DOCSLIB.ORG

Whole Language and the Great Plummet of 1987-92

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. eracy development. The Plummet Legend has had serious consequences. It has led to the discrediting of the whole-language approach DID TEST SCORES PLUMMET IN CALIFORNIA? to literacy and has nurtured a strong movement promoting a “skill-building” approach.3 I will try to show here both Here is a more complete version of the Plummet Leg- that the evidence does not support this legend and that end. In 1987 a group of whole-language advocates took STEPHEN KRASHEN is professor emeritus of education at the over the California Language Arts Framework Committee University of Southern California, Los Angeles. and brought in whole language. Phonics instruction and 748 PHI DELTA KAPPAN Photo: Eyewire Images other forms of direct teaching were banned, and language mentary schools had only 12 books per child. Although scores plummeted to the point where California’s fourth- some of this decline was due to the pruning of old books, graders scored last in the country in reading in 1992. Cali- there is no sign of improvement.7 fornia is now recovering from this damage, thanks to a ra- • The same 1990 study reported 4,595 students per tional, sensible phonics-based approach to reading. school librarian in California. The national ratio was 900 This is not what happened. I served on the California to 1.8 In 1998 California had 4,673 students per school li- Language Arts Framework Committee in 1987. Phonics brarian.9 teaching was not banned. We simply proposed that lan- • California’s public libraries are not impressive. Ac- guage arts should be “literature-based.” This is hardly con- cording to data published in 1997, California’s public li- troversial. In fact, I regarded it as part of the definition of braries had 1.9 volumes per capita. The national average language arts. was 2.8. Only three states were worse. California’s public Did teachers change their ways in California? Nobody libraries circulate 4.9 books per capita, per year. The na- really knows. There have been no empirical studies com- tional average is 6.6. Only 10 states are lower.10 paring methodology in language arts teaching before and • California now ranks in the bottom eight among states after the 1987 committee met. in terms of percentage of children between the ages of 5 Did test scores decline? It is certainly true that Califor- and 17 who live in poverty.11 nia fourth-graders scored last in the country in the fourth- What’s more, print-access variables are strongly corre- grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) lated with NAEP reading scores. McQuillan reported a cor- in reading in 1992. But this was the first time NAEP scores relation of .85 between measures of print access (books had been presented by state. It was assumed that there had and other forms of print available in the home, school, and been a decline, but there was no evidence that this was so, community) and 1994 NAEP scores.12 Controlling for pov- for no comparison with earlier test scores was made. Jeff erty, the correlation remained high (r=.63).13 California’s McQuillan examined CAP (California Achievement Pro- problem is not whole language but a lack of reading ma- gram) reading comprehension scores from 1984 to 1990, terial. which I present in Table 1. There is no clear pattern of in- Independent research supports McQuillan’s analysis. creases or decreases during these years, which leads to There is excellent evidence that children with more ac- the conclusion that California’s read- ing problem existed well before “whole TABLE 1. language” was introduced in 1987. There CAP Scores in California, 1984-90 was no Great Plummet of 1987-92.4 McQuillan also provides a convinc- Grade 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 ing explanation for the low scores. There 3 268 274 280 282 282 277 275 is strong evidence that California’s poor 6 249 253 260 260 265 262 262 performance is related to its print-poor 8 250 240 243 247 252 256 257 environment. California ranks last in 12 236 241 240 246 250 248 251 the country in the quality of its school Source:Jeff McQuillan, The Literacy Crisis:False Claims and Real Solutions (Portsmouth, N.H.:Heine- libraries and ranks near the bottom in mann, 1998). the quality of its public libraries. In ad- dition, many of its children have very little reading materi- cess to books read more and that children who read more al at home. California ranked ninth in the country in the make superior gains in literacy development. percentage of children between the ages of 5 and 17 who lived in poverty in 1995, and it ranked near the bottom in ACCESS LEADS TO READING the percentage of homes with more than 25 books.5 McQuillan’s analysis was based on school library data There is a great deal of evidence showing that children published in 1990 and public library data published in with more access to books read more. Children with more 1995. There has been little change in California since that books in the home read more.14 Barbara Heyns reported time. that children who live close to public libraries read more • A