1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:07,320
This is the Reading Instruction Show. I'm your host as always, Dr. Andy Johnson, or

2
00:00:07,320 --> 00:00:13,240
trying something a little bit different when adding a video component to this. This is part

3
00:00:13,240 --> 00:00:20,240
three of a series of podcasts focusing on an article that Jessica Winter has written

4
00:00:20,240 --> 00:00:29,040
called The Rise and Fall of Vibes-Based Literacy. This was published in The New Yorker on September

5
00:00:29,040 --> 00:00:36,480
1. Now, Jessica Winter is an editor at The New Yorker where she also writes about family

6
00:00:36,480 --> 00:00:44,200
and education. She wrote this article. I'm spending time analyzing it in this series

7
00:00:44,200 --> 00:00:52,880
of podcasts because it misdescribes reading instruction on a way that is hard to imagine.

8
00:00:52,880 --> 00:00:59,720
So doing it perfectly represents the misdescriptions and ununderstandings of the science of reading

9
00:00:59,720 --> 00:01:06,080
movement. Now, normally I wouldn't waste a lot of time on a clown like Jessica Winter

10
00:01:06,080 --> 00:01:13,280
as stated in an earlier podcast. A clown in literacy terms is one who thinks they know

11
00:01:13,280 --> 00:01:18,640
a great deal about literacy when, in fact, they know relatively little. They know so

12
00:01:18,640 --> 00:01:25,280
little that they don't even know how little they know. And what makes a clown a clown is

13
00:01:25,280 --> 00:01:32,400
that they go around making decisions, promoting policies and advocating change based largely

14
00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:40,360
on personal anecdotes, I thinkisms, and selected bits of research. Now, if one limits one's

15
00:01:40,360 --> 00:01:48,640
clownism to the privacy of one's own home, clownery would not be a problem. But when

16
00:01:48,640 --> 00:01:55,520
clowns with large platforms like Jessica Winter and Emily Hanford use their large platforms

17
00:01:55,520 --> 00:02:02,840
to spread clownery like an infectious disease, we must waste our time and energy creating

18
00:02:02,840 --> 00:02:10,320
an intellectual prophylactic. This is time that could have been spent actually helping

19
00:02:10,320 --> 00:02:19,320
children achieve their full literacy potential. Now, Jessica Winter and Emily Hanford's intention

20
00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:28,240
may be good, but intent doesn't negate impact and intent is not a free ticket to ignorance.

21
00:02:28,240 --> 00:02:36,520
So let me do some explaining here. The International Literacy Association was formerly known as

22
00:02:36,520 --> 00:02:43,320
the International Reading Association. It was founded in 1956. It's been around for

23
00:02:43,320 --> 00:02:51,360
67 years and currently has over 300,000 members. The National Council of Teachers on English

24
00:02:51,360 --> 00:03:04,600
founded in 1911 has been around 112 years and has over 25,000 members. That's 325 current

25
00:03:04,600 --> 00:03:12,920
members of these two organizations consisting of researchers, scholars, teachers, writers,

26
00:03:12,920 --> 00:03:21,120
educators, professors, and parents from all over the world. And along comes Emily Hanford

27
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:30,240
who says, I think I know more than these people. After all, I'm a journalist. And along comes

28
00:03:30,240 --> 00:03:38,000
Jessica Winter who says, I think I know more than all these people. After all, I'm a journalist

29
00:03:38,000 --> 00:03:46,080
and I watched my kindergarten daughter try to sound out words in an online lesson. So

30
00:03:46,080 --> 00:03:53,920
they unpack their journalistic, I think, ism kits and go about infecting the masses. Meanwhile,

31
00:03:53,920 --> 00:04:02,360
I'm left here and try to offer a little clown penicillin with my little, little tiny podcast.

