Noella Mackenzie

READING, part six: The media say we have a reading crisis now . Do we?

August 21, 2024media representations of reading, Reading, UncategorizedAARE blog, Charles Sturt University, Martina Tassone, media representations of education, Noella Mackenzie, reading, University of Melbourne

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explores what the media say about reading. This is the sixth and final 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?

Five: Why teachers need more than this year’s model

Recently the debates around the best ways to teach reading have been reignited. The media coverage has been fierce, and is often 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.

A highly regarded Australian academic 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.

Crisis? What crisis?

In recent times, media outlets have switched their narrative from the Simple View of Reading (SVR) and the Science of Reading (SOR) (Post 4) to Structured Literacy (SL) (Post 5) and explicit teaching. We dispute the perceived literacy crisis that is so often reported by the media and the idea that the science related to reading, is settled (Post 4). It is the perceived literacy crisis that we tackle here.

Australia does not have a reading crisis. Recently an analysis of 25 years of Australian national and international standardised assessment data, and found that student literacy data have remained consistent, despite different policies and approaches to literacy teaching. Australia has participated in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) test every four years since 2011. Australia’s results improved between 2011 and 2016 and then remained consistent. Table 1 shows the mean scores for Australia, England, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore in 2011, 2016 and 2021.

Country	Mean scores (out of a possible 600)
Country	2011	2016	2021
Singapore	576	576	587
Hong Kong	571	569	573
England	552	559	558
Australia	527	544	540
New Zealand	531	523	521

Table 1 PIRLS data

In 2021, Australia had 80% of students reaching the PIRLs benchmarks. Only six countries achieved higher: Italy (83%), Finland (84%), England (86%), Russia (89%), Singapore (90%) and Hong Kong (92%). Twenty-eight countries had lower scores than Australia in 2021.

Funding and fairness

A continuing trend for Australia is the poor outcomes for students from low SES and Indigenous backgrounds. Perhaps Australia’s literacy outcomes have more to do with funding and fairness than pedagogy.

The data from the 2022 Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA), which assesses the literacy skills of students who are 15 years old, show Australia’s performance is above the OECD average. That’s comparable to America, and slightly above students from the United Kingdom. Eight countries were identified as performing significantly higher than Australia and 68 countries performed significantly lower.

Australia’s performance has remained relatively unchanged since 2015, whereas the United Kingdom’s results have declined. Despite this evidence, some think we would benefit from importing approaches to literacy teaching from England and the US.

Borrowing policy

Countries often “policy borrow” from other countries; despite advice that innovation is more likely to be more effective than borrowing. Highly respected Australian researchers question the appropriateness of Australia looking to the US and the UK for guidance in education.

Australia’s borrowing of educational ideas from other countries is ill-advised. Why do we accept the myths and beliefs underpinning educational innovations almost without evidence or questioning? Is it because of our close links with the UK and the USA, instead of their proven success and transferability? If so, how wise is this?

Others have also questioned Australia’s policy borrowing. They have argued instead for policy learning that takes into account ‘national and local histories, cultures and so on’.

Policy borrowing led to the introduction of standardised testing system based on systems used in the USA and England. It is questionable whether Australia learned from the mistakes of the USA and England when designing NAPLAN. The Phonics Check is another example of policy borrowing.

Why are we borrowing policies from countries that are not doing any better than Australia?

England’s Department for Education (DfE) has acknowledged that “evidence suggests that the introduction of the check has had an impact on pupils’ attainment in phonics, but not an identifiable impact on their attainment in literacy’. Enjoyment of reading by children in England is at its lowest level since 2005.

In addition to the falloff in enjoyment of reading, it is estimated that up to 25% of upper primary school students in England are unable to meet expected reading standards. They also lack the fluency required to extract meaning from age-related texts.

Despite this, a recent Grattan institute report encourages Australia to follow England and the US initiatives to improve literacy learning. That’s despite any evidence to suggest approaches to literacy teaching in these countries work any better than those already operating in Australia.

Follow carefully

When policy shopping perhaps we should choose the countries we follow more carefully. In the republic of Ireland children outperform their English peers in reading without an emphasis on Synthetic phonics. Additionally, Canada’s success, where curricula until most recently were mostly aligned with Balanced Literacy (BL), has largely been ignored.

We contend that policy makers should critically consider what is happening in Australia before adopting policies from other countries that have not been proven to work better than approaches well established in Australian schools, as demonstrated by data. They should also consider the plethora of reading research that is available.

Much is written about reading research. But teachers sometimes only get to read research papers or summaries of papers that their employer has pre-chosen to support current policy or to provide the rationale for proposed changes. Further doubts and insecurities are fuelled by inaccurate media reports of declining reading standards, suggestions that teachers are the cause of this decline, and claims that reading science is settled. A common claim from those outside education, is that teacher education courses have neglected to teach what teachers need to know about reading. That’s despite rigorous teacher education accreditation processes.

A narrow view of reading

Suggested solutions to the perceived reading crisis are often based on a narrow view of reading and reading research. They do not take into consideration the needs or contexts of all learners. At this time the recommended approaches are scripted, commercial packages that prioritise phonics and decoding using texts with phonologically regular words (called decodable texts), and controlled language with limited meaning. These texts were originally designed for use with beginning readers. But publishers have taken up the challenge of creating this style of texts for all primary grades. The outcome? Some schools have removed all of their predictive and authentic texts and those classified as wider reading. They have been replaced by decodable or controlled texts. This is also a time when schools have reduced their investment in libraries and librarians.

