Groundhog day for reading instruction

 

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.

Read More

What the ‘Dubbo study’ tells us about background knowledge and reading comprehension

Is a lighthouse just a lighthouse?

The contribution of background or content knowledge to reading comprehension is becoming better understood (see for example, here, here, here, and here) and there are long-standing concerns about persistent differences in literacy levels among rural and metro students, and Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.

Put these things together and you have the basis for an important experimental question: Would students in a rural area with a relatively high Indigenous population perform better on reading comprehension assessments if they were likely to be familiar with the content?

Continue reading

When should reading instruction begin?

by Nicola Bell, Jennifer Buckingham, Kevin Wheldall, Robyn Wheldall, and Anna Desjardins*

 

People sometimes raise the question of when the optimal time is for children to begin to learn to read. This is especially relevant for parents of children who are home schooled, or who attend schools where the preference is to start reading instruction later (such as Steiner schools), but it is also an interesting question to address more generally.

By formal reading instruction, we mean systematic and explicit instruction in reading and understanding text, with assessment and intervention to ensure students are making good progress. In the years prior to the onset of formal reading instruction, a focus on language development (oral language and phonological awareness), the alphabet, and daily experiences with books and writing, at home and in early education settings, are encouraged. 

In the absence of experimental randomised control trials on the outcomes of students who start learning to read at age 5 vs. 6 vs. 7 years old, we need to consider other types of evidence and reasoning about when students should begin formal literacy instruction.

Read More

‘Clarity’ leaves schools leaders in the dark on the science of reading

 

The book Clarity: What matters most in learning, teaching, and leading (Sharratt, 2019) is on the desks of many principals around Australia and elswhere in the world. It is a recommended text for leaders in a number of school systems. Published and sold by the Australian College of Educational Leaders, and with a foreword by John Hattie, one might reasonably assume that its contents and advice are based on rigorous research evidence. Author Lyn Sharratt is herself an advocate for the use of data to inform teaching practice.

Unfortunately, however, on the subject of literacy teaching, Clarity does not lead principals and teachers in the direction of evidence-based instruction. It endorses the use of practices such as levelled readers, running records, and Reading Recovery, which are not consistent with what research has shown to be the most effective methods of teaching and assessing reading.

Read More