32
00:04:02,360 --> 00:04:10,160
So let's take a look first at what Jessica Winter got right. In her article in the New

33
00:04:10,160 --> 00:04:17,040
Yorker, Jessica Winter describes what she calls vibe-based literacy. And this again

34
00:04:17,040 --> 00:04:24,800
is based on her experience watching her kindergarten daughter's reading instruction, online reading

35
00:04:24,800 --> 00:04:32,960
instruction during COVID. So she writes in her article and I'm quoting here, it seems

36
00:04:32,960 --> 00:04:41,160
to me that rather than learning to decode a word using phonics by matching sounds to

37
00:04:41,160 --> 00:04:47,520
letters with close adult guidance, a reader following this method, and I don't know what

38
00:04:47,520 --> 00:04:54,800
she's referring to in method, a reader following this method is conditioned to look away from

39
00:04:54,800 --> 00:05:03,080
the word in favor of the surrounding words or accompanying illustration to make a quasi-educated

40
00:05:03,080 --> 00:05:10,800
guess, perhaps all on her own. It seems possible that my kid's scattered self-directed reading

41
00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:18,560
style wasn't entirely a product of her age or her temperament. To some extent, it had

42
00:05:18,560 --> 00:05:26,960
been taught to her. Now let's start, unquote by the way, let's start with what Jessica

43
00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:35,440
Winter got right. In the first second, she wrote, it seemed to me. And later she wrote,

44
00:05:35,440 --> 00:05:43,760
it seemed possible. Those are the two things that Jessica Winter got right. It seemed to

45
00:05:43,760 --> 00:05:52,880
her. She's doing a bunch of seeming here and we can all agree on that. She came to conclusions

46
00:05:52,880 --> 00:06:01,040
about all of New York's literacy instructor based on what she seemed. And these seemed-based

47
00:06:01,040 --> 00:06:08,240
conclusions are what's called an I think-ism. Instead of relying on a body of research related

48
00:06:08,240 --> 00:06:15,280
to child development and reading instruction, she came to a conclusion based on what she

49
00:06:15,280 --> 00:06:22,720
seemed to think should or shouldn't be. I think-isms is a common cognitive operation

50
00:06:22,720 --> 00:06:30,160
used in the clown club to come to understand reading instruction. So let's unpack Jessica

51
00:06:30,160 --> 00:06:38,400
Winter's first I think-ism. She, in a sense, is saying this. She's saying I seem to think

52
00:06:38,400 --> 00:06:45,520
that kindergarten students reading instruction should consist of learning to decode words using

53
00:06:45,520 --> 00:06:53,120
phonics and she's seeming here. And she is saying I seem to think kindergarten students should learn

54
00:06:53,120 --> 00:07:01,520
to match sounds to letters with close adult guidance. And again she's seeming here. And

55
00:07:01,520 --> 00:07:08,400
Jessica Winter goes on to write a reader following this method. I don't know what method she's

56
00:07:08,400 --> 00:07:15,280
referring to here, but since the opening paragraph in her article is talking about reading workshop,

57
00:07:15,280 --> 00:07:21,680
we have to assume that this is what she's talking about. However, as I said and I need to repeat it

58
00:07:21,680 --> 00:07:29,120
because she doesn't seem to get it, reading workshop is not a method with step by steps.

59
00:07:29,120 --> 00:07:36,720
It's an approach to reading instruction. It's not a method with specific steps. Reading workshop

60
00:07:36,720 --> 00:07:44,320
does not dictate a specific method. And most teachers using reading workshop, I would say all

61
00:07:44,320 --> 00:07:52,960
of them teach letter-style relationships using very direct and very explicit instruction.

62
00:07:54,480 --> 00:08:01,840
In fact, in reading workshop it's more direct because phonics instruction occurs directly

63
00:08:01,840 --> 00:08:10,080
in the context of which phonics is used in real reading. Jessica Winter's second I think-ism

64
00:08:10,080 --> 00:08:17,440
is this. She says I think students in readers workshop are conditioned, not taught. They are

65
00:08:17,440 --> 00:08:24,480
conditioned like a mouse in a skinner box to look away from individual words instead of looking at

66
00:08:24,480 --> 00:08:31,200
surrounding words or illustrations. They're conditioned to look away from individual words and

67
00:08:31,200 --> 00:08:37,280
instead look at surrounding words or illustrations. That's what Jessica Winter's saying with this

68
00:08:37,280 --> 00:08:47,360
I think-ism. And she uses the word conditioned. Really? Is it operant condition or classical

69
00:08:47,360 --> 00:08:54,400
conditioning? Operant conditioning or classical conditioning are rewards given every time your

70
00:08:54,400 --> 00:09:01,760
child looks away from a word? Is your child given a mild electric shock every time she looks at the

71
00:09:01,760 --> 00:09:09,920
word? Jessica Winter says these students are conditioned. I want to know exactly what this

72
00:09:09,920 --> 00:09:19,600
conditioning might look like. Or perhaps it's not conditioning at all. Perhaps she didn't mean to use

73
00:09:19,600 --> 00:09:28,080
that buzzword. Perhaps she meant to use the word taught. That it's a lesson taught to kindergarten

74
00:09:28,080 --> 00:09:36,320
students using direct instruction. Okay, fair enough, but what would this lesson look like? What would

75
00:09:36,320 --> 00:09:44,240
the input be? Would it be something like this? Boys and girls, see this word? Look away! Look away

76
00:09:44,240 --> 00:09:51,520
from it! Today we're going to teach you how to look away from words. Or maybe it went like this.