An emphasis on phonology and a diet of decodable texts won’t help students become readers who read for pleasure. It won’t prepare them for the texts they will need to read in high school or for that matter, life. This narrow, one size fits all approach to the teaching of reading, cannot possibly meet the needs of all Australian students. It is based on what works with students who have dyslexia or reading difficulties. There is no evidence of transferability into mainstream classrooms. It does not acknowledge that teachers are best placed to make teaching decisions for the students in their classrooms.

Focus on those in need

While we do not agree that there is a crisis in reading in Australia, we do agree that students from low SES backgrounds, Indigenous students, and those experiencing learning difficulties need more focused assistance. Much research has been conducted in this area and should be utilised to make the necessary changes for these students, including funding and staffing measures based upon equity rather than equality.

Teachers must always think critically about research, and the various reading models and frameworks being suggested or promoted and make teaching decisions based on the needs of the students they are teaching, not what is promoted by think tanks or the media. With their theoretical and practical wisdom, along with their content and contextual knowledge, teachers should be supported to make decisions that best meet the needs of the students in their classrooms. As authors of this paper, we are confident that teachers continue to work hard to meet the different needs of the diverse children in their care, despite the many traps in the reading jungle.

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.

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

August 21, 2024Literacy teaching, ReadingAARE blog, balanced literacy, Charles Sturt University, Martina Tassone, Noella Mackenzie, reading, structured literacy, University of Melbourne, whole language

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:

Balancing reading and writing,
Balancing phonics and comprehension,
Balancing Informational texts and Narrative texts,
Balancing direct instruction with dialogic approaches, and
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

READING, part four: Is the science of reading settled?

August 20, 2024ReadingAARE blog, Charles Sturt University, Martina Tassone, Noella Mackenzie, reading, Science of Reading, University of Melbourne

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explore the Science of Reading (SoR) in this fourth post 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?

What do people mean when they talk about the science of reading?

The terms ‘science of reading’ or ‘Science of Reading’ are often mentioned in media reports. Where have these terms come from and what do they really mean? The science of reading (sor) as a term has been used for more than 200 years to describe reading science or reading knowledge. The term has no single definition and is currently used in different ways by different stake-holders.

The sor, (without capital letters) as a “corpus of objective investigation and accumulation of reliable evidence about how humans learn to read and how reading should be taught”. This sor is a rich, and constantly growing source of knowledge, a virtual library of research into reading. It has been contributed to by countless researchers from many different disciplines, with various different methodological approaches and a range of findings related to;

what happens when we read,
why some people find it hard to learn to read, and
the success or otherwise of different instructional approaches with different groups of learners.

Reading research includes;

typically developing learners,
learners who find learning to read difficult,
learners who are learning to read English as extra language or dialect, and
adult learners.

Should it be the Science of Teaching Reading?

In 2021, the construct was expanded to the Science of Teaching Reading. Others have argued in 2024 that we should refer to the integration of science of teaching reading AND science of teaching writing.

The term Science of Reading (SoR, with capital letters) is often used to refer to, or give strength to, approaches to reading instruction that privilege or prioritise synthetic phonics, Structured Literacy (SL) (International Dyslexic Association), or the Simple View of Reading (SVR). SoR has been identified as having a focus on assessed reading proficiency as the primary goal of reading instruction.

Some schools publicise that they are SoR schools and sometimes advertise for teachers who can ‘teach’ the SoR. Some professional learning providers and commercial programs also identify with being informed by the SoR.

This SoR, is ‘characterised by a narrow theoretical lens, an abstracted empiricism, and uncritical inductive generalisations derived from brain-imaging and eye movement data sources’.

It has been argued that ‘neuroimaging does not distinguish the phonological processing of a decoding model of reading from the graphophonic processing of a meaning-centred model’.

The practical wisdom of teachers

SoR activists often criticise teachers’ knowledge and any approaches that don’t align with SoR. But Dehaene, often quoted by SoR advocates as providing the answers for how to teach reading based upon brain scans, suggests the practical wisdom of teachers has an important role to play in the day-to-day decisions of what different children may need. He sums up his concerns in this way:

Our own impression is that neuroscience is still far from being prescriptive. A wide gap separates the theoretical knowledge accumulated in the laboratory from practice in the classroom. Applications raise problems that are often better addressed by teachers than by the theory-based expectations of scientists.

Unfortunately, this SoR movement has led to the breaking down of reading into skills and subskills. It is taking teachers away from the bigger goal of teaching children to become readers who want to read. Some suggest that:

Instruction in sub-skills such as phonemic awareness is justified to the extent it advances the goal of reading, not for its own sake. . . Time spent jumping through PA hoops could instead be spent on activities that expand the knowledge that supports comprehending texts of increasing complexity and variety

Is the ‘science of reading’ settled?

In the last decade alone, over 14,000 peer reviewed journal articles have been published that included the keyword reading based on a PsycINFO search. Our knowledge related to reading is not settled. It is “ever evolving, at times circuitous, and not without controversy”. Other researchers also question the notion of settled science.

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.

What are these findings really?

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.

Our next post will tease out the terms structured literacy, whole language and balanced literacy.

READING, part three: What is the Simple View?

