August.21.2024

READING, part five: why teachers must have more than this year’s model of literacy

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explore structured literacy, whole language and balanced literacy. This is the fifth post on reading to celebrate Book Week. What we’ve covered so far:

One: How to find your way through the reading jungle

Two: What really works for readers and when

Three: What is the Simple View of Reading?

Four: What is the Science of Reading?

Reading models do not automatically translate to classroom practice. Instead, it is the knowledgeable and skilful teacher who translates models or theories into classroom practice. A teacher’s beliefs may steer them towards a particular model or theory. 

For example, teachers who believe reading for meaning is critical at all stages of reading, are more inclined to align with a model that embeds meaning throughout all stages of instruction. In contrast, a teacher who believes decoding is at the heart of reading, will align more comfortably with a model or theory that requires a strong emphasis on phonics and decodable text use. 

The reality of Australian classrooms

The teacher who has access to multiple models and a range of possible pathways, can work flexibly. This caters for the diversity of students that is the reality of Australian classrooms in the current landscape. 

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’.

SL has been shown to be appropriate for students with dyslexia, as it addresses their core weaknesses in phonological awareness, decoding and spelling.

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

Commercial programs in question

The quality of commercial programs has also been questioned. Researchers examined over 100 Commercial phonics programs and found considerable problems. For example: 

  • One program introduced the sound /t/ but then provided a follow-up activity that featured words in which the /t/ phoneme did not occur, for example the word ‘the’. 
  • Another example was an activity where children had to identify words that commenced with the /æ/ phoneme such as ‘A’ for apple, but also included images representing words that do not contain /æ/, as in ‘A’ for apron. 

Researchers were also concerned that the linguistic inaccuracies in some of these programs could confuse both teachers and children. Some also used gimmicks and avoided using correct terms to describe phonemes-graphemes.  An additional concern was raised about commercial programs used in pre-schools. It required children to engage in ‘busy’ work, such as colouring in worksheets, as well as drill, practice and memorisation. The ‘individual needs of students and the professional autonomy of teachers’ are de-centred by commercial  programs .

There is no research to demonstrate the benefits of SL scripted programs for mainstream classes . There is no research to demonstrate the benefits of SL scripted program for typically developing readers who make up 85-90% of students in most classrooms. SL programs are designed for the 10-15% of children experiencing learning to read difficulties. 

Why our students need skilled teachers

We believe students need knowledgeable and skilled teachers who can create differentiated teaching opportunities to meet the needs of all children; commercial programs simply cannot provide this.

Whole Language instruction refers to an approach which focuses first and foremost on whole texts. It uses these to teach the small parts of language, including words and letters. In the 1980s and 1990s, whole language was a growing movement of teachers, bearing affinities with learning centred, literature-based, multicultural classrooms in the UK and other parts of the English-speaking world including New Zealand and Australia. Whole language teachers use authentic texts or trade books (children’s/ Young Adult fiction, non-fiction, poetry, magazines, etc.) and children’s writings rather than readers and textbooks.

Some advocates of whole language believe that “for some children, a minimum of teaching, and sufficient exposure to print supported by interaction with more advanced readers including family members, is enough to learn to read”. However most children will need explicit instruction to learn how to read.

Whole language is sometimes incorrectly confused with balanced literacy

Balanced Literacy (BL) describes an approach used by many teachers in Australian classrooms until recent policy changes. BL continues to be the dominant approach in Canada, continually successful on the international literacy stage. However Ontario has recently added a Synthetic Phonics element to their curriculum. A Balanced Approach is also common in the republic of Ireland, which consistently does very well in international assessments. The term ‘balanced’ is used to describe how a knowledgeable teacher works to respond to constantly shifting student needs, in the day-to-day teaching of Literacy. There are  five ways to balance literacy learning:

  1. Balancing reading and writing, 
  2. Balancing phonics and comprehension,
  3. Balancing Informational texts and Narrative texts,
  4. Balancing direct instruction with dialogic approaches, and
  5. Balancing whole class instruction and small groups.

BL also offers a teacher a way of being able to cater for the diverse needs of their students. BL classrooms also focus on oral language and include shared reading, guided reading, independent reading, read aloud and writing activities that help students make connections between their reading and writing.

