Well before the sparkling new Australian Curriculum 9.0 endorsed replacing predictable texts with decodable texts in early years classrooms, demand had begun to grow for decodable books. They are called ‘decodable books’ because almost all of the words are decodable for beginning readers who have just started to learn the alphabetic code. They are written specifically to provide a scaffolded way for students to practice reading words using the phonics knowledge and skills they are learning. They are closely aligned with a phonics scope and sequence so, as a child’s knowledge of phonics grows, the number and complexity of words they can decode also grows. Used properly, high quality decodable books also draw students’ attention to the meaning of what they are reading. Decodable books are best viewed as an instructional tool that is used for a limited time. Eventually, all books are decodable but not at the start of instruction.
Decodable books are never recommended as a replacement for shared reading of storybooks and picture books in all stages of learning. Shared reading means hearing the text and looking at the text as well as the pictures and other features – not just listening to it. Storybooks and picture books (and non-fiction) are important for oral language, vocabulary, comprehension, and the sheer delight of books. However, in an evidence-based approach to reading instruction, where students are always encouraged to decode unfamiliar words using phonics as a first strategy, decodable texts are recommended to replace predictable texts for reading practice. Predictable texts are designed to encourage students to use the inefficient and inaccurate ‘three-cueing method’ for reading unfamiliar words, which in practice means guessing what the word is using context and picture clues. They contain many words that beginning readers would only be able to work out by guessing.
There is a detailed comparison of decodable and predictable books, and a summary of the evidence supporting the use of decodable books, is in an earlier post that can be read here.
Since that post was published, a new research report has been released — A systematic review of decodable and levelled reading books for reading instruction in primary schools: An evaluation of quality research evidence (Birch et al., 2022). It has been shared by teachers and principals to a mixed response. It is sometimes being used as a justification not to use decodable texts in initial reading instruction. Read More
When the draft of the revised Australian Curriculum was released for consultation last year, the response was swift and emphatic from hundreds of reading scientists and well-informed educators and parents familiar with the scientific evidence on reading and literacy. They were dismayed that the draft curriculum did not reflect the accumulated evidence on reading and writing that has been published and disseminated over the past thirty years or more. Instead, the draft curriculum retained content that endorsed out-dated approaches to literacy teaching, based on the now disproven whole language methods that are to blame for thousands of students leaving school without adequate literacy skills. To their credit, the federal and state education ministers agreed with this assessment and instructed ACARA to take note.
The Next Steps report prepared by the Quality Initial Teacher Education review panel was finally released last week after a three month wait. It hits the mark nicely in many respects. It covers some familiar territory: the status of the teaching profession, attracting highly capable candidates, better practical placements as part of ITE, and improved early career experience. These things are no less important than they have ever been and need ongoing attention and improvement.
What distinguishes this report from its many predecessors is that it addresses the issue that previous reviews have dodged – how to ensure universities and other ITE providers are accountable for the quality of their courses.
There are few things more disheartening in my work life than having to spend precious time unpicking and rebutting the destructive work of high status academics in elite institutions, in the hope that it won’t undo years of hard-won progress toward better reading instruction and outcomes.
The latest example is a paper by Professor Dominic Wyse and Professor Alice Bradbury. Wyse and Bradbury are from the Institute of Education, University College London. Wyse and Bradbury have written a paper called ‘Reading wars or reading reconciliation: A critical examination of robust research’, published in Review of Education and described in a report in The Guardian as a “landmark study”.
It is not a landmark study. It’s groundhog day — another paper in a long line of studies and reports that try to prove that synthetic phonics is ineffective.