August 20, 2024ReadingAARE blog, Charles Sturt University, Martina Tassone, Noella Mackenzie, reading, University of Melbourne

Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone explore the Simple View of Reading (SVR) in this third post to celebrate Book Week. This describes reading at a single point in time: decoding x listening/ linguistic comprehension = reading comprehension (D x LC = RC).

What we’ve covered so far:

One: How to find your way through the reading jungle

Two: What really works for readers and when

The SVR presumes that, once printed matter is decoded, a reader can “apply to the text exactly the same mechanisms which he or she would bring to bear on its spoken equivalent”. It is not a theory or model of how to teach reading. The SVR is not suggesting that reading is a simple process. These researchers were providing a simple explanation of why some readers experience reading difficulties.

Some advocates have used the SVR as the justification for an emphasis on phonics and decoding first (and fast). This has led to the idea that listening comprehension and reading comprehension happen after decoding. There also seems to be a misunderstanding that decoding guarantees a reader will identify each word in isolation. And then, that reader will be able to bring these words together and understand what has been read.

The opaque nature of the English language makes this almost impossible.

In many cases the meaning of a word (in context) determines the pronunciation of the word, rather than the other way around, e.g. I read on the train in the mornings. I read my book on the train yesterday.

Correct pronunciation does not guarantee meaning

There are many homonyms in the English language. For example, ‘plane’ could be a straight line joining two points OR a level of existence. It could also be a level surface OR an aeroplane. It could also be an open area of land OR a wood working tool.

Despite this, the SVR is often cited as the justification for the use of synthetic phonics programs in the early years of school, and a focus on decoding as the most important problem-solving approach to an unknown word across all grades.

Building on the Simple View of Reading

The SVR has formed the basis for more complex understandings of reading. For example, The Reading Rope diagram (Figure 1) expands the three elements of the SVR and explains the complexity of skilled reading.

‘Decoding’ is described as a subcomponent of ‘word recognition’ and does not automatically lead to comprehension. “Even if the pronunciation of all the letter strings in a passage are correctly decoded, the text will not be well comprehended if the child:

(1) does not know the words in their spoken form,

(2) cannot parse the syntactic and semantic relationships among the words, or

(3) lacks critical background knowledge or inferential skills to interpret the text appropriately and ‘read between the lines’”

The Reading Rope is often used in teacher professional learning sessions, although the language comprehension elements are not always given the same emphasis as the word recognition elements. As a result, word recognition or decoding instruction is often prioritised. That’s despite the fact that reading comprehension requires language comprehension which is made up of background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures (syntax and semantics), verbal reasoning and literacy knowledge. Word recognition should be taught in conjunction with language comprehension if reading comprehension is the goal.

Much more to understand

One of the original developers of the SVR, Tumner, agrees that there is ‘much more to understand about reading than what is represented in the SVR’ and has more recently co-developed with Hoover the Cognitive Foundations of Reading Framework (CFRF).

Figure two: The Cognitive Foundations of Reading Framework (Hoover & Tunmer, 2020)

In the figure above, “each cognitive component represents an independent, but not necessarily elemental, knowledge-skill set that is an essential, hierarchically positioned, building block in reading and learning to read”.

This framework includes ‘background knowledge’ and ‘inferencing skills’ as well as ‘phonological, syntactic and semantic knowledge’. The CFRF also demonstrates the complexity of the reading process.

Numerous other models have been developed from the SVR including the Active View of Reading (AVR). The AVR highlights the ‘key self-regulation skills’ required to manage all aspects of reading. Motivation and engagement are identified as key self-regulatory skills. These are overlooked in some other reading models, but other researchers have identified the importance of seeing reading as not just a technical activity but one that needs to engage hearts and minds.

The SVR does not suggest that reading is a simple process and it is not a model of reading instruction. In the next post we will explore the Science of Reading (SoR) and unpick some of the confusions associated with it.

READING, part two: What really works for readers and when?

August 19, 2024Phonics, ReadingAARE blog, Charles Sturt University, Martina Tassone, Noella Mackenzie, Phonics, reading, University of Melbourne

This morning Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone helped us navigate the reading jungle

We start this afternoon’s post with evidence-based instruction (EBI) and then move to a discussion of phonics/phonemic awareness.

The term ‘evidence-based’ is used widely. It can be appealing even if it is not clear how the evidence being referenced was collected or analysed. Reading related science is complex. Evidence coming from science needs to be viewed from different perspectives and time, so the full picture to emerge. The evidence-based movement includes ‘a focus on behaviourist theory, quantitative research, randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses, hard numerical data and high stakes standardised testing’. It often ignores ‘structural inequalities in pursuit of better outcomes’.

Some claim evidence to support a particular approach. Others use different evidence to claim that the same approach does not work. A common assumption is that if something works with students from one cohort it will work with all students.

Huge differences

Any parent who has more than one child will point out the huge differences, even between two siblings. When they walk, talk, learn to feed themselves, sleeping patterns etc, etc. Take, for example, a class of 25 children who come into school together, from 25 different homes. They may vary in gender and in age, of up to 18 months. They bring more differences than can be counted and qualified.

In terms of preparedness for school, there will be a huge range of prior experiences socially and culturally. There will also be a huge range of experience in terms of oral and written language exposure. To assume all children should start at the same point with the same instruction is naive. (For more on EBI read EduResearch Matters posts by Nicole Brinker and Tom Mahoney. These provided comprehensive discussions of this vexed topic.)

