Tag Archives: Science of Reading

Reading Activities for Room on the Broom

Posted on by Leave a comment
Room on the Broom

Room on the Broom is the perfect book for the Halloween season in your preschool, kindergarten or first grade classroom! Julia Donaldson, the well-known author of The Gruffalo, has written another crowd pleaser. Your students will love it, and so will you! Read on to find teaching ideas to bring this book to your classroom!

Read on to learn more!

Why Read Room on the Broom?

Room on the Broom is a delightful rhyming story with a wonderful message about friendship. This is a perfect book to help your young readers master rhyming, an essential phonemic awareness skill. It also has plenty of opportunities for letter naming practice, building vocabulary, and comprehension skills like sequencing and story grammar. This book offers you a lot in a charming story that your students will love. If you’d like to know more about how these components fit into the Science of Reading, read this blog post.

I use Room on the Broom in my kindergarten classroom to teach phonics, phonemic awareness, comprehenion, and writing/vocabulary. Here are a few of my favorite ideas to use with this book. Be sure to grab the resource on TPT to get all of the lesson plans and reading activities for your classroom.

Teaching Letter Names with Room on the Broom

It’s October and my kindergarteners are working hard to learn letter names and sounds. One of their favorite lessons is Letter Friends. I use the letter cards from this resource for this activity. There are two ways to play the game.

Version 1 – If I don’t have a lot of prep time, I just give half of the students an uppercase letter and half of the students a lowercase letter. Then, I play a little music while they walk around, finding their Letter Friend. It is great practice with letter naming. You hear things like, “Oh, I have h, not n. See, h is tall. I think Phoenix has n.” The game takes just a few minutes, and then we swap cards and play again.

Version 2 – If I have a little more prep time, I “hide” the uppercase letters around the room. Then I give each student a lowercase letter and play music while they find their Letter Friend. They love to help each other, and the activity reinforces the match between uppercase and lowercase letters. I follow up the lesson with the Letter Matching Center or one of the letter learning printables, like the witch hat dot-to-dot!

Teach Letters with Room on the Broom

Phonemic Awareness Practice

“The witch had a cat
and a hat that was black,
And long ginger hair
in a braid down her back.”

First sentence from Room on the Broom by Julia Donaldson

Isn’t that a charming rhyme? As I read the book, I ask students to listen for the rhyme. There are so many, we can’t identify them all! Then, I use the 24 Rhyming Cards from the resource. Many of the words in the Rhyming Cards come from the book, and we practice identifying which words rhyme, and which do not! I place the cards in a pocket chart, and then I pull one of the cards. Students take turns coming up to find the rhymes. They can also play that game as a pocket chart center!

The resource also includes Rhyming Center Cards that students use to find the rhyme. I like to laminate them and put sticky dots on them so that the pieces stay together. And there are also Rhyming Sorts and other Printables to help students really grow their phonemic awareness skills!

Comprehension with Room on the Broom

The goal of reading instruction is skilled readers who comprehend text. In the primary grades, teachers need to prepare students for the literary analysis they will do when they are older. And that means talking about books.

My favorite comprehension activity is the Sequencing Sticks. The Room on the Broom resource comes with color and black-and-white. I like to make several sets of the colored images. I place each set in a bin, and students work together in partners or groups of three to retell the story. They love this! They think the Sequencing Sticks are like puppets, and you can hear them talking in their dragon voice or barking like a dog as they retell the story. I use the Sequencing Printable as independent practice at the end of the lesson. It’s a great formative assessment!

My students would probably say that the Character Hats are their favorite activity. I like to give my kiddos choice, so I let them choose between the witch and the dragon. I use the word protagonist to describe the witch and antagonist to describe the dragon, and they love those big words! It is so fun to watch them at play time as they wear the hats and act out the story!

Writing and Vocabulary

If you read this blog often, you know that vocabulary development is something I write about frequently. Check out this blog post if you want to know WHY!

