Where Do You Stand on the Science of Reading? by Robert Hankes

What do we have here? A scientific-based how-to formula on how to teach reading so that all students will read at grade level? Or is this another gimmick to sell the next iteration of reading curricula and textbooks based on as much opinion as it is science? Or is it a push from conservatives to travel back to a time that never existed in America when phonics cured all ills and taught everyone, supposedly, how to read?

While I taught English at the high school level, there was a never-ending string of “new approaches” that would fix all the problems the secondary ELA teacher ever faced. For instance, we had in-services on the John Collins way of teaching writing in the 1990s, the 2000s, the 2010s, and I understand the district is requiring John Collins writing orientation for the teachers here in the 2020s. In the 1990s, I didn’t believe that what was old could be repackaged and served up as new again—until Learning Focused Schools in-services touted the usefulness of the Frayer.

You can find plenty of articles that say the Science of Reading is the way to teach reading, that the entire United States should switch over to this program immediately, and shame on those who don’t. Here are three articles that offer a more skeptical view.

“Unsettling the Science of Reading: Who is Being Sold a Story?” Nick Covington / Human Restoration Project. November 30, 2022. https://www.humanrestorationproject.org/writing/who-is-being-sold-a-story-unsettling-the-science-of-reading Some incredible numbers here. Millions spent on new reading programs. Thousands of students affected. And yet, the Science of reading may not be more effective than what we were already doing? And people don’t realize there’s a difference between reading and literacy?

“What People Are Getting Wrong About the Science of Reading.” By Brooke Wilkins & Lauren McNamara — July 07, 2023. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-what-people-are-getting-wrong-about-the-science-of-reading/2023/07 It seems like there is something wrong with America when it comes to looking at the gray area. We’re either black or white, on all issues. This article calls for, and it’s in bold, balance. In the 1960s and 1970s, when I was taught to read, the best ELA teachers instinctively used balance. They are why I read and understand these articles about The Reading Wars now. So only textbook manufacturers believe that there’s such a thing as The Science of Reading?

“PROOF POINTS: Controversies Within the Science of Reading.” Jill Barshay / The Heckinger Report. February 26, 2024. https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-controversies-within-the-science-of-reading/ Looks like more study is needed on how people learn to read. If that’s true, why couldn’t someone stop the Science of Reading from steamrolling over elementary schools in the United States? On the other hand, based on the studies in this article, it looks like there is plenty of evidence to show that phonemic awareness is not the best lesson to be teaching young readers. How can governments and textbook companies justify the vast outlay of money, knowing that the way they suggest teaching children isn’t scientifically proven to be the best way?

What do you think of all this? Comments below appreciated.

Why Johnny Won't Read, Part 4

For the first 3 blogs in Dr. Smith's series on Johnny, see the blogs listed below. 

 I went around to every English classroom in my building toward the end of the semester and conducted a survey for each novel assigned that semester.  The survey consisted of two questions for every title:

How much of this work did you actually read: all of it; most of it; half of it; some of it; or none of it.  The second question was “How much did you rely on SparkNotes?  Their possible responses are below.

I don’t know what SparkNotes is.

I know what it is, but didn’t use it.

I used it a little.

 I used it a lot.

That’s all I read.

I gathered my data toward the end of the semester, so their responses would have no impact on their grade.  Besides, no one would see the responses except for me.  

 As I mentioned before, we had three groups of students: AP/Honors, Academic, and General.  I had no idea how the study would turn out, nor did I have a clear idea as to who was using SparkNotes and who was actually reading the novels.  I could argue for any of the three groups.  Here’s what I found out.

 The AP/Honors classes actually read the assigned novels, but they also used SparkNotes.  However, they use SparkNotes like a lot of teachers do.  They check to see if they’ve missed something or to clarify something that didn’t make sense.  

 I do the same thing.  In fact, one of the students in Bob’s AP class came to me to ask about the biblical allusions in Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon.  I had to confess that I’d never picked it up, so I got a copy and started reading it.    In the first chapter, some gal is walking down the road singing “Sugarman done fly away,” while some poor slob is standing on the roof of a building.  This didn’t make a bit of sense to me, so I went to SparkNotes which said something like “The protagonist is walking down a road singing ‘O Sugarman done fly away’ while an insurance agent is preparing to ‘fly’ off of the roof of the local hospital.”  OK, I got it.  

 So the Honors/AP students use SparkNotes much like I do, but they also read the novels. 

 This left two groups.  The academic classes and the general classes.  Who wasn’t doing the reading but relying on SparkNotes instead? Stay tuned.