The topic that is the most talked about in the current era is that of phonics or phonemic awareness instruction. While all agree that phonics is necessary for reading, the amount and methods are up for debate. Australia’s National curriculum includes the teaching of phonics. But it also recognises that when reading, children will draw on a range of sources. That includes their knowledge of letters and sounds, what makes sense and knowledge of how language works.

Children who can already read when they start school

Let’s start with the children who can already read when they begin school. It is important for teachers to first check that any children who arrive at school with the ability to read, are able to problem solve unknown words, within text, using phonological information. Children who can already demonstrate the ability to apply phonological information effectively should focus on a wide range of engagements with texts.

Focused, systematic, and explicit phonics lessons should be aimed at children who are just starting to discover, or are still learning, how letters and sounds (phonemes) work in reading and writing. It may be difficult initially to identify those children who we will refer to as typically developing readers. These children make up the majority of most classrooms. Most will need daily focused phonics lessons for the first year of school.

Those who show early signs of struggle

Assessments of children’s reading will efficiently and accurately determine what children know, what they can do. These same assessments can be used to determine when children no longer need phonics teaching for reading. A small group (10-15%) may show early signs of struggle and may possibly be diagnosed as experiencing reading difficulties. These children will need more focused instruction in addition to the daily classroom program.

While phonics is a necessary element of reading instruction, and will probably account for approximately 25-30 mins of daily instruction in the first year of school, there are different methods for teaching phonics.

Synthetic phonics

Synthetic phonics is a particular decontextualised, approach to teaching reading that involves teaching children how to convert letters or letter groups into sounds (phonemes) and then blending these sounds to form words and/or non-words. Commercial Structured phonics programs usually use a synthetic phonics approach. Even the strongest supporters of a phonics first approach question the need for Synthetic Phonics. ”In our view, the evidence is not yet sufficient to conclude that a synthetic phonics approach should be preferred over an analytic one”.

Analytic phonics

Analytic phonics (also referred to as analytical phonics or implicit phonics) refers to an approach that focuses on teaching the sounds (phonemes) associated with particular letter patterns within the context of a whole word.

Embedded phonics

Embedded phonics, integrates phonics instruction into the context of reading authentic texts, rather than being taught as separate, isolated skills. Recent research conducted in Melbourne illustrated the affordances of explicit phonics instruction integrated into a rich literacy environment. It showed the clear benefits for students when phonics was taught in context.

Analytic and embedded methods may be described as contextualised approaches and are often integrated. All approaches to phonics instruction can be systematic and all involve explicit instruction.

Phonics instruction through writing is often overlooked and yet provides the potential for children to explore letter sound relationships from a different perspective than when reading. Instead of going from letter to sound they go from sound to letter. What can I hear? What letters could I use to make that sound?

A concern expressed by some, is how long focused phonics or phonemic awareness (PA) instruction should continue.

The goal is to read

The goal of teaching children to read is reading, not phonemic awareness .

We know learning to read does not require being able to identify 44 phonemes or demonstrate proficiency on phoneme deletion and substitution tasks. How do we know that? Because until very recently no one who learned to read had to do these things. Instruction in sub-skills such as phonemic awareness is justified to the extent it advances the goal of reading, not for its own sake.

Problems with the way phonics is sometimes referred to by advocates of the Science of Reading have also been identified (more on the SoR in a future post)

The idea that a certain level of PA is prerequisite for reading, and that PA training should continue until the student becomes highly proficient at PA tasks regardless of how well they are reading is emblematic of problems that have arisen within the Science of Reading approach. It is an overprescription that reflects a shallow understanding of reading development, yet has become a major tenet of the “science of reading”.

An integrated approach

In 2000, The National Reading Panel (NRP) in the US suggested systematic phonics instruction, although important, “should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a balanced reading program”. The NRP even warned against phonics becoming a dominant component in a reading program. The 2005 Rowe Report on the Australian National Inquiry into the Teaching of Reading stated the importance of systematic phonics instruction. But it also noted it was equally important that . . .

Teachers should provide an integrated approach to reading that supports the development of oral language, vocabulary, grammar, reading fluency, comprehension and the literacies of new technologies.

More recently, it has been argued that the teaching of phonics to typically developing readers should be “contextualised in whole texts, including a focus on comprehension and including the teaching of writing within reading lessons”. This claim is well supported by a seminal 1990 study which compared de-contextualised phonics teaching with contextualised phonics teaching and a ‘business as usual’ control group. Recent research conducted in Melbourne also showed that a contextualised phonics intervention was more effective than de-contextualised phonics because it bridged the learning about phonemes, with input on reading more generally, in order to promote broader transfer of skills.

It’s all about context

Has this started you thinking and perhaps questioning what you may have read about phonics and evidence-based instruction in the media? Tomorrow we explore the Simple View of Reading and how that’s influenced much of the reading research over recent times.

READING, part one: How to find your way through the jungle

August 19, 2024Reading, teaching readingAARE blog, Charles Sturt University, Martina Tassone, Noella Mackenzie, reading, University of Melbourne

To celebrate Book Week, EduResearch Matters is publishing a six part series on reading by Noella Mackenzie and Martina Tassone.