With kindergarten students, vocabulary instruction and writing go hand in hand. My kinders are still figuring out letters and words and sentences. I love Write Around the Room Activities because they get kids moving, and they help students connect words with pictures. That reinforces the vocabulary and builds their ability to write about their reading!

This resource includes three different types of paper so you can choose what works best for your students. The resource includes 12 Word Cards and 2 Writing Practice Pages (each with 6 words). I like to spread out all 12 Word Cards. Then, I give half the class one Writing Practice Page and the other half gets the OTHER Writing Practice Page. That means that the kids are not all trying to write the same word at the same time. And, I can swap the groups the next day and get two writing lessons!

Click to Get the Lesson Plans on TPT!

Where to Get Room on the Broom?

If you don’t already have the book, check it out from your library or grab a copy here. (As an Amazon Affiliate, if you click on the link and make a purchase, I make a small commission, at no charge to you! Thanks for supporting this teacherpreneur!)

Or, check out this video recording of the story on Ms. Cotton’s Corner on YouTube.

More Great Fall Resources for Your Classroom

This Balloons Over Broadway Reading Unit has a similar focus as Room on the Broom and is perfect for kindergarten and first grade. Click to grab it on TPT!

The Leaf Thief is the perfect book for fall! The resource focuses on Science of Reading aligned content like rhyming, letter naming, and comprehension practice. And the story is so cute!

I love Clip Cards because they help students build fine motor skills AND practice important content. This bundle is growing, and will include at least 12 sets by the time it is done. Grab it today, and save money!

Let’s Connect!

You can find Ms. Cotton’s Corner in various corners of the Internet – TPT, Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest and YouTube. See you there!

Check these places to ensure that you don’t miss a thing! And don’t forget to tell your friends! Sharing is Caring!

Click here to follow Ms. Cotton’s Corner on TPT.
Click here to follow Ms. Cotton’s Corner on Instagram.
Click here to follow Ms. Cotton’s Corner on Facebook.
Click here to follow Ms. Cotton’s Corner on YouTube.

Happy teaching!

Susan

Clip art by Kate Hadfield. Grab it here!

Science of Reading is MORE than Systematic Phonics

Posted on by 2 comments
Image of two parents reading a book about dinosaurs to help their child build background knowledge

Last year I moved from fifth grade to kindergarten. Since I had taught kindergarten before (and every grade between the two), I started the year teaching what I knew. But it wasn’t long before I was reading books, research articles and blogs about the Science of Reading. I even listened to some podcasts. And I knew that I had to add my voice into the conversation. In this post, I’m going to continue my exploration of the Science of Reading. You may want to start at the beginning of my journey with these blog posts: What IS Science of Reading Anyway?, What is Science of Reading? , Part 2, and The Knowledge Gap Book Review.

In this post, my journey continues, and I will explain:

How the Reading League Defines Science of Reading

The Reading League is the major organization behind the idea that Reading instruction should be based on Science. In 2021, they published the Science of Reading Defining Guide. You can download a free e-book or purchase a bound copy on their website. According to the Guide, scientific research from varied fields such as linguistics, neuroscience, psychology and education has come together to form a “vast, interdisciplinary body of scientifically-based research about reading and issues related to reading and writing”. In addition to explaining that instruction should be based on verified Science, the guide also explains:

What the Science of Reading is NOT

  • an ideology or philosophy
  • a fad, trend, new idea, or pendulum swing
  • a political agenda
  • a one-size-fits-all approach
  • a program of instruction
  • a single, specific component of instruction such as phonics

Wait, what? Science of Reading is not just phonics? You could have fooled me! When I searched for “Science of Reading Curriculum”, most of the hits on the first page led to decodables. I checked TPT, and there are even decodables for 4th and 5th graders! (Surely most upper grade students have moved beyond decoding practice???)