77
00:09:51,520 --> 00:09:59,600
Boys and girls, see this word? Guess what it is? Or boys and girls, see this word? Don't look at the

78
00:09:59,600 --> 00:10:06,160
letters. No matter what you do, don't look at the letters. Instead, guess what you think it might be.

79
00:10:07,520 --> 00:10:15,520
Or maybe it went like this. Boys and girls, we learn to read using the guess method. We just

80
00:10:15,520 --> 00:10:22,960
guess at every word we see. Yeah, Jessica, I bet you it went like that. By the way, Jessica,

81
00:10:22,960 --> 00:10:29,920
I'm guessing this is how you learn to do journalism. When doing journalism, were you conditioned

82
00:10:29,920 --> 00:10:36,400
to look away from the facts and then focus instead on surrounding conditions and the emotional picture?

83
00:10:36,400 --> 00:10:43,520
Is that what you are conditioned to do? Well, here is the facts. Jessica, in a

84
00:10:43,520 --> 00:10:50,640
meaning-based approach to reading instruction, such as reading workshop, very direct and explicit

85
00:10:50,640 --> 00:10:59,040
phonics instruction occurs. And it's not the what of phonics instruction, rather it's the how

86
00:10:59,040 --> 00:11:06,480
and the how much of phonics instruction. That's an issue here. And just because you don't understand

87
00:11:06,480 --> 00:11:14,480
the how or can't perceive the how or can't imagine the how doesn't mean the how doesn't exist.

88
00:11:16,240 --> 00:11:24,320
A famous philosopher and thinker once said, send in the clowns, don't bother there here.

89
00:11:25,840 --> 00:11:32,560
Now, let's look at kindergarten and developmentally appropriate practice. Another thing to consider

90
00:11:32,560 --> 00:11:39,520
about Jessica Winters, I think, is that she used her daughter's COVID kindergarten online

91
00:11:39,520 --> 00:11:46,800
reading experience to generalize to all of New York's reading curriculum. Her daughter was in

92
00:11:46,800 --> 00:11:54,560
kindergarten and kindergarten looks much different from first grade. And there's a reason for this.

93
00:11:54,560 --> 00:12:04,000
It's because kindergarten is not first grade. In kindergarten, children are at a developmentally

94
00:12:04,000 --> 00:12:10,000
different place than they are in first grade. And what's developmentally appropriate in first

95
00:12:10,000 --> 00:12:17,360
grade is often not appropriate in kindergarten. Now, a little bit of learning here for you, Jessica

96
00:12:17,360 --> 00:12:26,400
and Emily. Jean Pieds-Jay did some foundational research back in the 30s and 40s, looking at the

97
00:12:26,400 --> 00:12:34,080
thinking of children. This was good qualitative research where he observed actual children.

98
00:12:34,880 --> 00:12:40,320
It didn't involve controlled experimental research. And according to the science of reading criteria

99
00:12:40,320 --> 00:12:48,560
on what constitutes scientifically based research, this wouldn't even be research. And according to

100
00:12:48,560 --> 00:12:54,560
the national reading panel, this would not be scientifically based research. It wouldn't count.

101
00:12:55,600 --> 00:13:02,640
Yet in 1936, Pieds-Jay's research fundamentally changed the way we think about education and go

102
00:13:02,640 --> 00:13:11,760
about educating children. He influenced education in a very profound way. Yet there wasn't a control

103
00:13:11,760 --> 00:13:19,680
or experimental group in sight. How is that possible? But Pieds-Jay found that children

104
00:13:19,680 --> 00:13:26,960
think in fundamentally different ways than adults do. He also found that intelligence and thinking

105
00:13:26,960 --> 00:13:33,920
develop in a series of stages as we move through infancy, infancy through adults. And he identified

106
00:13:33,920 --> 00:13:41,040
four stages. The first one, sensory motor from birth or age two. Here, one's thinking is based on

107
00:13:41,040 --> 00:13:48,880
the senses. What one sees, hears, feels, tastes, and it's influenced by the child's ability to move

108
00:13:48,880 --> 00:13:56,000
about to see the world in three dimensions. This impacts how the brain develops. They know the

109
00:13:56,000 --> 00:14:03,760
world through seeing, tasting, feeling. Pre-operational, about ages two to seven. Pre-operational stage

110
00:14:03,760 --> 00:14:12,080
and operation here is a thinking process. It's the ability to take in information and use it,

111
00:14:12,800 --> 00:14:22,560
versus simply responding to it. This pre-operational stage is a pre-reasoning stage. The child is not

112
00:14:22,560 --> 00:14:31,680
able to use logic in a formal way. If A, then B, they're not quite able to do that. Pre-operational.

113
00:14:32,480 --> 00:14:37,840
And that's kindergarten, ages two to seven or so. And these ages are approximations.

114
00:14:38,720 --> 00:14:45,360
Concrete operational, this is first grade, ages seven to 11. This is the beginning,

115
00:14:45,360 --> 00:14:54,400
the beginning of formal logic. Here, you're able to use a cognitive operation, a thinking process,

116
00:14:54,960 --> 00:15:03,520
to manipulate knowledge. And formal operation, ages 11 through adulthood, this is the beginning

117
00:15:03,520 --> 00:15:09,680
of the ability to use abstractions and more advanced forms of logical thinking. There's a

118
00:15:09,680 --> 00:15:16,160
monumental shift in students' ability to think as they move from kindergarten to first grade.

119
00:15:16,720 --> 00:15:24,400
They move from the pre-operational before logic to concrete operational logic. That's very concrete.

120
00:15:24,400 --> 00:15:32,640
That's why reading instruction in kindergarten should look much different than reading instruction

121
00:15:32,640 --> 00:15:42,720
in first grade. To be effective, instruction must be developmentally appropriate. In kindergarten,

122
00:15:42,720 --> 00:15:49,840
children will not learn effectively if instruction is not developmentally appropriate.

123
00:15:51,040 --> 00:15:57,600
So let's take a look at the push-down curriculum in kindergarten. What you don't want in any

124
00:15:57,600 --> 00:16:03,040
circumstances in kindergarten, but what the Science of Reading Clown Club is pushing,

125
00:16:03,040 --> 00:16:10,880
is what's called the push-down curriculum. This is when a first grade curriculum is pushed down

126
00:16:10,880 --> 00:16:19,200
into kindergarten. This is based on a whole lot of I thinkisms or seems to me kind of thinking.

127
00:16:20,400 --> 00:16:26,880
I guess you could call it pre-operational thinking. The pre-operational thinking here

128
00:16:26,880 --> 00:16:34,560
is that if you start children earlier, that they'll be further along down the road. This is very

129
00:16:34,560 --> 00:16:42,240
pre-operational. Jessica Winter seems to be wallowing in pre-operational thinking. And I'm sure

130
00:16:42,240 --> 00:16:51,680
that seems to make good sense. It seems to be right if you've never read any Piaget or anything

131
00:16:51,680 --> 00:16:59,040
about child development. It makes good sense to start formalized reading instruction in kindergarten.

132
00:17:00,400 --> 00:17:07,360
However, research shows that children do not benefit from formalized reading instruction

133
00:17:07,360 --> 00:17:15,520
until around age seven in first grade. Starting formalized worksheets-based first grade reading

134
00:17:15,520 --> 00:17:23,520
instruction at the age of five is of little benefit. As a matter of fact, it can be detrimental,

135
00:17:24,560 --> 00:17:32,320
creating experiences of failure and frustration for some. It can result in learning experiences

136
00:17:32,320 --> 00:17:41,600
that are forced upon young children that aren't natural or enjoyable and create an aversion to

137
00:17:41,600 --> 00:17:50,720
learning. What do you say? No reading instruction? What? What? No, I didn't say no reading instruction.