A brand new model

The Double Helix of Reading and Writing is a new instructional reading and writing model. The authors argue that their “model provides a rationale and evidence base for a balanced approach to teaching reading and writing . . .[and argue that] the practice of systematic phonics teaching should be carefully integrated with other main elements in reading and writing lessons and activities in early years and primary education”.

Tomorrow: the impact the media has on the teaching of reading

Noella Mackenzie is an adjunct associate professor at Charles Sturt University. Her areas of research and expertise include the teaching and learning of literacy. Martina Tassone is a senior lecturer in teacher education at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include literacy teaching, learning and assessment in the early years of schooling.

Republish this article for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.

10 thoughts on “READING, part five: why teachers must have more than this year’s model of literacy

  1. Rhonda Hoare says:

    Congratulations Noella and Martina on your thorough exploration of the Reading Writing dilemma. You constantly refer to ‘the knowledgeable teacher’. How does one enable teachers to become knowledgeable? How do we assist the transfer of knowledge into practice? So much current conversation focuses on developing an understanding of a variety of approaches to ‘the what’ of the different approaches or on increasing ‘funding’ to improve outcomes.
    Unless we begin to focus on how we assist teachers to develop deep understanding of children’s diverse learning pathways and literacy learning processes (note the change in terminology from reading/writing to literacy) we will still be leaving children behind in years to come. Excellent, well researched articles, after school staff meetings and online learning will not lead to change in learning outcomes. We now need to focus on giving pre service, classroom teachers and school leaders professional learning opportunities that are in depth, long term , reflective and focused on literacy learning and teaching situated firmly in child centred practice. Creating change requires a strong knowledge base combined with multiple opportunities to implement, trial, reflect and retrial in a variety of situations with guidance from colleagues and a more knowledgeable expert. This will require time and significant funding. Our children are worthy of this investment.

  2. Noella MACKENZIE says:

    Thank you for taking the time to provide such reflective, thoughtful comment Rhonda. We agree that the knowledgeable teacher is critical to any teaching and learning context. We also agree with you in regard to the need for quality ongoing professional learning. This starts of course, in teacher education but should continue throughout a teacher’s career, in order to develop that deep understanding. Our children have different needs and even the most experienced teacher must be prepared to be surprised by their students strengths and needs. We learn so much from the children we teach but we often need, as you mentioned, support from colleagues and other more knowledgeable others. The mentoring of early career teachers is a fabulous first step.
    We also agree that we need to be talking about literacy rather than reading, writing, listening and talking. These processes are of course reciprocal. Thank you again for your interest in this important topic.

  3. Rhonda Hoare says:

    Thank you for responding Noella. I loved the way you have divided the controversial topic into focused, digestible sections. I hope your work will be widely read, discussed and reflected on.
    Best wishes, Rhonda

  4. Anna Lisa says:

    Hi
    Regarding your statement:
    “There is no research to demonstrate the benefits of SL scripted programs for mainstream classes . There is no research to demonstrate the benefits of SL scripted program for typically developing readers who make up 85-90% of students in most classrooms. SL programs are designed for the 10-15% of children experiencing learning to read difficulties.”

    Are you aware of Direct Instruction (DI) (scripted programs) and the 50+ years of independent research that support their efficacy with all types of students, particularly those with learning difficulties? Beginning with Project Follow-Through, the largest educational research study ever conducted, and including a meta-analyses of hundreds of independent research studies? Please refer to the NIFDI website: https://www.nifdi.org/research/history-of-di-research.html

    There are also many Australian studies to support DI scripted programs, including one by Dr Kerry Hempenstall. DI is supported by many educational researchers and academics, including Dr Lorraine Hammond and is used by schools like Mastery Schools Australia and many other Australian schools with outstanding success. Please feel free to contact me on lisa.mcneil@mheducation.com if you would like more information, or to discuss. I refer only to DI scripted programs (capital D, capital I) not other scripted programs that cannot claim the same independent research to support or validate their efficacy.

  5. Noella MACKENZIE says:

    Thank you for your interest Lisa, and for taking the time to comment. Within the limited space provided in a blog on what was a huge topic we did not include many things that could have added to our discussion. We are aware of Direct Instruction and the success of DI in particular, with students who are experiencing learning difficulties. Our issue is not with SL or DI, rather it is the application of scripted programs, (designed to be used with students experiencing difficulties) being used in mainstream classrooms with typically developing students. We were unable to find research supporting the use of these programs in this way. We are certainly not questioning their efficacy with students with learning difficulties. As you identify, Mastery Schools provide an educational alternative for students who are disengaged or at risk of disengaging from mainstream schooling. We also acknowledge that most teachers would move in and out of different types of instruction depending on the needs of their students.