My district bought me a Reading Curriculum for kindergarten that calls for 30 minutes of direct instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness each day. The lessons in the upper grades are even longer. This time committment is going to make it difficult to fit in other academic instruction. I am very concerned that teachers, administrators and school districts are jumping on the phonics only bandwagon, and students will be the losers. I lived through the Reading Wars, and I know what it is like to teach 4th and 5th graders who are terrific word callers, but can’t tell you a thing about the text they just read. To be clear, I am in favor of systematic phonics instruction. I am also in favor of pairing it appropriately with systematic instruction in the other pillars of reading: phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. And this is exactly what Science tells us we should be doing.

The Simple View of Reading

Two cognitive scientists, Philip Gough and William Tunmer, proposed this idea in 1986, and it has been transformational to the field of reading research. They proposed that “reading was the product of two broad skills: the ability to read the words off the page and the ability to understand the oral language in which the material was written. Both of these skills together were necessary for skilled reading comprehension – neither alone could result in skilled reading.” (Quote from the Reading League.) The Reading League has turned this idea into a simple formula.

WR x LC = RC

WR is Word Recognition.

LC is Language Comprehension.

RC is Reading Comprehension.

As you can see, goal of Reading instruction is comprehension. Reading comprehension is the complex result of two equal components, Word Recognition and Language Comprehension. Both are equally important.

Scarbourogh’s Reading Rope

The two components, Word Recognition and Language Comprehension, are more clearly defined when you look at Scarborough’s Reading Rope. In 2001, Dr. Hollis Scarborough created a rope out of pipe cleaners to explore the complex interweavings that lead to skilled reading. As you can see in this graphic, there is a lot more to reading than phonics. Certainly, fluent decoding is necessary. But so is a deep and precise vocabulary. Wide background knowledge is also necessary. Knowledge of language structures is a key component, as is general literacy knowledge. Students also need to understand word parts and syllables, and have a bank of words that they recognize by sight. All of these components have been scientifically studied and are research-based components of reading instruction that leads to skilled reading.

Let me just repeat that. ALL of these components are key to skilled reading.

The Matthew Effect

You’ve heard it said. “First students learn to read, and then they read to learn.” But Scarborough’s Reading Rope makes it clear that all of these components are key for developing skilled readers. We can’t spend 2-3 years “teaching students to read”, and then expect them to read to learn, because knowledge is a component of reading, right from the start. Anyone who has ever taught upper elementary knows that the gap is already too big if we wait until third grade to begin building background knowledge and vocabulary. This was described by reading researcher Keith Stanovich as the Matthew Effect, after the verse in Matthew that states, “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” In other words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Stanovich uses the term Matthew Effect to refer to vocabulary knowledge and the causal relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. He states, “The very children who are reading well and who have good vocabularies will read more, learn more word meanings, and hence read even better. Children with inadequate vocabularies – who read slowly and without enjoyment – read less and as a result have slower development of vocabulary knowledge, which inhibits further growth in reading ability.”

Our Challenge as Teachers

So, when I’m looking my kindergarten students in the eyes this week, I’m going to be thinking about a lot of things. It’s still September, so we have a lot to learn about letters and sounds. We have barely introduced the idea of syllables, so we have lots of work to do with phonemic awarness. And I’m also thinking about content and vocabulary. We are getting ready for the Teddy Bear Picnic, so I have some ideas about teaching my students about bears and hibernation.

Check back next week, and I’ll tell you how I did!

The Knowledge Gap – a Book Review

Posted on by 4 comments

Click to jump right to these sections in this post.

What is the Knowledge Gap?

Many years ago, I sat in a meeting with my fourth grade colleagues and we analyzed the scores from the previous years’ standardized test. To everyone’s surprise, my class had far surpassed the other classes on the fiction reading portion of the text. When we anaylzed it even further, we realized that my classes’ high scores were mostly attributable to one passage – an excerpt from Gary Soto’s The Skirt. When my colleagues asked how I had achieved such high scores, I was at a loss. I didn’t know. Now I know.