study published in 1990 reported that California’s than those who live far away.15 Leslie Morrow and Carol school libraries had 13 books per child; the national av- Weinstein found that installing well-designed library cor- erage was 18 books per child.6 In 2001, California ele- ners in kindergartens resulted in more use of books by the JUNE 2002 749 children during intervals of free play.16 In a study of high was defined correctly — that is, as including a great deal school libraries, Rachel Houle and Claude Montmarquette of real reading — students in these classes performed as reported that students take more books out of school li- well as or better than children in skills classes on tests of braries that have more books and that stay open longer.17 reading comprehension, were equivalent to children in McQuillan and Julie Au reported that high school students skills-based classes on tests of “skills” (e.g., reading non- did more reading when their teachers took them to the sense words), had more positive attitudes toward reading, school library more often on planned library visits.18 and read more on their own.24 Once again, the federal government thinks otherwise. The NRP concluded that skills-based methods were supe- READING LEADS TO LITERACY DEVELOPMENT rior to whole-language methods (d=.31).25 In my reanaly- Until recently, it was considered obvious that actual sis, I considered performance on tests of reading compre- reading helps readers get better and helps them improve hension, and I also considered the amount of reading their vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and writing. The U.S. done. I found an overall advantage for whole language government disagrees. The National Reading Panel (NRP) (d=.17). For the four studies in which it was clear that one concluded that there is insufficient research to support the group did more real reading, the advantage for the read- hypothesis that reading itself is beneficial and concluded ers was substantial (d=.70).26 that we should concentrate our efforts on phonemic aware- ness training, intensive phonics, and having children read BETTER LIBRARIES LEAD TO BETTER READING aloud so that their errors can be corrected.19 The NRP overlooked a tremendous amount of research. If more access to books results in more reading and The case for recreational reading is overwhelming. It con- more reading results in more literacy development, it fol- sists of many case histories in which it is clear that read- lows that more access to books will result in more litera- ing was the causative factor in helping individuals — such cy development, and research confirms that this is the case. as Richard Wright, Malcolm X, and Ben Carson — increase A particularly important aspect of this research deals with their level of literacy development.20 It includes studies in the impact of libraries.
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]
  • 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]
  • Reading Fluency Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D
    Reading Fluency Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D. Reading FAST www.gha-pd.com My conclusions from reading research: Compelling evidence from a convergence of reading research is indicating that or Reading WELL? 90% to 95% of all students can achieve literacy skills at or approaching grade level. These statistics include students with dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Students succeed when they receive intensive, comprehensive, and high-quality prevention and early intervention instruction, Putting provided by well-informed and well-supported teachers. This instruction must be systematic, explicit, and intensive, and designed to appropriately integrate elements of oral language development, phonemic awareness, phonics and Fluency In decoding, fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension skills and strategies. Perspective Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D. Torgesen, 2007; Vellutino & Fletcher, 2007; Rashotte, MacPhee, Torgeson, 2001; Al Otailba, Connor, Foorman, Schatschneider, Greulich, Sidler, 2009; Every Child Reading: An Action Plan and Every Child Reading: A Professional Development Guide. Presented by Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D. Available online from Learning First Alliance Reading Fluency : Educators as Physicians : Understanding and Teaching this Complex Skill Using RTI Data for Effective Decision-Making Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D. Deborah R. Glaser, Ed.D. Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D. Four Modules FOUR MODULES Framework for Intervention Defining & Describing this Complex Skill Assessing Reading Fluency Benchmark/Screening Planning and Teaching Fluency Diagnosis Teaching Fluency through Skill Integration Progress Monitoring Summary booklets sold in sets of 4 Summary booklets sold in sets of 4 Available online at www.gha-pd.com Available online at www.gha-pd.com © 2013 Gibson Hasbrouck & Associates www.gha-pd.com www.jhasbrouck.com 1 Reading Fluency Jan Hasbrouck, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]