DOCSLIB.ORG

Literacy Strategies Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Literacy Strategies Project The Pikes Peak Literacy Strategies Project Applying the findings and recommendations of the National Reading Panel to teaching and learning in Colorado The information in this document is meant to improve teaching and learning in Colorado schools. Please duplicate, distribute, extend, and apply this information in paper and electronic format as needed. The participants in the Pike’s Peak Literacy Strategies Project have made a significant effort to appropriately cite primary source research wherever possible. The members of the project are not liable for the content. Any errors gladly will be corrected as soon as possible. March 2004 The Pikes Peak Literacy Strategies Project . The Pikes Peak Literacy Strategies Project Spring 2004 In Spring 2003, nine school districts in the Pike’s Peak region volunteered to participate in a project to translate the report of the National Reading Panel (2000) into a useable, practical document for classroom teachers. The goals of the group were: x To ensure that Individual Literacy Plans (ILPs) reflect the comprehensive, recent research on what reading is and how to teach it. x To provide teachers with instructional strategy suggestions that are based in the findings of empirical research x To speak a common language about literacy that will assist teachers as students move from one school to another throughout the region x To improve the quality of instruction at school and support at home for developing readers This document is organized as a user-friendly resource tool for district and school administrators as well as for reading specialists and classroom teachers from all content areas. It can be used as the central document in staff development and is a natural part of any discussion about writing and implementing ILPs. The document is available at no cost in PDF format and may be duplicated on paper or in electronic format with appropriate credit given to the source. The document is structured with the following concepts in mind: According to the National Reading Panel, there are 5 dimensions of reading (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension). Each dimension can be divided further into its component parts, that we are calling “Diagnosed Needs.” For example, “speed,” “accuracy,” and “expression” are parts of the “fluency” goal area. When a student has a need in a particular area, there are a number of empirically-based “strategies” the student can employ that are specifically related to the diagnosed need. In addition to the specific strategies described in each section of the document, there are a number of empirically-based general strategies that all teachers can employ that have been shown to improve student achievement. Some of these are described in the introduction. PPLSP Project. Spring 2004 1 The Pikes Peak Literacy Strategies Project . Acknowledgments This project is based on the work of the National Reading Panel (2000) and the National Research Council committee on Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). The Pikes Peak Literacy Strategies Project participants used these documents as starting points for investigating the primary source literature in numerous journals and books. Support for the project came from the nine school districts in the Pikes Peak Region who provided summer stipends and substitute time for the participants listed below to attend meetings and spend their summer reading the research literature in a way that most never had read before. Throughout the process, participants called into question their own teaching practices and their beliefs about how students acquire the complex set of skills we refer to as reading. It was both a frustrating and extraordinary process for all involved, resulting in an appreciation of why a project such as this has not been undertaken before. Project Participants Academy Alisabeth Ackerman* Florence Karol Gates Janelle Bergant Julie Holiday Bonnie Kern Fountain Susan Spencer Theresa Hazlett Juli Woodman Cheyenne Mountain Jennifer Barnes Lewis-Palmer Sara Vandenberg Julie Robertson Colorado Dept of Education Manitou Springs Janice McDermott Karen Martens Noli Morath Colorado Springs 11 Linda Tripp Kim Bolling Susan Osburn Widefield Suzette Pope Carole Hiegert Jeanne Scott Cindy May Barbara Thompson Missy Ross Falcon Woodland Park Ellen Crow Val Brown Karen Gooley Bev Tarpley* Carol Snyder * = Project Coordinators PPLSP Project. Spring 2004 2 The Pikes Peak Literacy Strategies Project . Overarching Concepts about Reading Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) describes the conditions under which students are most likely to become successful readers: Adequate initial reading instruction requires that children: x use reading to obtain meaning from print, x have frequent and intensive opportunities to read, x be exposed to frequent, regular spelling-sound relationships, x learn about the nature of the alphabetic writing system, and x understand the structure of spoken words (p. 3). Adequate progress in learning to read English beyond the initial level depends on: x having a working understanding of how sounds are represented alphabetically, x sufficient practice in reading to achieve fluency with different kinds of text, x sufficient background knowledge and vocabulary to render written texts meaningful and interesting, x control over procedures for monitoring comprehension and repairing misunderstandings, and x continued interest and motivation to read for a variety of purposes (p. 3-4). PPLSP Project. Spring 2004 3 The Pikes Peak Literacy Strategies Project . Overarching Instructional Strategies Some strategies did not fit neatly into a particular reading dimension and so a general category was created. Below is a list of strategies supported in the research literature that can be used by the teacher or by the student to improve overall achievement. Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement (2001) identifies nine instructional strategies teachers can use in all grade levels and content areas to improve student achievement. They include: 1. Identifying similarities and differences 2. Summarizing and note taking 3. Reinforcing effort and providing recognition 4. Homework and practice 5. Nonlinguistic representations 6. Cooperative learning 7. Setting objectives and providing feedback 8. Generating and testing hypotheses 9. Cues, questions, and advance organizers In addition to the strategies described above, a number of other strategies appeared repeatedly in the research literature as they relate to learning in general, including: 1. Modeling 2. Repetition 3. Scaffolding 4. Reciprocal teaching 5. Progress monitoring 6. Ongoing classroom assessment 7. Direct instruction These strategies are not limited in their usefulness to a particular content, grade level, or student demographic. All students benefit from high quality teaching and the techniques described here can be very effective when skillfully implemented under the right conditions. PPLSP Project. Spring 2004 4 The Pikes Peak Literacy Strategies Project . Six Things Every Teacher can do to Improve Student Achievement 1. Provide instruction that is responsive to the diagnosed needs of students. Carefully listen to and observe students to understand not only who is struggling, but why. Where are the misconceptions? Which skills are lacking? To do this well, the teacher must skillfully interpret the data available to them that helps identify the students’ strengths and needs. Also, teachers must have a clear understanding of the level of sophistication the student must develop in the skill area in order to be successful. 2. Set high expectations for all students. A recent article in Education Week (Burris, 2004) described a school in which the honors track became the normal track for students. The focus was on equity. Not only did regular achievers thrive, but so did the traditional high achievers. 3. Scaffolding is when the teacher provides students with assistance in some form or another as a temporary means to help the student perform at a level above what he can do independently. It helps the student operate in his zone of proximal development (Vygotsky), which is a highly motivating and challenging skill level. Obviously, if a teacher simply starts teaching all students with higher expectations (see #2 above) without providing them with the support they need to reach those expectations, then many students will struggle and many will give up. It is important to note that the scaffold(s) should gradually be removed until the student is able to perform the skill independently. 4. Modeling. Students have a right to know what we expect of them and at what skill level it is expected. Albert Bandura provided the field with numerous research studies illustrating the power of modeling. Students learn a considerable amount from what they observe. Models allows students to see what the teacher expects, thus allowing them to use the high quality samples to gauge their own work. 5. Provide specific and immediate feedback. Carol Dweck and others have conducted considerable research in the field of human motivation illustrating that specific feedback is more useful than general feedback, and that immediate feedback is more effective than delayed feedback. 6. Help students develop metacognition skills. Scott Paris, Dale Schunk, and others conduct research related to helping students raise their awareness of what they
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • Put Reading First 2006
    Put Reading First Kindergarten Through Grade 3 The Research Building Blocks For Teaching Children to Read ThirdThird Edition The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read Put Reading First Kindergarten Through Grade 3 Writers: Bonnie B. Armbruster, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Fran Lehr, M.A., Lehr & Associates, Champaign, Illinois, Jean Osborn, M.Ed., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Editor: C. Ralph Adler, RMC Research Corporation Designer: Lisa T. Noonis, RMC Research Corporation Contents i Introduction 1 Phonemic Awareness Instruction 11 Phonics Instruction 19 Fluency Instruction 29 Vocabulary Instruction 41 Text Comprehension Instruction This publication was developed by the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) and was funded by the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) through the Educational Research and Development Centers Program, PR/Award Number R305R70004, as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education. However, the comments or conclusions do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of NIFL, OERI, or the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. The National Institute for Literacy The National Institute for Literacy, an agency in the Federal government, is authorized to help strengthen literacy across the lifespan. The Institute works to provide national leadership on literacy issues, including the improvement of reading instruction for children, youth, and adults by sharing information on scientifically based research. Sandra Baxter, Director Lynn Reddy, Deputy Director The Partnership for Reading This document was published by The Partnership for Reading, a collaborative effort of the National Institute for Literacy, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the National Reading Panel Report of the National Reading Panel