In her book, The Knowledge Gap, Natalie Wexler explores the importance of background knowledge and vocabulary in comprehension. My experience with that standardized test mirrors some of the education research that she cites in the book. First, Gary Soto is a poet that I admire, and my students and I had read and analyzed some of the poems in his book, A Fire in My Hands. That experience probably gave them familiarity with his themes, symbolism and style, which helped them understand the text on the test. Second, because I speak Spanish, Hispanic students were generally put into my classroom. The Skirt is written in English, but the main character is from Mexico, and the text is sprinkled with Spanish words. My students had the relevant Spanish vocabulary to understand that text. Even my English speakers, because of their exposure to his poetry, had strategies for using context to decipher Spanish words. Even though many of my students’ reading levels were below grade level, their background knowledge and vocabulary compensated, and resulted in high comprehension of that text, and therefore, higher scores on the test.

Early in the book (Chapter 2), Natalie Wexler cites two studies that directly relate to my experience. One, The Baseball Study by Recht and Leslie, showed that middle school students with high knowledge of baseball, but a low reading level had higher comprehension of a baseball text than students with a high reading level but a low knowledge of baseball. Click here to read the study, published in 1988 in the Journal of Educational Psychology. Natalie Wexler also cites a study of preschoolers’ comprehension. In this study, published in 2014 in Reading Psychology, scientists found no difference between the comprehension of students from low socio-economic familes and students from wealthier families when background knowledge and vocabulary were the same. The two studies, when taken together, form the backbone of Nataile Wexler’s thesis – we are creating the achievement gap by focusing too much time on reading instruction that does not include knowlege building. In other words, the knowledge gap IS the achievement gap.

The Knowledge Gap IS the Achievement Gap.

But what about Reading Strategy Instruction?

Most of us have spent years learning about reading strategies and how to teach them in the hopes that a thorough grounding in reading strategies would result in higher comprehension. We have seen studies that show strategy instruction boosts scores on comprehension tests. So, where does that fit into this picture? Wexler addresses this question in Chapter 3. According to Daniel Willingham, one of the cognitive psychologists she cites frequently, strategies help students understand that the goal of reading is comprehension, not decoding. Strategy instruction can also remind students to check for understanding. So, strategy instruction can be beneficial, but it is not sufficient. According to Willingham and Wexler, elementary schools today have gotten the balance wrong. We are spending too much time on strategy instruction, and not enough time building vocabulary and background knowledge.

“Nearly all teachers have come to see comprehension not as something that arises naturally with sufficient information, as cognitive scientists have concluded, but rather as a set of strategies that need to be taught explicitly. Many dedicated and well-intentioned teachers have worked their tails off trying to teach reading, but because they’ve been given the wrong information about how to do it, or in some cases none at all, the results have been disastrous, both for their students and for society as a whole.”

Natalie Wexler in The Knowledge Gap, chapter 3

This great video from Daniel Willingham illustrates that point beautifully.

Does The Knowledge Gap correlate with Science of Reading?

The short answer is, yes, totally. The Knowledge Gap is based on scientific research done by cognitive psychologists like Daniel Willingham as well as instructional research done by education professionals like Timothy Shanahan. In my last blog post, I let you know that one of my filters is making sure that any changes I make in my classroom are based on brain research AND research on effective instruction. This book definitely draws on a wide variety of scientific research as Wexler explores her thesis.

The Science of Reading is a broad effort to bring together science and instruction. It is often equated with systematic phonics, and that is a component of reading instruction that has been well validated through a lot of research. But there is research that shows that systematic phonics isn’t enough. In The Knowledge Gap, Wexler explores how knowledge and vocabulary are critical to comprehension. In chapter 4 she endorses systematic phonics, but argues that it isn’t sufficient.