A jungle is a land covered with dense forest and tangled vegetation, usually in tropical climates. The jungle metaphor describes the current landscape in regard to science and reading. The huge amount of research published in the last two decades, the media interpretations or misinterpretations of selected findings, and claims the reading science is settled, are akin to a dense forest. The policies and mandates teachers dealing with are like tangled vegetation. The tropical climate refers to the heat in the debate. In this series of blog posts we try to make sense of the jungle and its dense forests and tangled vegetation, challenge the notion that the science is settled, and take some of the heat out of the debate.

Learning to read

Ever since humans have been writing they have also been reading. A person who could read often taught a learner to do what they themselves could already do. The instructors had no formal training and no access to theories or methods. In wealthy households there may have been a governess or master tutor to teach children to read. But in many households, a literate parent or friend provided the reading instruction. The most common text used for instruction was probably the bible. And these instructors were not teaching 25 students in a classroom. Instead, they were probably teaching highly motivated individuals, who saw being able to read as a way out of their current situation.

In the current climate, we need to consider a range of questions:

Why is the teaching of reading such a hot topic in the current era?
Is learning to read a natural process?
Is reading simple or complex?
Is there a right way to teach reading?
What is the role of phonics, and is there a right way to teach phonics?
What does reading research have to say about learning to read and reading instruction?
What is the Science of Reading?
What does evidence-based actually mean?
What impact has the media had on the debates about reading?

We will respond to these, and many other questions, in a series of 6 blog posts, in an attempt to remove some of the mystery and heat from this topic.

Both authors have taught many children how to read and have decades of combined classroom teacher experience before moving into academic and researcher roles. Both continue to work with classroom teachers in classrooms. Let’s start!

Learning to read is not natural

It’s not a hard wired skill like learning to talk, although a great deal of learning might happen quite organically within the home and community before formal instruction begins. Children who hear stories read aloud and songs and rhymes repeated often, develop an ear for the sounds of written English.

From a young age, many are able to recognise some of the differences between spoken and written language, even if they cannot explain the differences. The child who picks up a book and recites using the patterns and rhythms of picture story books is showing knowledge of written language but does not speak to people in these written language patterns.

In today’s world most people send their children to school to learn to read, but some families choose to homeschool with a parent taking on the instructor role. These parents often have no formal training, although they do have access to resources and curriculum guides. They often respond to their children’s need to learn to read in the same way that they respond to their need to learn to do many other things, (e.g. walk, feed themselves, dress themselves, take turns, share, ride a bike). Children add reading to their set of skills at a time that works for them.

Different stages, different ages

Parents instinctively understand that children learn in different ways and at different ages. School starting age varies greatly across countries. In Australia, while we are having debates about how children learn to read at ages 5 or 6, in some countries children do not start formal schooling (or reading) until 7 or 8 years of age (e.g. Finland). Families who homeschool do not feel the same pressure as teachers in schools. So, what does research tell us about reading?

Reading research has a rich history, a contested and expansive present, and an interesting future, as researchers endeavour to understand what is a multidimensional, neurological process ‘mediated by social and cultural practices’ .

It is difficult to research foundational educational processes that are as complex as reading. In contrast, it is easy to test the effectiveness of letter learning based upon a particular approach to teaching letters. Short-term gains are also easiest to measure and control for, while long term learning is much more challenging to measure and to control for. Additionally, teaching and learning are sensitive to differences among teachers, students and settings.

What works with one mightn’t work with another

Even medical researchers agree that what may work in one situation with patient X, despite being faithfully repeated with patient Y, can have a different effect altogether.

The complexity of the reading act has led to multiple disciplines investigating or researching reading using different theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, some focused on the process of reading, others on the practice of reading and still others on reading instruction. For example, research highlights brain maturation and reading experience.

Reading is a learned skill that is likely influenced by both brain maturation and experience…results suggest that children who are better readers, and who perhaps read more than less skilled readers, exhibit different development trajectories in brain reading regions. Understanding relationships between reading performance, reading experience and brain maturation trajectories may help with the development and evaluation of targeted interventions.

Not all evidence is equal

Perhaps brain maturation and the impact of reading experience deserve further consideration when determining policy and planning instruction. Teachers need access to research evidence in order to make informed decisions about the teaching of reading in their classrooms. Not all evidence is equal. Selective use of limited research by those with a vested interest can give the illusion that the evidence is in, and the reading science is settled, when this is not the case.

In the next post we will continue the discussion of evidence and evidence-based reading instruction.

Why Australia is falling behind in teaching keyboarding and handwriting

September 25, 2017Keyboarding and handwritingkeyboarding, keyboarding and handwriting, Noella Mackenzie

When we write we want to produce a text that can be easily read by our intended audience. For me that means I move back and forth from the computer keyboard to pen and paper to phone, to my tablet. I use most of these just about every day as I create the various pieces of writing I need for specific reasons. What is important in each form is that it is easily understood.

I was taught handwriting at school but my keyboarding and texting skills are self-taught. While I have mastered a fair level of skill I envy my colleagues who can touch type when I see them whizzing around their keyboards. Even so I would not want to be trying to write this blog by hand. A keyboard in various forms is so much part of how we write today.

It is certainly not difficult to understand why senior school students are much more comfortable and efficient using a keyboard than writing by hand. I believe it is crazy that we are still making Year 12 students write essays by hand under exam conditions. At least we could offer a choice between handwriting and keyboarding.

