This is the reading instruction show.
I'm your host is always Dr. Andy Johnson.
The topic of today's podcast is this two causes of ineffective reading instruction.
Now let's define our terms.
Ineffective reading instruction is instruction in which children a.
Do not move forward in their ability to create meaning with print.
B. Learn to dislike reading and C. Do not engage in voluntary reading.
Now nobody wants ineffective reading instruction even though it seems like some people like
Emily Hanford and Louisa Mote's even though it seems like they get up every day and say
hmm how can we promote ineffective reading instruction.
But ineffective reading instruction seems to be rampant and we're going to look at
just two causes of ineffective reading instruction.
Cause number one it's called the myth of standardization.
It is erroneously assumed that students are standardized products and that a standardized
one size fits all program can be purchased and implemented with fidelity with great success.
All we have to do is buy the right program and this is based on the crazy wacky nutty
idea that all struggling readers are the same and it's based on this inaccurate assumption
that a struggling reader in black water Arizona needs the exact same program implemented in
exactly the same way as a struggling reader in a dynamic in a soda or new castle Australia
or Mumbai India pardon me and Karachi Pakistan.
So schools buy expensive overly complex reading programs that don't work and then teachers
must struggle to make the child to fit the program instead of making the program fit
the child.
And when the expensive reading program doesn't work as is inevitably the case what do you
think happens next.
Well, they force the child to do more of what isn't working so it won't work even more
or they blame the teacher or they blame the parents or they look for another program to
buy and groups like the science of reading these advocates are pressuring school districts
to buy these very expensive one size fits all programs that have been approved by science
of reading experts who in reality seem to know nothing about reading and even less about
reading science.
Now wouldn't life be grand if good reading instruction was simply a matter of buying
the right overly expensive reading program and implementing it with fidelity in our teacher
preparation programs we could strap all the child development classes and ed psychology
classes and get rid of all the teaching methods courses think how much money we would save.
We could instead have only one or two program implemented courses where students would learn
to read and follow the directions with fidelity and the title of my next book would be by
the right overly expensive program.
But children are not standardized products and what works with one person or group does
not always work with another and by the way reading programs don't teach children to
read there's not a program in the world teachers do.
We must invest in teachers which means professional legitimate professional teacher professional
development.
The second cause of ineffective reading instruction is a lack of understanding related to the reading
process more specifically inaccurate information about how the brain creates meaning with print.
So the idea is get in the way of new understandings and understandings also get in the way of new
understandings.
Now let me explain the lack of success with struggling readers is connected with correlated
with the simplistic understanding of reading that's prevalent within the radio documentary
community that's prevalent outside the literacy experts community.
Based on the phonological processing model here reading is thought to be just sounding
out words instruction based on this model consists of sounding out word instruction with the
goal of creating good sound or outers.
However, there's very little transfer of the sound or outer skills to authentic reading
situations and there's no significant improvement in reading comprehension.
That's the phonological processing model that reading is simply sounding out words.
Now the neurocognitive model that's in contrast this provides a more complete understanding
of reading based on the latest research and cognitive science neuroscience eye movement
and miscue analysis here reading is understood to be creating meaning with print instruction
based on this model consists of multiple types of activities and experiences that are used
to develop the cognitive processes necessary for students to create meaning with print.
Reading is not sounding out words it's creating meaning with print.
Now the neurocognitive model of reading is based on two theories the cognitive constructive
learning theory and the interactive theory of reading.
Now according to the interactive theory of reading reading is creating meaning with print
but during the active reading what's in the head interacts with what's on the page to
create meaning hence the name interactive theory.
And again reading is not simply sounding out words it's creating meaning with print we
use what's in our head to make sense of what's on the page that's why when our head is full
of stuff we can read more successfully and comprehend more about that stuff.
I know a lot about reading instruction when I read books about reading instruction that
interacts I read quickly I comprehend a lot when I read about financial planning there's
nothing in the head I read slowly I comprehend little what's in the head interacts with
what's on the page.
Now let's take a look at the three queuing systems and I know Emily Hanford and Louisa
Mott's and all you science of reading monkeys your little flags are going up but listen carefully
as we are reading we use the knowledge stored in our cortex to constantly reach out and
micro predict the words in the sentences as we're reading I movement research, miscue
analysis others show that this is called recognizing words different from identifying listen carefully
these micro predictions enable our brain to work more efficiently our brain uses three
queuing systems to make these micro predictions to recognize words during the act of reading
these queuing systems are the semantic the syntactic and the graph of phonetic they're
called queuing systems because they cue the brain as to what the next word might possibly
be they're called systems because they interconnect and interact with these other systems to work
in conjunction they don't work separately they work together and I can hear the squeal
of the phonics penguins right now they're saying teaching children to use queuing systems
doesn't work doesn't work he's ruining America what about the children who protect the children
mothers for liberty mothers for liberty to these penguins I would say take the fish out
of your ears and listen we don't teach queuing systems that's not what it is if you're going
to be against something for God's sakes at least understand what that something is to
understand the three queuing systems you must first understand the difference between recognizing
words and identifying words recognizing words is seen a word on the page and instantly knowing
what that word is however when we encounter words on the page that are still in our lexicon
that's the dictionary in our head if they're in our lexicon we don't recognize them we
must identify them identifying words as when you consciously employ some strategy to figure
out what that word is hmm I don't recognize it I will use this strategy there are four
word identification strategies that we consciously employ morphemic analysis morpheme is the
smallest unit of meaning looking at parts of the word we recognize analogy or large
unit phonics looking for letter patterns context clues or semantics and phonics yes
four and each of these word identification strategies should be taught using very direct
and very explicit instruction we teach word identification strategies not just one is the
science of reading people would have it but all four we don't teach queuing systems you
include activities to develop them so that students are able to recognize words automatically
or almost automatically using a minimum of cognitive space in short term memory the three
queuing systems semantic this is the most efficient of the three in terms of space and
speed required in our working memory semantics refers to meaning as you read you use context
and background knowledge to recognize words and figure out what the next word might be
the syntactic queuing system syntax has to do with grammar and the structure of the language
as your brain reads you also use your knowledge of grammar set and structure word order tense
plurality prefixes suffixes nouns and verbs and function words to recognize words this
is the second most efficient queuing system but it works in conjunction with the other
two the third one the phonetic or phonologic queuing systems uses letter sounds to predict
what the next word might be we use minimal letter clues and of the three queuing systems
this is this one is least efficient in terms of cognitive space why because it focuses
on individual letters and letter patterns instead of words and ideas doesn't mean we
don't teach it no but know this working memory has a very limited capacity it can hold about
seven bits of information seven plus or minus two for about 15 seconds before it begins
to fade we can hold just a few letters or we could hold a few words or a few ideas and
since ideas contain far more information than individual letters it's more efficient
to focus on ideas or meaning rather than individual letters this has been the reading instruction
show I am your host as always Dr. Andy Johnson we have been talking about two causes of ineffective
reading instruction and I'll just share I have three more the third cause and I won't
go into it but its teachers have been disempowered the fourth cause classrooms have become overcrowded
and underfunded and the fifth cause of ineffective reading instruction is testing madness.
All right we'll talk about these other three in the next podcast.