“Reading, it is generally agreed, is all about making meaning. Cognitive scientists would say that decoding – the part of reading for which phonemic awareness and phonics skills are essential – is a necessary stepping-stone in the process of making meaning from written text…. It’s true that some children will learn to read without systematic phonics instruction – probably somewhere between half and a third, according to reading experts. But all children can benefit from it, and many won’t learn to decode well without it.”

-The Knowledge Gap, chapter 4

So, What Does This Mean for My Classroom?

The last part of the book focuses on Wexler’s thoughts on reform. This is where the book fell down for me. The recommendations are fairly generic. She has a high regard for curricula like Core Knowledge and Engage NY, both open source and availabe for free. She would like to see fewer district initiatives and more sustained focus on system-wide shifts over time toward content-rich curricula. She recommends close reading of text and anlytical writing. And she mentions an effort in Lousiana to require certain texts each year, and then base the state test on those texts, ensuring that all Lousiana students share a common curriculum. All of these are interesting ideas, but not particularly useful when I face my kindergarteners tomorrow.

Of course, Wexler is an education journalist. Her degrees are in history and the law, not instruction. So it’s probably reasonable for her to use her journalist expertise to gather all of the sources together in one book, and then allow education experts to turn those insights into classroom practice. She is the co-author of The Writing Revolution, which is currently waiting for me on my bedside table, and seems like it will be more practical than theoretical.

Who Should Read This Book?

I recommend this book for every elementary teacher and administrator who wants to understand how to raise reading achievement in their school. I think the book is especially important for primary teachers. Most primary classrooms in the United States spend the majority of the day teaching reading (62% of the day according to some estimates), and it seems to be working just fine. When primary teachers give reading tests like the DRA and BAS, most students do well. But, without a focus on building knowledge in the primary grades, comprehension slows down and reading achievement decreases in upper grades. That’s when the cracks start to appear. But because the kids are out of our classrooms by that point, we primary teachers don’t notice the change.

I’ve spent the past 4 years teaching fifth grade, and this year I moved to kindergarten, in part because I wanted to figure out why reading achievement shifted so dramatically from primary grades to intermediate grades in my school. I think this is a huge part of the reason, so as a primary teacher, I am working to bring systematic phonics AND content learning to my kindergarteners. I think any primary teacher who reads The Knowledge Gap will be ready to come along on that journey with me, as we work to help our readers succeed today AND tomorrow.

I give The Knowledge Gap five stars, and it’s on the top shelf of my book case. I have already reread many parts of the book, and I am sure that I will be reaching for it often as I figure out how to shift my classroom and help my students become proficient readers.

As an Amazon Associate, if you click through to Amazon and make a purchase, I may make a small amount, at no extra cost to you. Thanks!

What IS Science of Reading, part 2

Posted on by 4 comments

In last week’s blog post, I explored that question through my own experience as a teacher who remembers the first Reading Wars. As the Reading Wars heat up again, I think that was a worthwhile place to start. One of the lessons I learned as a survivor of the first Reading Wars is that reading instruction is complex and nuanced. I’m going to continue to look at the current debate through that lens. In this blog post we are going to flesh out our definition of Science of Reading and start to think about how it looks in the classroom.

Click to jump directly to these sections of the blog post.

So, what is Science of Reading?

I’ve been falling down many, many rabbit holes over the past few months, trying to get a concrete definition that answers that question. The best definition I’ve found is this one from Maria Murray, one of the founders of The Reading League. The Reading League seems to be the driving force behind bringing Science of Reading into the forefront of education, in part because of their partnership with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

The science of reading is a body of empirical research derived from multiple disciplines—cognitive psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, and education. Taken together, the findings from thousands of research studies over the last 40 years have reached a consensus on how the brain learns to read and write, and why some students struggle. The science of reading provides knowledge about the most effective ways to assess and teach reading so we can prevent most reading difficulties, and remediate them when they occur. The science of reading informs instructional approaches that best advantage all learners in all areas of reading (phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, spelling, and language comprehension). 