  6. Anna-Lisa McNeil says:

    Hi Noella

    Thank you so much for taking the time to respond and for clarifying your comment. I think maybe there is some confusion around the use of DI program as ‘mainstream’ programs or as Intervention programs.

    The programs that are used widely as ‘mainstream’ programs and core curriculum include Reading Mastery (Signature and Transformations editions) and Connecting Maths Concepts. These programs are placement tested initially so that all students enter the program where they are at, whether they are below level, on-level or exceeding year level expectations. Students are then streamed at ability level and regularly tested throughout the program to check progress and move groups if needed. There are many research studies that support the programs being used that way and are highly effective for all learners regardless of their initial starting point. There are massive district-wide adoptions in the US that use the programs that way. That said, often these programs are also used for intervention in smaller groups.

    Then there are programs that are only used for intervention – Corrective Reading and Corrective Maths being the most common. Again, a wealth of evidence to validate their efficacy.

    Thanks again for listening!

    Kind Regards
    Lisa

  7. Noella MACKENZIE says:

    Thanks Lisa,
    We appreciate you taking the time to engage and clarify.
    There is certainly a great deal of language in the literacy teaching and learning space that hold different meanings in different contexts. I am reminded of the comic that shows a speaker addressing a group of people – each person has a thought bubble that shows their understanding and engagement with the speaker – all quite different – but all nodding in agreement. We so often use the same terms but have different experiences or understanding of those terms. Having worked in Special Ed, Early Intervention and mainstream teaching, I can attest from first hand experience how language and how it is used, can cause problems. What you describe is teacher decision making based upon careful assessment and observation of needs. It is this flexibility for a teacher to respond to each student’s needs as they grow and learn that is critical to good teaching. In the first year of school in Australia there can be up to 18 months difference in age – from 4 1/2 to 6. This gap is huge. Add varied experiences prior to school and we have even more differences. These age, development and learning gaps follow students throughout their schooling. One size will never fit all.

  8. Dianne says:

    As a Teacher of the Deaf with the Visiting Teacher Service, I am in and out of many schools each week and see a LOT of different teachers, teaching styles and programs used. One of the biggest changes I have noticed of late is the lack of “word charts” in class rooms/on desks etc. to help students write – in fact writing seems to have taken a back seat to phonics! Students “sound out” or guess every word, and nothing is corrected. Teachers often do not provide the correctly written word but ask the child to ” sound it out” and ” have a go” – how this works for the students who will not ” have a go” unless they know they will do it correctly is another mystery…
    As per your comments on “Commercial Programs” – I suspect that this is the reason behind the biggest issue I see in junior classrooms – the fact that EVERY teacher (prep classes in particular) confuses letter names and letter sounds. Students are given a work sheet with missing letters, or page of letters to trace over/copy – and are told to “write the /t/ or the /b/ – while pointing to the printed letter b ! I have not heard any teacher make the distinction between the 2. Yet to me unless you are using the IPA you cannot ” write” the sound ( the closest standard approximation is to write t = /t/ to distinguish the letter from the sound).
    I sometimes wonder – does no one else notice or have an issue with this? Because you need to know both! When do children learn that the name of the letter and the sound it makes are 2 separate things? Pointing to a printed letter B and telling the child to write a “buh” makes no sense to me!

  9. Noella MACKENZIE says:

    Hi again Dianne. You have just highlighted one of my pet hates – I spend so much time and had done for years saying ‘we hear sounds – we write letters – we do not write sounds!” ‘That is the letter Bb and it makes a ‘buh’ sound at the start of the word big but no sound at all at the end of the word lamb’ I do not understand where this has come from but it is everywhere – you are quite correct. I also argue that I do not know what sound the letter will make until it is in a words – for example ‘Aa’ in away, cat, ask, saw, tea, was and said. When we attach a sound to a symbol in isolation we can make it very confusing for learners. Why is it so hard to say ‘this letter’ makes ‘this sound’ in this word?
    I think we could have a lively conversation about this Dianne. Thank you for engaging with the blog.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from EduResearch Matters

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading