Learning to read

Learning to read is not natural

Different stages, different ages

What works with one mightn't work with another

Not all evidence is equal

Post 2

Building on the Simple View of Reading

Conclusion

The ‘artful implementation of pedagogies and interventions that close the circle - from scientific findings translated into practical applications in education and back to addressing problems in education as impetus for evidence-informed theorizations of learning’.This has not happened with some of the studies that come under the banner of SoR.

Findings from laboratory studies are not tested in mainstream classrooms, before being hailed as miraculous, and studies that focused on students with learning difficulties, are not tested on students without learning difficulties before being heralded as the perfect way to teach all students. This is akin to a medication that has helped control nausea in a particular group of patients with a specific illness, being prescribed to the general population to prevent or treat nausea, without clinical trials.

Structured Literacy (SL) is a term often used by commercial phonics programs designed for children with dyslexia or reading difficulties.

SL has been shown to be appropriate for students with dyslexia, as it addresses their core weaknesses in phonological awareness, decoding and spelling. However, some would suggest that SL appears to apply ‘principles of industrial production: linearity, conformity and standardisation’ at a time when we should instead be promoting ‘a creative revolution in Education’.

Key features of Structured Literacy (SL) are identified as: ‘(a) explicit, systematic, and sequential teaching of literacy at multiple levels— phonemes, letter–sound relationships, syllable patterns, morphemes, vocabulary, sentence structure, paragraph structure, and text structure; (b) cumulative practice and ongoing review; (c) a high level of student– teacher interaction; (d) the use of carefully chosen examples and nonexamples; (e) decodable text; and (f) prompt, corrective feedback’.

Recently the debates around the best ways to teach reading have been reignited. The media coverage has been fierce, and is sometimes led by people who have little or no experience in mainstream classroom teaching of language or literacy. Media reports have also been negative and polarising; providing reductionist definitions of reading, simplified solutions to a perceived crisis, and calling for a phonics first (and fast) approach to teaching and assessing reading for all children, without evidence to demonstrate that all children need or benefit from this narrow approach to reading instruction.

Follow a link to listen to a highly regarded Australian academic who argues that Australia’s ‘right-wing media have a lot to answer for in terms of fostering narrow approaches to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment . . .’. In England and the United States of America (USA) the aggressive media commentary on the teaching of reading has contributed to policy mandates that demand or exclude specific literacy instructional practices.

Australia does not have a reading crisis.