Maria Murray in the American Educator, Summer 2020 edition

What I love about this definition is that it focuses on two things – empirically valid research AND all areas of reading. The first time a teacher colleague mentioned Science of Reading to me, she told me it was systematic phonics instruction. And I heard that over and over. Many teacher blogs that I have read over the past few months equate Science of Reading with phonics. And that is certainly part of it. But, in my reading of this definition, systematic phonics instruction is one fifth of the definition of successful reading instruction.

It’s also important to note that Maria Murray’s definition includes education research, and specifically calls out “effective ways to assess and teach reading”. That part of the definition is missing from much of the research that I have been reading lately, and the lack is addressed beautifully in a blog post by Timothy Shanahan. He makes the point that just understanding the way the brain works is not enough. We have to know which instructional methodologies are effective in helping kids’ brains learn the complex skills of reading. Knowledge of the brain does not necessarily equate to knowledge of effective instruction.

I’m reminded of a training I attended about 15 years ago for a computerized reading program that my district was adopting. It was wildly expensive, and we were all hopeful that it would help solve problems for our struggling readers. We were really kind of desperate – struggling with low scores, low morale, and no clear direction forward. So, I went to this training with hope in my heart. The trainer began the training by showing us brain scans of kids using the program, and comparing them to brain scans of kids who were not using the program. The trainer told us that the brain scans were scientific evidence that the computer progam worked. I was starting to feel skeptical. Did those brightly colored scans actually show competent readers at work? What about the brain scans equaled proficient reading? But, I was the only skeptic, and our staff enthusiastically bought into the program. We started putting our highest needs kids on the program for an hour a day, often taking them out of math, science and social studies instruction to make that happen. Kids sat at those computers performing repetitive tasks meant to train their brains. It’s quite possible that those tasks were causing their brains to light up and look like the brain scans we had seen in the training. It’s quite possible that proficient readers’ brains light up in those same ways. But those tasks did not help our students learn to read. Scores plummeted, and after a painful year, the expensive program went away.

That’s why we have to bring a healthy skepticism to anyone who tells us their program is based on Science of Reading. We need to be able to see the research, and then make sure that it is based on strong science of the brain AND research into effective instruction.

Science of Reading and the National Reading Panel

If you have been in education as long as I have, you probably remember the National Reading Panel report that came out in 2000. If not, here is a brief overview. In 1997, Congress wanted a report on the state of scientifically valid research about effective reading instruction. So, they convened a panel of 14 experts (Timothy Shanahan was one). The experts represented scientists, reading teachers, administrators, parents and professors, and they also gathered insights and information from the general public in several town hall meetings. For three years they met to review the available research and draw conclusions about what effective reading instruction looks like. Their conclusions are generally summed up as the Five Pillars of Reading Instruction.

The Five Pillars of reading instruction as identified by the National Reading Panel in 2000 are:

  1. Phonemic Awareness
  2. Phonics
  3. Fluency
  4. Vocabulary
  5. Comprehension

You probably notice a strong correlation between the five pillars and the definition of Science of Reading from Maria Murray. And that makes perfect sense. Although Science is always growing and expanding, it is logical that an analysis of scientifically valid reading instruction in 2000 would have crossover with the same analysis 20 years later. As a teacher in the classroom, trying to use research based, effective instruction, those crossover areas seem to me to be especially fruitful avenues of exploration. In other words, if research from 20 years ago has been strenghthed and confirmed by more recent research, I can feel comfortable using that research in my classroom. And you can too!

The Simple View of Reading

The Simple View of Reading has come up in source after source. Basically, the Simple View of Reading states that reading comprehension depends on two things: word recognition and language comprehension. This approach to reading is well studied and replicated over time (to read one study, published by the NIH, click here). And I think we can all agree that reading comprehension is the goal of effective reading instruction. As a teacher in the trenches, I can appreciate a simple definition that translates easily into instructional goals.