138
00:17:50,720 --> 00:17:59,040
I said formalized worksheets-based first grade reading instruction. Reading instruction should

139
00:17:59,040 --> 00:18:06,960
be started in developmentally appropriate ways at birth. Well, what about filets? We must teach

140
00:18:06,960 --> 00:18:13,680
phonics. What about the children? Who's going to protect the children? And before you get all

141
00:18:13,680 --> 00:18:19,200
wopped up about it, start waving your penguin flippers in the air. Let me say that this does

142
00:18:19,200 --> 00:18:26,800
not mean you don't teach reading or you don't teach phonics. Quite the opposite. Phonics is taught

143
00:18:27,520 --> 00:18:34,880
very directly and very explicitly in good kindergarten classrooms in developmentally

144
00:18:34,880 --> 00:18:42,080
appropriate ways. Well, what would that look like? Well, let me tell you what it would look like.

145
00:18:42,720 --> 00:18:47,920
For example, the D sound might be taught in the context of a book about Dave the dog.

146
00:18:48,480 --> 00:18:54,240
Children would be asked to manipulate letters on cookie sheet activities. You might write

147
00:18:54,240 --> 00:18:59,200
and read stories about dogs. You might look for D words in books. There might be D games

148
00:18:59,200 --> 00:19:05,520
and manipulatives. There'd be D songs and riddles and poems. This is how children learn. There might

149
00:19:05,520 --> 00:19:12,000
even be activities such as dance or movement in which children would be asked to move their bodies

150
00:19:12,000 --> 00:19:23,280
in certain D waves. The point is young children learn through play and exploration and talk.

151
00:19:23,280 --> 00:19:31,920
There'd be planned and systematic play, exploration and talk based on the letter D. There'd be short

152
00:19:31,920 --> 00:19:40,800
bits of very explicit and very direct instruction lasting one to two minutes. This would take place

153
00:19:40,800 --> 00:19:47,920
in the context of authentic reading, writing, thinking, and play activities. This is what

154
00:19:47,920 --> 00:19:54,240
research says. A full gamut of research, not one or two controlled experimental studies.

155
00:19:56,240 --> 00:20:04,000
And many of the effects of play based types of learning activities have a very strong

156
00:20:04,000 --> 00:20:13,120
basis in research. These don't transfer to an online environment. Now, if you knew nothing about

157
00:20:13,120 --> 00:20:21,280
literacy, early literacy, or child development and had no intention of finding out, I could see

158
00:20:21,280 --> 00:20:29,040
why this stuff may have seemed to you other than it is. But there you have it. It's not the stuff

159
00:20:29,040 --> 00:20:36,000
that is the problem. It's rather your seeming about the stuff. And remember, good reading

160
00:20:36,000 --> 00:20:44,400
instruction does not teach children to merely sound out words. Good reading instruction teaches

161
00:20:44,400 --> 00:20:51,840
children to be and become literate. To use thinking, reading, and writing for real purposes,

162
00:20:52,480 --> 00:21:00,160
not to fill in bubbles in the artificial world of standardized tests. Now, let's take a look at

163
00:21:00,160 --> 00:21:06,800
balanced literacy. Clowns, and again, I use the word in the most complimentary way possible.

164
00:21:07,360 --> 00:21:13,360
Clowns in the clown club throw around this term balanced literacy as if it's a swear word,

165
00:21:13,360 --> 00:21:21,760
a majority. Bet on literacy. You in there. Bet on literacy. Jessica Winter does this in her article.

166
00:21:21,760 --> 00:21:30,080
Same with Emily Hanford. Jessica Winter uses her seeming to muddle up balanced literacy.

167
00:21:30,080 --> 00:21:36,720
And with units of study with teachers college, and I would ask this of Jessica and Emily and the

168
00:21:36,720 --> 00:21:46,320
other clowns, define what you think balanced literacy is. What is it? Now, it's one thing to

169
00:21:46,320 --> 00:21:54,480
hear the term. It's another thing to know what the term is. Now, maybe when you first read the term

170
00:21:54,480 --> 00:22:01,040
balanced literacy in a book, maybe you only looked at the letters. Maybe you didn't look at any of

171
00:22:01,040 --> 00:22:09,360
the words around it. Maybe that's why you don't understand what balanced literacy is. You see,

172
00:22:09,360 --> 00:22:17,520
Jessica, there are times when it's necessary to look at the surrounding words. It helps you

173
00:22:17,520 --> 00:22:25,680
understand what you're reading. Now, this is what balanced literacy is. And I'll say this very slow,

174
00:22:25,680 --> 00:22:34,000
asking that Jessica and Emily listen not only to the individual words, but the words surrounding

175
00:22:34,000 --> 00:22:40,880
the individual words, so that you understand what I'm talking about. Let's start with what

176
00:22:40,880 --> 00:22:50,160
balanced literacy is not. It's not an approach or method. Balance literacy also does not ignore or

177
00:22:50,160 --> 00:22:57,600
diminish phonics instruction. It does not promote the queuing approach, whatever that is.