It is however, equally crazy to ask a year 3 student who has not been taught how to use a keyboard efficiently to write an extended piece of writing on a keyboard.

The importance of handwriting to the learning of young children is well researched. We know handwriting is a complex perceptual-motor skill which requires visual motor coordination, motor planning, cognitive and perceptual skills and tactile and kinaesthetic abilities. We also know that handwriting requires sustained attention and sensory processing. It helps in many different and significant ways – supporting letter learning, reading, spelling and thinking. However I am wondering if keyboarding may be the new cursive writing.

Perhaps we could teach children to print first and then add the keyboard. In this way the teaching of cursive writing (the flowing type of writing a child is traditionally taught to use after mastering printing) would be replaced by the teaching of keyboard skills. This is what they are doing in Finland. While the teaching of handwriting has been strengthened in many parts of the world, cursive writing is, in some cases, being removed from the curriculum (Finland) and in others it has become optional (UK and USA).

Teaching keyboarding to young children is not easy in Australia (for all the wrong reasons)

We know that from quite a young age children can spend up to half of their school day involved in some kind of writing across disciplines. So, to expect them to start to use keyboards or tablets from the first few years of school means:

that all children would need access to up to date computers (and for small children these would need to be suitable for small hands and fingers);
the technology will need to be combined with appropriate furniture so that children can sit comfortably for long periods of time looking at a computer screen (my Osteopath tells me he sees lots of young adolescents who are having neck and shoulder problems from spending so much time looking down at screens – phones and tablets);
all schools would have the funds to provide the ongoing IT support to do the necessary trouble shooting to ensure the computers are trouble free (teachers are not IT experts);
all schools would have up to date software and the funds to continually replace technology that is often out of date not long after it comes out of the packaging;
all teacher education courses would be given the time, equipment and staffing to provide teacher education students with the skills they will need to teach touch typing and keyboard use; and
all teachers would have the necessary skills and ongoing professional development support to teach ‘touch typing’ and efficient keyboard skills.

I asked about some of these things in a survey of Australian teachers and parents in 2016 (434 teachers, 79 retired teachers, 336 parents of children attending school and 17 parents who were home schooling). Here are some of the responses in regard to availability of computers or tablets in Australian classrooms:

Only 37.6% of teachers who responded to the survey, said they had enough computers for each child in their class; a further 10.4% had enough computers for most children and a further 14% had computers for half their class. That means that 38% of teachers who responded could not provide even half their children with computers. 14.8% claimed to only have 2-3 computers in their rooms. Some who said they could access a class set of computers, said that these computers were in a computer lab, shared by other classes. Often they were timetabled to visit the computer lab only once per week.
While 56.7% of teachers said they felt they had the skills to teach keyboarding skills – that means 43.3% do not.
Only 40.8% of teachers said they liked teaching keyboarding skills, which means 59.2% do not.
Only 2.7% of teachers said they had received any professional development relating to the teaching of keyboarding skills in the past 5 years. Mind you, only 9.9% had received any professional development related to the teaching of handwriting in the past 5 years. Perhaps this is one of the reasons teachers are so unsure about this important topic.

So let’s be practical. Unless governments massively increase funding and support across Australia (they should) our schools are not likely to start to efficiently and equitably teach keyboarding skills to young children in the near future.

In the meantime in Australia, we must continue to teach students how to write efficiently and automatically by hand, so they can express themselves meaningfully in written language and fully engage in the learning opportunities provided at school (as per the requirements of the Australian Curriculum). This means teachers and teacher education students need to receive a clear message about the importance of continuing to teach handwriting to young children.

Mind you, I would advocate for continued instruction in handwriting in the early years even if we did have computers for every child. The skills and learning attached to handwriting are not automatically subsumed into keyboarding. In fact the skills used are very different and there is no research that I can find that can demonstrate that keyboarding can totally substitute for these. For example, while both promote fine motor skill development, they are distinctly different. Handwriting is more closely aligned with creative tasks like drawing and painting. In France, for example, handwriting is classified as an important creative skill for all children.

As for the future: how do we even know we will be using keyboards? Perhaps within just a few years we will see ‘voice recognition’ or ‘digital ink’ (which requires handwriting) as the systems of choice. There even may be new tools for communication and new ways to teach and learn to write that we haven’t thought of yet. I suspect, unless we pick up on what is happening in our schools, Australia might be left behind.

Noella Mackenzie is a Senior Lecturer in literacy studies at Charles Sturt University, Albury. She provides CSU students with current, authentic learning opportunities and assessment tasks which link contemporary literacy and relevant technologies with teaching and learning theories, practices and pedagogies. For the past 8 years, Noella has focused on the teaching and learning of writing. The program of research has included (1) the examination of the relationship between drawing and learning to write, (2) the transition experiences of early writers and (3) writing development in the early years. In August of 2016, Noella worked with a colleague in Finland researching what Finnish children know and can do, in terms of writing, and how their teachers support their ongoing learning. Her research informs, and is informed by, her ongoing professional work with teachers in schools and her university teaching. Noella has been recognised for teaching excellence through awards at the state and national levels.

Keyboarding, handwriting or both for 21st century learning?

June 6, 2016Handwritinghandwriting anf keyboarding, Handwriting in the 21st century, Noella Mackenzie

Think about the writing you do each day and what tools you use to do it. If you are anything like me, you jump from one screen to another, from tapping away with your fingers to holding pencils and pens to write in notebooks, on shopping lists and in your diary. You probably have not thought much about it.