    5/24/2018 Report of the National Reading Panel Report of the National Reading Panel The content in this publication was accurate at the time it was published, but it Share this: is not being updated. The item is provided for historical purposes only. Teaching Children to Read Findings and Determinations of the National Reading Panel by Topic Areas Alphabetics PhonemPhonemesic A wareareness Inst the smallestruction units composing spoken language. For example, the words “go” and “she” each consist of two sounds or phonemes. Phonemes are dierent from letters that represent phonemes in the spellings of words. Instruction in phonemic awareness (PA) involves teaching children to focus on and manipulate phonemes in spoken syllables and words. PA instruction is frequently confused with phonics instruction, which entails teaching students how to use letter- sound relations to read or spell words. PA instruction qualies as phonics instruction when it involves teaching children to blend or segment the sounds in words using letters. However, children may be taught to manipulate sounds in speech without any letters as well; this does not qualify as phonics instruction. PA is also frequently confused with auditory discrimination, which refers to the ability to recognize whether two spoken words are the same or dierent. These distinctions are explained in detail in the section devoted to phonemic awareness instruction in the Report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of the Subgroups. There are several reasons why the NRP selected PA instruction for review and analysis. First, correlational studies have identied PA and letter knowledge as the two best school-entry predictors of how well children will learn to read during the rst 2 years of instruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the National Reading Panel Hearing
    S. HRG. 106–897 REPORT OF THE NATIONAL READING PANEL HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SPECIAL HEARING APRIL 13, 2000-WASHINGTON, DC Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 66–481 cc WASHINGTON : 2001 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont SLADE GORTON, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JON KYL, Arizona STEVEN J. CORTESE, Staff Director LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director JAMES H. ENGLISH, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi TOM HARKIN, Iowa SLADE GORTON, Washington ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii LARRY CRAIG, Idaho HARRY REID, Nevada KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas HERB KOHL, Wisconsin TED STEVENS, Alaska PATTY MURRAY, Washington JON KYL, Arizona DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ROBERT C.
    [Show full text]
  • No Evidence for Phonology First 1
    No evidence for phonology first 1 There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that systematic phonics should precede morphological instruction: Response to Rastle and colleagues Jeffrey S. Bowers University of Bristol Peter N. Bowers WordWorks Literacy Centre Jeffrey S. Bowers, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, https://jeffbowers.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/; Peter N. Bowers; WordWorks Literacy Centre, http://www.wordworkskingston.com/WordWorks/Home.html. This work has not been peer reviewed. Special Circumstances: Peter Bowers runs the company WordWorks where he uses Structured Word Inquiry to work with students, teachers and schools. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Patricia Bowers and Colin Davis for comments on this draft. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeffrey S Bowers, School of Experimental Psychology, 12a Priory Road, Bristol, BS8-1TU. Email [email protected] No evidence for phonology first 2 Abstract In a series of four articles Rastles and colleagues have argued that early reading instruction should focus on systematic phonics, with morphological instruction only introduced later. We call this the “phonology first” hypothesis. We show that their theoretical motivation for the phonology first hypothesis is flawed, and that their review of the empirical evidence is biased and incomplete. We show that theory and current data lend support to the alternative hypothesis that instruction should target both phonology and morphology from the start. No evidence for phonology first 3 There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that systematic phonics should precede morphological instruction: Response to Rastle and colleagues Rastle and colleagues have recently published a series of four articles where they hypothesize that initial reading instruction should first focus on systematic phonics.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Language and the Great Plummet of 1987-92