Mr. Buck's Four Recommendations for Elementary School ELA

Mr. Daniel Buck

 Last Friday I published my initial reactions to Daniel Buck’s article, published online by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. The article is entitled “Think Again: Should Elementary Schools Teach Reading Comprehension?” Here is the address for the article. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/think-again-should-elementary-schools-teach-reading-comprehension#:~:text=It%20asserts%20that%2C%20once%20students,instruction%20across%20multiple%20subjects%2C%20including If you’re interested in how America teaches reading, you should read Buck’s article.

At the end of the article, Buck makes four recommendations and then elaborates on them. I’d like to add my opinion, having taught high school English for almost 30 years.

1.       Include essential content in state standards in a coordinated way across multiple subjects.

Buck says that many state standards are lists of vacuous skill. No argument there, at least from my knowledge of, and my writing and rewriting of curricula, using Pennsylvania standards. They’re terrible. Mr. Buck then recommends that states “specify the movements and literary periods . . . that all students in a particular grade level should cover or provide a list of specific texts from which teachers or districts can choose.” No student choice whatsoever. No joy of students finding texts that they fall in love with. Buck then suggests that students “read a novel set during the Industrial Revolution while students learn about that same period in their social studies class.” Which students in high school this year, let alone in elementary school this year, will cheer about reading a novel set in the Industrial Revolution? And coordinating classes in social studies and English? Our high school tried to set up a coordinated English-social studies Holocaust unit. At least five years passed with blockade after blockade appearing, from teacher’s unwillingness to work with their cohorts, to the inability of guidance to schedule coordinated classes. This is a disaster waiting to happen—and it did happen. Units like Buck proposes turned students off from reading and created the reaction that gave choice to readers.

2.       Require the adoption and use of knowledge-rich curricula.

Buck adds that “many states” adopt the use of the science of reading, which translates to the state school focusing “exclusively on phonics.” Most teachers would agree that a steady, multi-year diet of phonics will kill a student’s interest in reading (although the correct amount in grades 1 and 2 is essential). I stopped by the Knowledge Matters Campaign website and read this paragraph: “To develop students’ reading comprehension muscles from the earliest grades, leading schools use English language arts (ELA) curricula that are carefully designed to build background knowledge in science, history, literature, and the arts, alongside sound foundational skills instruction.” What is being taught in the science, history, and arts classes? When does a student learn the joy of self-selected reading?

3.       Ensure that state and local accountability systems incentivize the deployment and consumption of knowledge-rich curricula.

Buck states, “… [state] standardized tests could be part of the solution.” I don’t believe that. State testing is nothing but a huge waste of taxpayer money making testing companies rich. He suggests that states need more tests, ones that “directly measure historical, civic, and scientific knowledge.” I can only imagine how much a student at any grade level would care about doing well on a civic knowledge exam.

4.       Emphasize the importance of knowledge building in teacher preparation and development.

Mr. Buck and I agree that if teachers learn that the “science of reading” means hitting the students over the head with phonics K-5, “… they’ll fail to teach educators the full account of how children learn to read and comprehend.” And while I don’t think that knowledge-building is the solution to the problem of how students read in 2024, schools could do a better job of teaching knowledge to students at all levels of education, and in a variety of classrooms, not just ELA classes. But let’s keep what is working. Reader’s choice builds lifelong readers and a love of books. Swap SSR time for a unit on ancient civilizations—and then assess the students using a state-developed exam rather than a test created by the home district? What student would choose the latter? What teacher who understands readers would choose the latter?

 

Comments Concerning Reading And Daniel Buck's Recent Article, by Robert Hankes

 originally published on the WordPress site "Hank Roberts,"  6/14/2024

I agree with some of what Daniel Buck says about reading. You should decide if you do, too.

Daniel Buck is an Editorial and Policy Associate at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. He wrote a book called What Is Wrong with Our Schools: The ideology impoverishing education in America and how we can do better for our students. The Amazon blurb for this book ends with the following summation, “In place of the progressive education that pervades our schools, Buck argues for a traditionalist approach: classic literature, direct instruction, sequenced curricula, clear rules and consequences-as the education we need for the future.”

An online article, “Think Again: Should Elementary Schools Teach Reading Comprehension?” appeared on the Fordham Institute website on May 22^nd 2024. Here is the link: https://fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/think-again-should-elementary-schools-teach-reading-comprehension.pdf  You should read his eight-page article. 

