instruction that enables students to benefit academically. Specifically, courts have ruled that appropriate instruction for students with disabilities is individualized instruction that permits students to achieve educational goals. To meet the instructional needs of students with disabilities, individualized education programs (IEPs) are crafted for each qualifying student. Although all students with disabilities are unique and students’ IEPs address their specific instructional needs, most students with mild to moderate disabilities experience significant difficulty learning to read. In fact, more than 60 percent of students with specific learning disabilities struggle learning to read (Strickland, Boon, & Spencer, 2013). Consequently, reading achievement
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Disabilities-United States
    LEARNING The Learning Disabilit Controversy and Composition Studies LEARNING RE-AILED LEARNING RE-AILED The Learning Disability Controversy and Composition Studies Patricia A. Dunn Utica College of Syracuse University Boynton/Cook Publishers HEINEMANN Portsmouth, NH Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc. A subsidiary of Reed Elsevier Inc. 361 Hanover Street Portsmouth, NH 03801-3912 Offices and agents throughout the world © 1995 by Patricia A. Dunn. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer, who may quote brief passages in a review. Every effort has been made to contact the copyright holders and students for permission to reprint borrowed material. We regret any oversights that may have occurred and would be happy to rectify them in future printings of this work. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dunn, Patricia A. Learning re-abled : the learning disability controversy and composition studies / Patricia A. Dunn. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-86709-360-9 (alk. paper) 1. Learning disabled-Education (Higher)-United States. 2. Learning disabilities-United States. 3. Dyslexics-Education teaching-United States. I. Title. LC4818.5.D85 1995 371.91-dc20 95-19316 CIP Editor: Peter R. Stillman Production Editor: Renee M. Nicholls Cover Designer: T. Watson Bogaard Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. 99
    [Show full text]
  • Utah State Office of Education Reading Endorsement Course Framework
    Utah State Office of Education Reading Endorsement Course Framework Requirement: Foundations of Literacy Instruction: Theories and Models (1) Revision Date: 2016 The intent of this framework is (1) to ensure a level of consistency statewide among all institutions providing courses for the Reading Endorsement, and (2) to provide criteria for reviewing and approving coursework from out-of-state submitted to meet this requirement. This framework should be used as the basis for curricular and instructional planning for the required area named above. Course Description This purpose of this graduate-level course is to help practicing teachers acquire foundational understandings about literacy. This involves an examination of the historical and theoretical perspectives and underlying premises of literacy (e.g., oral language, phonemic awareness, and organizational structures). A knowledge of historical and contemporary theories and models provides a framework for analyzing research and practice to make well-informed curricular and instructional decisions. Prerequisite: Level 1, 2, or 3 Teacher Certification ILA Standards for Reading Professionals (2010) to be addressed in this course STANDARD 1: FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE Candidates understand the theoretical and evidence-based foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction. Element 1.1 Candidates understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive, linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections. Element 1.2 Candidates understand the historically shared knowledge of the profession and changes over time in the perceptions of reading and writing development, processes, and components. Element 1.3 Candidates understand the role of professional judgment and practical knowledge for improving all students’ reading development and achievement.
    [Show full text]
  • Defending Whole Language: the Limits of Phonics Instruction and the Efficacy of Whole Language Instruction
    Defending Whole Language: The Limits of Phonics Instruction and the Efficacy of Whole Language Instruction Stephen Krashen Reading Improvement 39 (1): 32-42, 2002 The Reading Wars show no signs of stopping. There appear to be two factions: Those who support the Skill-Building hypothesis and those who support the Comprehension Hypothesis. The former claim that literacy is developed from the bottom up; the child learns to read by first learning to read outloud, by learning sound-spelling correspondences. This is done through explicit instruction, practice, and correction. This knowledge is first applied to words. Ultimately, the child uses this ability to read larger texts, as the knowledge of sound-spelling correspondences becomes automatic. According to this view, real reading of interesting texts is helpful only to the extent that it helps children "practice their skills." The Comprehension Hypothesis claims that we learn to read by understanding messages on the page; we "learn to read by reading" (Goodman, 1982; Smith, 1994). Reading pedagogy, according to the Comprehension Hypothesis, focuses on providing students with interesting, comprehensible texts, and the job of the teacher is to help children read these texts, that is, help make them comprehensible. The direct teaching of "skills" is helpful only when it makes texts more comprehensible. The Comprehension Hypothesis also claims that reading is the source of much of our vocabulary knowledge, writing style, advanced grammatical competence, and spelling. It is also the source of most of our knowledge of phonics. Whole Language The term "whole language" does not refer only to providing interesting comprehensible texts and helping children understand less comprehensible texts.
    [Show full text]