    Focus on Reading Whole Language and the Great Plummet of 1987-92 AN URBAN LEGEND FROM CALIFORNIA There is compelling evidence that California’s low reading scores are related to California’s impoverished print environment, not to the introduction of the whole-language approach to literacy, Mr. Krashen points out. BY STEPHEN KRASHEN HERE ARE a number of ways to define an urban legend. Here’s one from the Urban Legends Research Centre: “An Urban Legend is usually a (good/captivating/titillating/en- grossing/incredible/worrying) story that has had a wide au- dience, is circulated spontaneously, has been told in sever- al forms, and which many have chosen to believe (whether actively or passively) despite the lack of actual evidence to substantiate the story.”1 T I wish to add another urban legend to those that already exist, a legend that I believe ranks with the legend of the alligators living in the sewers of New York City.2 I will refer to it as the “Plummet Legend.” It goes like this. After whole language was introduced in California in 1987, test scores “plummeted” to the point where California’s fourth-graders were last in the country in 1992. It makes a good story, if we can judge by the number of times it has been repeated. But this sudden plummet never hap- pened. It is an urban legend, a captivating and worrisome story that has been told in several forms and that many people have chosen the legend is inconsistent with the results of studies of lit- to believe despite the lack of actual evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientifically-Based Reading Instruction” Isn’T
    Whole-Language High Jinks How to Tell When “Scientifically-Based Reading Instruction” Isn’t By Louisa Moats Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Martin A. Davis, Jr. Whole-Language High Jinks How to Tell When “Scientifically-Based Reading Instruction” Isn’t By Louisa Moats Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Martin A. Davis, Jr. # Whole-Language High Jinks # Executive Summary In this practitioners’ guide, renowned reading expert Louisa Moats (author of the American Federation of Teachers’ Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science and an earlier Thomas B. Fordham Foundation report, Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of “Balanced” Reading Instruction) explains how educators, parents, and concerned citizens can spot ineffective reading programs that surrepti- tiously hide under the “scientifically-based” banner. While the field of reading has made enormous strides in recent years—especially with the publica- tion of the National Reading Panel’s landmark report and enactment of the federal Reading First pro- gram—discredited and ineffectual practices continue in many schools. Although the term “whole language” is rarely used today, programs based on its premises, such as Reading Recovery, Four Blocks, Guided Reading, and especially “balanced literacy,” are as popular as ever. These approaches may pay lip service to reading science, but they fail to incorporate the content and instructional methods proven to work best with students learning to read. Some districts, such as Denver, openly shun research-based practices, while others, such as Chicago, fail to provide clear, consistent leader- ship for principals and teachers, who are left to reinvent reading instruction, school by school. Ironically, partial responsibility for this unfortunate situation can be laid at the door of the National Reading Panel and its “five essential components” of effective reading instruction (phonemic aware- ness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension).
    [Show full text]
  • Progress in Reading Instruction Requires a Better Understanding Of
    CDPXXX10.1177/0963721418773749Bowers, BowersAlphabetic Principle 773749research-article2018 ASSOCIATION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Current Directions in Psychological Science Progress in Reading Instruction 1 –6 © The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: Requires a Better Understanding of sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418773749 10.1177/0963721418773749 the English Spelling System www.psychologicalscience.org/CDPS Jeffrey S. Bowers1 and Peter N. Bowers2 1School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, and 2WordWorks Literacy Centre, Wolfe Island, Ontario, Canada Abstract It is widely claimed that the English spelling system conforms to the alphabetic principle, according to which letters or letter combinations (graphemes) represent speech sounds (phonemes). But this is not accurate. English spellings have evolved to represent both phonemes and meaning (through morphology and etymology), and in direct contradiction to the alphabetic principle, spellings prioritize the consistent spelling of morphemes over the consistent spellings of phonemes. This is important because the alphabetic principle provides the main theoretical motivation for systematic phonics instruction that explicitly teaches children grapheme–phoneme correspondences in English without reference to morphology and etymology. Furthermore, this theoretical claim has biased the research literature, with many studies considering the efficacy of phonics but few studies assessing the relevance of morphology and etymology to reading
    [Show full text]