In answer to Buck’s question, the author says “Some.” He’s against reading comprehension skills taking over the ELA classroom. Hard to argue with his tentative statement there. He further states that “ . . . Once students have learned to decode . . . understanding depends more on knowledge than skills and that successful knowledge building requires explicit, carefully sequenced and paced, teacher-directed instruction across multiple subjects, including but not limited to social studies, science, and literature.” His research-supported observations show that “ . . . knowledge of the world, not generalizable reading comprehension skills, determines reading ability.”

This is where I begin to part ways with Buck. Don’t students need both skills and background knowledge? Didn’t he just say some skills need to be taught? In the article, he says that too much emphasis on reading skills hurts students if said emphasis crowds out knowledge building. He compares too much skill instruction to overdosing on medicine. Again, hard not to disagree with him if comprehension is what an ELA teacher is after. Main idea and story structure, for example, need to be taught well once or twice, not every year in grades two through eight.

Later on in the article, Buck voices a concern that giving students the right to choose their own books “ . . . in the long run, . . . [it] will limit their exposure to challenging text and necessary content knowledge.” Does he mean the long run in elementary school? It’s not that long. Later on, Buck says that two assumptions “. . . deserve closer examination: first, that motivation drives achievement, and second, that letting students choose books is the most effective way to motivate them.”

No scientific proof was cited for or against motivation drives achievement, but we have to note that Buck says achievement regarding comprehension. Is that why Dr. Smith and I, or anyone giving free choice in reading, teach that way? To increase comprehension? I wanted to instill the love of reading in the students for a lifetime. I don’t know how I’d even begin to test comprehension increases in a class where everyone was reading a different book. And, should I come up with a way to do it, would it be a fair test? Or are there too, too many variables? As to the second assumption, rather than offering scientific proof that reader choice is not the most effective way to motivate students when you’re concerned about comprehension, Buck says, “Perhaps a shared reading of a classic work with an impassioned teacher, engaged classmates, and thoughtfully designed final projects is more motivating than reading a self-selected book in a lonely corner.” It’s been too long since Mr. Buck has been in a regular classroom. Want to motivate students to read? Give them choice and you’ll get most on board. Want to talk to yourself for a few weeks? Teach Invisible Man, Great Expectations, or Wuthering Heights, or any of the books on the AP English Literature “list” that have over one hundred pages.

Been there, done that!

 Thank you for joining us, whether you're new here or if you're switching over from our WordPress site.

New posts from Dr. Dean Smith and Robert Hankes every Wednesday and Friday, respectfully. Check out the first three blogs in a series of six on Why Johnny Won't Read. They're right below!

Why Johnny Won't Read, Part 3, by Dean Smith

     The study initially began in my 9^thgrade classes.  I randomly assigned three short stories: “The Sniper” by O’Flaherty, a story of average length and average difficulty; “The Cask of Amontillado” by Poe, a story of average length but which is very difficult as far a vocabulary and syntax are concerned; and “The Most Dangerous Game” by Connell, a very long story but one which is of average difficulty.  

     When students returned the next day, I asked them to tell me how much they read of their assigned story: none of it; some of it; half of it; most of it; or all of it.  I then gave them a simple quiz over the plot to double check who really read and who didn’t.   The most obvious conclusion I was able to draw is that the students who reported reading the story did better on the quiz.   OK, this is a no-brainer, but it helped me verify that their self-reporting was fairly honest and accurate.  

     Second finding was that students are more apt to read an easy story than a difficult one, and students are more apt to read a shorter story over a longer one.  Granted my sample population was small (n=47), but I feel fairly certain that a larger sample size would only solidify these results and conclusions. 

    So, what’s the point?  If we’re going to assign a classroom reading or novel, we might have more success if we use shorter pieces over longer ones and easier pieces over more difficult ones.  In American lit, I’ve always had more success with teaching Of Mice and Men over The Grapes of Wrath.  Why? Because Of Mice and Men is shorter, easier, and the students actually read it.  

     Instead of The Scarlet Letter, I use Hawthorne’s short story, “Young Goodman Brown.”  They usually struggle so much with The Scarlet Letter because of the vocabulary and syntactic complexity (i.e. long, convoluted sentences), that many of my students end up bagging the novel and relying on the classroom discussions to get the gist of what’s going on, or they’ll go to SparkNotes to read the chapter summaries.  By using “Young Goodman Brown,” I can deal with the same themes, do the same kind of literary analysis, and know that the students have actually attempted the reading especially if we do a lot of it in class anyway.  Do I do this with all of my classes?  No.  But I will do it with the middle and lower level students.  The AP/Honors kids get The Scarlet Letter because that’s what AP students should be reading.