For instance I am writing this blog on my laptop having just replied to a text on my smart phone and added some notes to my paper diary using a pencil. I do have an electronic diary, but after a bad experience of losing 6 months of diary entries from my electronic diary I now have both paper and electronic. You might be like me there too!

Literacy in the 21^st century

This is the world our children are experiencing. The way they are becoming literate in the 21^st century is so different to the way most adults today became literate.

We became literate in a time when literacy was reading, writing, speaking and listening, and life moved a little slower. (When I started my career we used the phone to speak to someone who was in a different location. Now I text or email more than I actually speak on the phone. )

But today 21^st century texts are increasingly multimodal. They are created using different modes working together. A picture book is an example of a very simple multimodal text (images plus written text) whereas a webpage, or a movie, are both very complex multimodal texts with images, sound, movement and written text (even movies use writing in titles and credits and don’t forget subtitles). Children of today do not know a world without mobile phones, tablets and computers. They often learn to swipe a touch screen before they learn to hold a pencil. So where is this taking us?

Technology in schools and handwriting

You might be surprised to know that half the tasks primary school children do at school every day involve writing. While some may think that this is done using technology, the reality is that is not the case. While schools strive to provide technology in many of our classrooms access is limited and issues with software, hardware and security and constant. Consequently, most of the writing our children do in primary schools at least, is handwritten. Is this a bad thing?

I am reliably informed that even in schools that are wealthy enough to provide (or require) that every child has their own laptop, there is a recognition that children still need to learn to write by hand.

I would like to know more about the attitude of teachers to handwriting and how they use it in schools today. I also want to know what parents of school aged children feel about what is happening for their children in terms of handwriting and keyboarding.

What research so far says about handwriting

There is a sound theoretical basis and mounting evidence to suggest that the relationship between handwriting and quality of written text is strong and surprisingly robust. It is certainly important when children are learning their letters. They learn the name of the letters, the sounds they make in different words, how the letters looks and importantly how to form or create the shape of the letters. There are also important connections here to how we remember.

Even adults remember more of what they write by hand than what they write on keyboard or tablet.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also teach children how to use keyboards, although there is some research to suggest that keyboard skills should build on from the skills of handwriting. According to Stevenson and Just (2014) it is more effective to teach keyboarding skills in Year 5 or later. Interesting.

What is important to learn when it comes to handwriting?

We can form letters in different ways and use a variety of styles. What is important is that the processes of letter formations are efficient. Most scripts have been designed with advice from experts in the area of fine motor control and posture.

Good pencil grip is important

Likewise, pencil grip. The recommended pencil grip is designed to allow the writer to write efficiently without straining the fingers, hand and arm muscles.

Handwriting is best understood as having efficient ways to write letters and words that lead to written text that can easily be read by both writer and other interested people. It is not about neatness, perfection or any particular script.

When letter formations are taught, children learn efficient ways of forming letters. When children rely on copying letters they can create inefficient processes that can become habitual. When children are guided to hold their pencil correctly at an appropriate time in their development, they develop an appropriate grip that will work for their fingers, hand, wrist and arm.

This can start before they start to learn to write, when they are drawing, and can be well established before they start to learn how to form letters and write words. If however, we don’t take notice of how they hold their pencil a poor pencil grip can also become habitual and very hard to change even though it is placing strain on the hand, wrist and arm.

It’s not just young people who use a mixture of handwriting and keyboarding today

I wonder what you were taught at school in terms of handwriting and keyboarding. My 90-year-old mother was taught Copperplate, and still has beautiful handwriting. While she doesn’t use a computer keyboard, she does text on her phone and use one finger to find her way around her tablet.

I was taught how to print (good old ball and stick) and then graduated to cursive at the same time as I graduated to a pen in primary school. I am self -taught when it comes to keyboarding. I so wish I could touch type. It would make the writing I do so more time efficient. But touch typing was not seen as a skill for students in the academic strand when I was at school.

What is happening in our schools today with the mixture of handwriting and keyboarding?

This is the topic of my current research. I am looking at what is happening in schools with the mixture of handwriting and keyboarding. I am interested in the attitudes and experiences of teachers and parents around handwriting and keyboarding.

If this topic has tweaked your interest, perhaps you would like to respond to the confidential online survey. It is available now and closes on June 30.

My survey is for primary school teachers and parents of school-aged children. Go HERE to do it

Reference List available on request: nmackenzie@csu.edu.au

Noella Mackenzie is a Senior Lecturer in literacy studies at Charles Sturt University, Albury. She provides CSU students with current, authentic learning opportunities and assessment tasks which link contemporary literacy and relevant technologies with teaching and learning theories, practices and pedagogies. Noella is a member of the Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education (RIPPLE). For the past 8 years, Noella has focused on the teaching and learning of writing. The program of research has included (1) the examination of the relationship between drawing and learning to write, (2) the transition experiences of early writers and (3) writing development in the early years. In August of 2016, Noella will work with a colleague in Finland researching what Finnish children know and can do, in terms of writing, and how their teachers support their ongoing learning. Her research informs, and is informed by, her ongoing professional work with teachers in schools and her university teaching. Noella has been recognised for teaching excellence through awards at the state and national levels.

