Wow! Having had no systematic phonics, 4 years of Windward 5th grade to 8th grade brought my kid to grade level reading and led him to Bard High School Early College. No way he could have done that much reading having had little phonics.
How would you answer this question posed by Tim Shanahan?
"If I’m always providing kids with the appropriate background knowledge to understand each text used for instruction, then how do students ever learn to take on a text on their own?"
I've just finished working with struggling first-graders. We read "How a Frog Grows?" You mention as an example of knowledge-building reading about whales and sharks, and you and others have suggested that NAEP should assess knowledge, not random information in random passages. While I am deeply grateful for the knowledge-building campaign, I wonder if it risks--like the phonics movement--going too far.
At what point is it fair to ask a child to read, say, how a duck-billed platypus grows in order to make sense of the text without having specific prior knowledge?
Thank you for always raising such important issues!
I have responded to Tim's point elsewhere, but briefly: Once people are fluent readers and have acquired a critical mass of academic vocabulary and familiarity with the complex syntax of written language, they are generally able to understand texts on topics for which they don't have specific background knowledge. Tim mentioned in one of his posts that he and his wife learn about unfamiliar topics all the time through their reading. But I believe they both have PhDs.
Before kids are fluent readers, etc., the best way to introduce information about a new topic is through having an expert reader read aloud about it and guide discussion about the content. Once students have knowledge and vocabulary relating to that topic stored in long-term memory, they should be able to read at a higher level about that topic (assuming their foundational reading skills are sufficient).
Eventually, through learning about many topics, they should acquire the critical mass of general academic knowledge and vocabulary that will enable them to read and understand texts on topics they're not familiar with.
I can't really answer your specific question. But I would say: first read aloud to a child about the growth of the duck-billed platypus or a somewhat broader topic--not just one text but a series of them--and engage her in discussion about it. Then perhaps give her a choice of books on that topic and see what she can read on her own.
It can be hard for individual teachers to come up with the right size topics and understand where to start building background knowledge, etc. I know it would be hard for me. But there are now several curricula that do a very good job of that. You can find them described on the website of the Knowledge Matters Campaign.
My group of struggling second graders read about gravity today. They read the text, they decoded difficult vocabulary, and they gained knowledge. Part of the complexity of reading hinges on how information is presented. I understand and fully support the knowledge matters campaign. Because it does. And I definitely believe that vocabulary and sentence structure often impede comprehension. But I also believe that students can read to learn about a topic they aren't familiar with.
I’m with you, Ms. Livingston. I believe adults who think they can comprehend texts dealing with topics about which they know little under estimate how much knowledge they actually bring to bear on those texts.
When we read, so much of our inferencing happens so instantly and unconsciously, we’re not aware of it happening. But when we read (or listen) we’re constantly retrieving knowledge from long-term memory to fill in the gaps of information the writer (or speaker) assumed we already knew.
How anyone could think that simply teaching kids the mechanics of reading makes children literate is beyond me. There are far too many uneducated people directing education.
Interesting! I know there is so much research showing benefits of phonics instruction (I wrote about it in a recent newsletter at parentingtranslator.substack.com)
but so important to know that this may not be enough!
Here again I do not believe it is necessary to repeat or use terms like "fades out" when it comes to foundational skills nor equate high quality K-3 reading instruction as synonymous with phonics. What we all should be doing is promoting the concept that high quality early reading instruction is "necessary, but not sufficient" for school, nor life success." As you have promoted so well, is that Knowledge is the key. Reading tests for older students place emphasis on so called comprehension that requires content knowledge. You can "read," have the best comprehension strategy, but if you don't have content knowledge (and sufficient motivation, a silent factor not discussed when testing teenagers), one might and perhaps SHOULD expect a drop in scores at this level. We must be careful to not provide fuel for the resisters who are looking for any "evidence" to maintain play-based reading instruction where arguments about joy and meaning take precedence over how we know things work in making the connections between print and sounds! Necessary, but not sufficient. Knowledge rules! and reading is A key to knowlege!
I think the fade hits on both the 'simple view of reading' and Scarborough's Rope. Decoding can make the text accessible, but that is only part of the equation. And in my experience, the most straight forward aspect of reading to teach.
If you are suggesting that being able to decode English is somehow a secondary skill that fades away over time, then I'm afraid I can't join you. Yes of course you need follow-up; a child is obviously not going to become an avid reader later in life if you don't follow up by giving him/her materials worth reading. But if you are not seriously dedicated to teaching phonics as a first step, you're not going to end up with an avid reader no matter what you do later. http://mychildwillread.org/
I'm not suggesting that phonics is a skill that fades away over time--not at all. As I tried to make clear in the piece, what happens at higher grade levels is that texts start to assume more sophisticated knowledge and vocabulary. If that knowledge and vocabulary haven't been built starting at lower grade levels, students may not be able to understand the texts they're supposed to read. They'll still be able to decode them, though!
OK I get it and I agree. I've spent a lifetime refuting people who have tried to convince the world that phonics is both useless and counterproductive, so perhaps I'm too sensitive and am reading in things you didn't say. Thanks!
Wow! Having had no systematic phonics, 4 years of Windward 5th grade to 8th grade brought my kid to grade level reading and led him to Bard High School Early College. No way he could have done that much reading having had little phonics.