     When I first reported these results at an NCTE conference, I was met with one of two reactions.  Some people nodded knowingly and approvingly, and others were aghast. The latter group seemed to think I was suggesting that we take all of the rigor out of our classrooms.  They argued that students need to struggle with the great works like The Scarlet Letter in order to become better readers, to become culturally literate, and to learn to perform in-depth literary analysis.  

     The problem is, just because we have assigned the book, doesn’t mean students are reading it.  This led to an additional part of my study.  Stay tuned.

Why Johnny Won't Read, Part 2, by Dean Smith

     Bob ran into the same problem in his Brit-lit class that many English teachers have after assigning a classroom novel. The students weren’t reading.        

        He came into a department meeting bent out of shape a few years back.  He was frustrated with his Brit-lit students because they weren’t doing the readings.  He and I have struggled with this same problem for years.  The kids just won’t read the selections in the American-lit or the Brit-lit anthologies and often won’t read the novels either.  When we try to have a discussion over material, we basically end up talking to ourselves for an hour in front of 20 students who are staring blankly at us.  Bob’s frustration this particular day was related to a simple “experiment” that he tried. 

     When the students came into the room, he gave each person an index card and told them that he had two questions to ask them.  Since no one had to put a name on a card, the students could answer honestly without getting into any trouble.  Question one was, “Did you do the reading that was assigned for last night?  ‘Yes,’ means that you did the reading, and ‘No’ means you didn’t.”  

     He then had them turn the cards over, and he asked a second question.  “I want to know if you told me the truth.  Write either ‘I’m telling the truth,’ or ‘I’m lying.’”   He picked up the cards and ALL of the students said that they did the reading, and ALL of the students said that they were telling the truth.  Good, he thought, so he gave them the regular quiz.  Everybody failed the quiz with the exception of about 4 students.  

     What bothered him the most is that they not only lied about doing the reading, but they also lied about lying.   

     I thought about this a moment and then said, “Maybe when the kids say they did the reading, their idea about reading is different from what you and I think it is.  For some students, it means skimming the passage and looking at the questions at the end.  For others, it may mean reading the first and last paragraph and then standing in the hall before class and asking someone else, ‘What happened in last night’s reading?’”

     This exchange got me to thinking about just how much of what we assign to our  students is actually being read.  Our department, like most English departments across the country, is very classicist. We have built a large portion of our curriculum upon the canon, especially for those in academic and honors classes.  So, I decided to conduct a study of my own to look at how much of what we assign is actually being read. Stay tuned.

 

Why Johnny Won’t Read: Part 1, by Dean Smith

The New York Times posted an article entitled “Study Links Drop in Test Scores to a Decline in Time Spent Reading.”  The article summarizes a report from the National Endowment for the Arts which concluded that young Americans are reading less for fun which closely parallels the decline in reading test scores.  Although reading scores have been improving among elementary aged children, the scores are flat among middle school students and have declined among high school students.  “The data also showed that students who read for fun nearly every day performed better on reading tests than those who reported reading never or hardly at all” (Rich E1).

     The Washington Post, reporting on the same story, summed up the study by stating, “We are doing a better job of teaching kids to read in elementary school. But once they enter adolescence, they fall victim to a general culture which does not encourage or reinforce reading. Because these people then read less, they read less well. Because they read less well, they do more poorly in school, in the job market and in civic life” (Thompson C01).  

     These observations are supported by Schmoker (2006) who stated, “Literacy is pivotal to acquiring  the type of education that is the path to economic and political power. A recent study in England found that the ability to read well is the single best indicator of future economic success” (BBC News, 2002).

     So why aren’t students reading?  In our effort to introduce students to the merits of good literature, we may be turning them off.  In classrooms, we often select what students perceive as long, boring, classic novels that students struggle to read and don’t make any personal connections to.   When English teachers ask students to only read difficult novels that they pick out, then students are most likely not going to become life-long readers.  

     Furthermore, those classic novels that we keep assigning in high school aren’t actually being read.  I saw this played out last year with one of the students I had in American Lit.  Emily was in a homeroom that I was covering, and she was very engaged in reading a novel in the back of the room.  When I asked her what she was reading, she held up a Jodi Picoult book.  I asked Emily how she was able to find time to read that and to read Huckleberry Finn, the assigned novel she was supposed to be reading in class. Emily responded, “I’m not reading Huck Finn.  I just can’t get into it.  And besides, I can’t put this book down.  It is soooo good.”  

     I walked away from that encounter realizing two things.  The first was that Emily, who was in my academic section, was yet another of my many students who wasn’t reading the assigned novel.  Second, I realized that my students will read if given the chance.  Maybe they haven’t given up altogether on reading; they’re just turning up their noses at what I assign.  Stay tuned for Part 2.