Learning to write in Year 1 is vital: new research findings

November 23, 2015learning to write, Literacy teaching, teaching writingJanet Scull, learning to write, Noella Mackenzie, teaching writing, Terry Bowles

By the time children are eight they can spend up to half their day at school involved in a range of lessons that require them to write. Consequently, children who struggle with writing can be seriously disadvantaged.

My colleagues and I decided to investigate what was happening with the teaching and learning of writing in the vital second year of schooling, Year 1.

Learning to write is quite different to learning to read

Learning to write is quite complex and it is a skill we develop over a lifetime. Many adults find writing at work quite challenging. From that perspective it is quite different to learning to read. Most people can read quite well by about mid primary school and then difficulty is only determined by the content, context and familiarity with the language being used.

Learning to write however, has been likened by one researcher as similar to learning to play a musical instrument, it takes dedication, good teaching and lots and lots of practice to master. In the USA, research that explored adults’ ability to write suggests that poorly written job applications are a problem for many aspiring job seekers and many salaried employees in large companies require intensive writing instruction so they can write at the necessary standard for their jobs.

So what makes writing so complex you might ask? Firstly it is physical (handwriting or typing) but secondly it requires thinking and planning at lots of different levels simultaneously.

Authorial and secretarial writing

Specifically, writing involves two different groups of skills: authorial and secretarial.

The authorial writing skills are those involving understanding how to create a particular kind of written text (e.g. a business letter or a report), how to construct sentences in an appropriate way for the particular text and how to choose the best words to make your intended message clear to the reader. The secretarial writing dimensions or skills are focussed on spelling, punctuation and either handwriting or keyboarding.

We use quite different writing styles when we write for different purposes and audiences. For example, I write a lot in my role as a university academic but this is my first blog posting. I have had to think about how to write this blog posting quite differently to the way I think when I write a research article for a research journal. Children often start their formal writing with recounts but they then learn how to write narratives, letters, reports, persuasive texts and more.

Bringing the authorial and secretarial skills together is quite demanding for writers.

If a writer is concentrating on one or more secretarial skills it is harder for them to think about the authorial skills. Think about it as trying to keep lots of balls in the air at the same time.

What our study involved

In our study we were interested in how children in year 1 were managing the authorial and secretarial writing skills. We gathered samples from schools in NSW and Victoria at the middle and end of year 1. We analysed the samples using a tool which we designed for this purpose. (For details on the tool we used and to see some of the samples we collected please go to the Writing Analysis Tool HERE.)

Our findings

Our study provides interesting reading. Some of the findings were:

Children made improvement in all writing dimensions from the middle to end of Year 1, suggesting this is an important period of learning for them.
Across the samples the growth in sentence structure (an authorial skill) spelling, handwriting and punctuation (secretarial skills) were smaller than the growth in text structure, vocabulary use (both authorial skills). Sentence structure and punctuation showed the smallest amount of change from the middle to the end of the year.
Children were allowed to choose what they wrote about and most chose to write recounts (e.g. On the weekend I went to the football . . .)
Samples were examined in relation to each participating school’s Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) score as an indicator of Socio-Economic Status (SES). We found that in the middle of year 1, samples from schools with low ICSEA scores were not as strong as those schools with average or high ICSEA scores on all of the authorial and secretarial dimensions. However, by the end of the year, samples from children attending schools with low ICSEA scores had improved and had actually caught up with the children from schools with high ICSEA scores in terms of sentence structure.
Girls in the study performed marginally but consistently higher than boys on all dimensions at both data collection times. It is important to note however, that many boys achieved the mean scores for the girls.
We had a small number (40) of students in the study for whom English was an additional language. On average these children demonstrated scores on all dimensions at both data collection times that were marginally lower than the children for whom English was their first language. It is important to note however, that the EAL children’s gains between data collection points were greater than the non EAL children in 4/6 dimensions (text structure, sentence structure, vocabulary and handwriting). While they hadn’t yet caught up with their non EAL peers, they were making good strides towards doing just that.
In the second round of data collection, there was an interesting relationship between spelling and text structure.

Where to from here

Success with the authorial dimensions of writing means a child can organise their writing using a format which is appropriate for the intended purpose (e.g. a report or letter), write in grammatically correct sentences and carefully choose words so that readers can easily understand their intended message. Success with secretarial dimensions means a child can use tools like spelling, punctuation and handwriting (or keyboarding), to be able to write easily and efficiently and make their writing easy to read.

Our research can help teachers pinpoint children’s writing strengths and needs and track their progress. Teaching can become more focused in this way. We believe teachers of writing in the early years of schooling will find our research useful in their everyday classroom practices.

Dr Noella Mackenzie is a Senior Lecturer in literacy studies at Charles Sturt University, Albury. She provides CSU students with current, authentic learning opportunities and assessment tasks which link contemporary literacy and relevant technologies with teaching and learning theories, practices and pedagogies. Noella is a member of the Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education (RIPPLE). For the past 8 years, Noella has focused on the teaching and learning of writing. The program of research has included (1) the examination of the relationship between drawing and learning to write, (2) the transition experiences of early writers and (3) writing development in the early years. Her research informs, and is informed by, her ongoing professional work with teachers in schools and her university teaching. Noella has been recognised for teaching excellence through awards at the state and national levels.

The full study by Noella Mackenzie, Janet Scull and Terry Bowles is available HERE