I hope you realize I'm NOT arguing against systematic phonics instruction.
How would you answer this question posed by Tim Shanahan?
"If I’m always providing kids with the appropriate background knowledge to understand each text used for instruction, then how do students ever learn to take on a text on their own?"
I've just finished working with struggling first-graders. We read "How a Frog Grows?" You mention as an example of knowledge-building reading about whales and sharks, and you and others have suggested that NAEP should assess knowledge, not random information in random passages. While I am deeply grateful for the knowledge-building campaign, I wonder if it risks--like the phonics movement--going too far.
At what point is it fair to ask a child to read, say, how a duck-billed platypus grows in order to make sense of the text without having specific prior knowledge?
Thank you for always raising such important issues!
I have responded to Tim's point elsewhere, but briefly: Once people are fluent readers and have acquired a critical mass of academic vocabulary and familiarity with the complex syntax of written language, they are generally able to understand texts on topics for which they don't have specific background knowledge. Tim mentioned in one of his posts that he and his wife learn about unfamiliar topics all the time through their reading. But I believe they both have PhDs.
Before kids are fluent readers, etc., the best way to introduce information about a new topic is through having an expert reader read aloud about it and guide discussion about the content. Once students have knowledge and vocabulary relating to that topic stored in long-term memory, they should be able to read at a higher level about that topic (assuming their foundational reading skills are sufficient).
Eventually, through learning about many topics, they should acquire the critical mass of general academic knowledge and vocabulary that will enable them to read and understand texts on topics they're not familiar with.
I can't really answer your specific question. But I would say: first read aloud to a child about the growth of the duck-billed platypus or a somewhat broader topic--not just one text but a series of them--and engage her in discussion about it. Then perhaps give her a choice of books on that topic and see what she can read on her own.
It can be hard for individual teachers to come up with the right size topics and understand where to start building background knowledge, etc. I know it would be hard for me. But there are now several curricula that do a very good job of that. You can find them described on the website of the Knowledge Matters Campaign.
Most people cannot read and understand topics for which they have little knowledge about.
My group of struggling second graders read about gravity today. They read the text, they decoded difficult vocabulary, and they gained knowledge. Part of the complexity of reading hinges on how information is presented. I understand and fully support the knowledge matters campaign. Because it does. And I definitely believe that vocabulary and sentence structure often impede comprehension. But I also believe that students can read to learn about a topic they aren't familiar with.
Of course. Through guided reading which you describe. But that is not independent reading which is what I am referring to.
I’m with you, Ms. Livingston. I believe adults who think they can comprehend texts dealing with topics about which they know little under estimate how much knowledge they actually bring to bear on those texts.
When we read, so much of our inferencing happens so instantly and unconsciously, we’re not aware of it happening. But when we read (or listen) we’re constantly retrieving knowledge from long-term memory to fill in the gaps of information the writer (or speaker) assumed we already knew.
Lack of sentence structure knowledge can be so crippling. As a dyslexia interventionist, I can feel very overwhelmed by trying to address all of it.
How anyone could think that simply teaching kids the mechanics of reading makes children literate is beyond me. There are far too many uneducated people directing education.
Interesting! I know there is so much research showing benefits of phonics instruction (I wrote about it in a recent newsletter at parentingtranslator.substack.com)
but so important to know that this may not be enough!
Here again I do not believe it is necessary to repeat or use terms like "fades out" when it comes to foundational skills nor equate high quality K-3 reading instruction as synonymous with phonics. What we all should be doing is promoting the concept that high quality early reading instruction is "necessary, but not sufficient" for school, nor life success." As you have promoted so well, is that Knowledge is the key. Reading tests for older students place emphasis on so called comprehension that requires content knowledge. You can "read," have the best comprehension strategy, but if you don't have content knowledge (and sufficient motivation, a silent factor not discussed when testing teenagers), one might and perhaps SHOULD expect a drop in scores at this level. We must be careful to not provide fuel for the resisters who are looking for any "evidence" to maintain play-based reading instruction where arguments about joy and meaning take precedence over how we know things work in making the connections between print and sounds! Necessary, but not sufficient. Knowledge rules! and reading is A key to knowlege!
I think the fade hits on both the 'simple view of reading' and Scarborough's Rope. Decoding can make the text accessible, but that is only part of the equation. And in my experience, the most straight forward aspect of reading to teach.
It is likely parents are paying less in tutoring fees.
If you are suggesting that being able to decode English is somehow a secondary skill that fades away over time, then I'm afraid I can't join you. Yes of course you need follow-up; a child is obviously not going to become an avid reader later in life if you don't follow up by giving him/her materials worth reading. But if you are not seriously dedicated to teaching phonics as a first step, you're not going to end up with an avid reader no matter what you do later. http://mychildwillread.org/
I'm not suggesting that phonics is a skill that fades away over time--not at all. As I tried to make clear in the piece, what happens at higher grade levels is that texts start to assume more sophisticated knowledge and vocabulary. If that knowledge and vocabulary haven't been built starting at lower grade levels, students may not be able to understand the texts they're supposed to read. They'll still be able to decode them, though!
OK I get it and I agree. I've spent a lifetime refuting people who have tried to convince the world that phonics is both useless and counterproductive, so perhaps I'm too sensitive and am reading in things you didn't say. Thanks!