178
00:22:57,600 --> 00:23:03,520
Balance literacy does not teach children to guess at words. And balanced literacy is not a

179
00:23:03,520 --> 00:23:12,640
communist plot to overthrow America. Balance literacy is a continuum, a continuum with

180
00:23:12,640 --> 00:23:19,680
explicit skills instruction on one end and meaning-based activities on the other end.

181
00:23:20,320 --> 00:23:26,080
Balance literacy says that in any classroom, there should always be a balance between the two.

182
00:23:26,080 --> 00:23:34,160
However, there's a sliding structure between the two ends of the continuum that gravitates

183
00:23:34,160 --> 00:23:40,160
towards either end, depending on the needs of the students. Some students need more of this,

184
00:23:40,160 --> 00:23:46,640
some need more of that. There is no standardized approach, but there should be 10 elements in a

185
00:23:46,640 --> 00:23:52,560
comprehensive balanced literacy approach, phonemic awareness, phonics and word work,

186
00:23:52,560 --> 00:23:59,520
activities to develop all three word recognition systems, activities for word identification

187
00:23:59,520 --> 00:24:06,640
and instruction, daily reading practice, social interaction, authentic writing, comprehension,

188
00:24:06,640 --> 00:24:13,600
instruction, vocabulary or word knowledge, and attention to the affective elements, motivation

189
00:24:13,600 --> 00:24:23,920
and emotions. All 10. These are the 10 elements and they each exist to the degree to which each is

190
00:24:23,920 --> 00:24:29,920
necessary with the students that you're working with. You wouldn't see any of these 10 in every

191
00:24:29,920 --> 00:24:34,720
lesson, that would be silly, but over the course of the week, you could expect to see most, if not all.

192
00:24:35,520 --> 00:24:39,600
And of course, when children are reading comfortably at reading level one, phonemic

193
00:24:39,600 --> 00:24:45,440
awareness should be discontinued. And when they're reading comfortably at reading level two,

194
00:24:45,440 --> 00:24:54,240
phonics instruction should begin to taper. Now, in your article, Jessica, you state, this is you

195
00:24:54,240 --> 00:24:58,960
speaking, it's not me, I'm not making up your words, you're saying there's a longstanding

196
00:24:58,960 --> 00:25:04,240
consensus among researchers that intensive phonics and vocabulary building instruction

197
00:25:04,240 --> 00:25:12,160
and approach often referred to nowadays as the science of reading, that these are essential.

198
00:25:12,160 --> 00:25:18,560
You're saying that intensive phonics instruction is essential, vocabulary building instruction

199
00:25:18,560 --> 00:25:25,680
is essential. Well, let's break this down. What do you mean by longstanding? How long is longstanding?

200
00:25:25,680 --> 00:25:32,240
Is it like 112 years? As long as the National Council of Teachers of English have existed?

201
00:25:32,240 --> 00:25:40,400
Or is it 56 years? As long as the International Literacy Association has existed? How long is it?

202
00:25:40,960 --> 00:25:47,040
And who are these nameless, faceless researchers? What is a researcher? Are they the researchers

203
00:25:47,040 --> 00:25:53,120
who prove that nine out of 10 dentists recommend Crest Truth-Based? Are they the same researchers

204
00:25:53,120 --> 00:26:01,760
who prove that you need to wait an hour after eating before you go swimming? Everybody believes

205
00:26:01,760 --> 00:26:08,160
that phonics instruction should be part of an early reading, a part of early reading instruction.

206
00:26:08,160 --> 00:26:15,920
Everybody believes that Jessica and Emily. But let's take a look at what the National

207
00:26:15,920 --> 00:26:23,600
Reading Panel report says. Absolutely. This is the Bible quoted by the Science of Reading

208
00:26:23,600 --> 00:26:31,120
Clown Club. Let's see what they actually say. What this report says about phonics and balanced

209
00:26:31,120 --> 00:26:35,600
reading instruction. And this is going to blow your mind so you may want to sit down just a

210
00:26:35,600 --> 00:26:43,520
little bit, Emily and Jessica. The limited impact of phonics. It says phonics instruction failed to

211
00:26:43,520 --> 00:26:48,400
produce a significant impact on the reading performance of low-achieving readers in grades

212
00:26:48,400 --> 00:26:55,760
two through six. Wow. Wow. Low-performing readers two through six. Limited impact.

213
00:26:55,760 --> 00:27:01,520
But what do we do with struggling readers? We give them more of what has a limited impact.

214
00:27:02,160 --> 00:27:08,240
That doesn't seem research-based. Impact of phonics on comprehension is limited.

215
00:27:08,800 --> 00:27:15,760
You read to comprehend, don't you? It says that phonics instruction contributed only weekly,

216
00:27:15,760 --> 00:27:22,000
if at all, and helping poor readers apply these skills to actually read text. Isn't that why we

217
00:27:22,000 --> 00:27:28,640
do phonics? Not to score well on phonics sheets, but to actually read. And the report said that

218
00:27:28,640 --> 00:27:34,560
there were insufficient data to draw any conclusions about the effects of phonics instruction with

219
00:27:34,560 --> 00:27:41,760
normally developing readers above first grade. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself.

220
00:27:43,520 --> 00:27:50,480
All right. What does it say about balanced literacy instruction? The National Reading Panel report

221
00:27:50,480 --> 00:27:55,680
said programs that focus too much on teaching of letter sound relations and not enough on

222
00:27:55,680 --> 00:28:05,280
putting them to use are unlikely to be very effective. Students need to apply their skills

223
00:28:05,280 --> 00:28:13,440
in daily reading and writing activities. It says that systematic phonics instruction

224
00:28:13,440 --> 00:28:23,040
should be integrated with other reading instruction to create a wait for it, wait for it, balanced

225
00:28:23,040 --> 00:28:30,880
reading program. Quality literature should be included in a reading program. Phonics

226
00:28:32,000 --> 00:28:38,240
should not become the dominant component of a reading program. It said that programs that

227
00:28:38,240 --> 00:28:46,000
focus too much on phonics with little time spent practicing reading books are likely to be ineffective.

228
00:28:50,240 --> 00:28:56,000
Well, well, I know that phonics is important. How should it be taught? What program should we buy?

229
00:28:56,000 --> 00:29:02,800
The National Reading Panel said this. There are several ways to teach phonics. Synthetic phonics,

230
00:29:02,800 --> 00:29:11,760
analytic phonics, embedded phonics, analytic phonics or analogy phonics or large unit phonics,

231
00:29:11,760 --> 00:29:19,120
onset rhyme phonics, phonics through spelling. All approaches are equally effective.

232
00:29:20,560 --> 00:29:27,600
And let's end with vocabulary. Since they insisted that reading instruction should consist only,

233
00:29:27,600 --> 00:29:34,400
apparently, of intensive phonics instruction and vocabulary building instruction,

234
00:29:35,760 --> 00:29:42,960
these are fancy-salary words. But we know everyone knows that attending to vocabulary

235
00:29:42,960 --> 00:29:50,320
is important. But what does vocabulary building instruction look like? Tell me, Jessica and Emily,

236
00:29:50,320 --> 00:29:58,080
you're the experts. What does it look like? It's one thing to say it, but what does it mean? Know

237
00:29:58,080 --> 00:30:06,560
this, that children learn between 3,000 and 5,000 words a year. They don't learn these for a vocabulary

238
00:30:06,560 --> 00:30:14,240
worksheet. So what does your vocabulary building instruction look like? It seems to me, Emily and

239
00:30:14,240 --> 00:30:21,280
Jessica, that you think that early reading instruction consists mostly, if not exclusively, of intensive

240
00:30:21,280 --> 00:30:27,760
phonics and vocabulary building instruction. Is that right? Well, I'm sure you want to be

241
00:30:27,760 --> 00:30:36,480
research based in these conclusions. Can you find me just a couple of legitimate studies that

242
00:30:36,480 --> 00:30:45,360
compares an approach using intensive phonics and vocabulary building instruction to a meaning-based

243
00:30:45,360 --> 00:30:54,560
approach of instruction consisting of the 10 pillars? Not on the ability to do phonics worksheet,

244
00:30:54,560 --> 00:31:01,680
but the ability to create meaning with print in the impact that it has. If so, please send the study

245
00:31:01,680 --> 00:31:08,640
my way. I'll be happy to delete this podcast and make another one. This has been the Reading

246
00:31:08,640 --> 00:31:33,920
Instruction Show. As always, I'm your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.