Word Recognition

Word recognition is a pretty complex set of brain processes, and of course, we want word recognition to be automatic and accurate. Building those neural pathways involves developing proficient phonemic awareness, knowledge of letters and their sounds, and understanding of syllables and other meaningful word parts such as prefixes and suffixes. (For more information, check out this study from the Journal of Scientific Studies of Reading.) What’s interesting is that teachers have observed all of these processes in proficient readers for years, leading us to focus instruction on sight words, a practice that may not be backed up by science. The good news is that all of these processes have research based instructional strategies that will help us build those neural pathways in our students’ brains. More on that in future posts. 🙂

Language Comprehension

If you’ve read much of my blog, you know that vocabulary and background knowledge or content are frequent topics for me, so this aspect of the Simple View of Reading is right up my alley! Language Comprehension includes background knowledge, vocabulary, complex sentence patterns, and recognition of text devices such as symbolism, similes, and imagery. The Simple View of Reading also acknowledges that metacognitive skills such as monitoring comprehension are important aspects of reading instruction.  

From Theory to the Classroom

If you, like me, have spent years developing a balanced approach to literacy instruction, this should be good news. Contrary to popular opinion, the work you have been doing has NOT been harming children. You did the best you could with what you had, and much of the instruction you have used may follow best practices based on science, even if you were not aware of the science.

In future blog posts, we will explore each topic in depth, and build an understanding of what science can tell us, and what science cannot yet tell us. We will keep in mind that the science needs to cover both the brain processes and instructional practices. The first Reading Wars taught me that reading instruction is complex and nuanced. The Simple View of Reading may be our target, but our road has some bends and bumps in it, and the map is not completely filled in. So pack your skepticism, lace up your boots and let’s take the next step on our journey of discovering the Science of Reading.

For more on this topic, be sure to check out these blog posts:

  1. What is Science of Reading, Anyway – part 1
  2. Why Teach Vocabulary? There is Already Plenty to Teach….

What IS Science of Reading Anyway?

Posted on by 4 comments

Click to jump right to these sections:

  1. What is Balanced Literacy, Really?
  2. So, Balanced Literacy Might Not be Enough?
  3. Is Science of Reading the Answer?

“As for comprehension, the most important factor in determining whether readers can understand a text is how much relevant vocabulary or background knowledge they have.”

The Knowledge Gap, by Natalie Wexler (see my review of the book in this blog post)

That quote has been ringing in my ears for the past few weeks. Like many of you, I have been learning about Science of Reading. I listened to the Sold a Story podcast with dismay. When I finished the podcast, I dusted off my bruised heart, and then asked myself, “What now? Do I make drastic changes to the literacy program in my kindergarten classroom? Am I hurting kids with my balanced literacy approach?”

Here’s the thing, I’ve been teaching long enough that I can remember the heated Reading Wars. When I entered the profession in 1995, teachers were still asking themselves which was better, Phonics or Whole Language? And then, in 1996, my aunt, a Reading Recovery Teacher, sent me “Guided Reading, Good First Teaching for All Children” by Fountas and Pinnell. And I had my answer. We should teach both.

That was my first exposure to the idea of balanced literacy. Fountas and Pinnell did spend more time talking about comprehension than decoding, but Word Work was intended as part of the lesson. As a young teacher, I had methods courses on phonics in college, but the world of reading strategies was new to me. I immediately resonated with it. It matched my own experience as a reader, and it felt really good. I felt like the Word Work was easy to teach, so I was grateful for their insights into engaging students in authentic text, and helping them develop comprehension, and along the way, to fall in love with reading.

What is Balanced Literacy, Really?

Balanced Literacy is taking a beating right now, and so are Fountas and Pinnell. In a recent blog post, Fountas and Pinnell said, “… in 1996 we used the word “balanced” as an adjective when describing a high-quality language and literacy environment that would include both small-group and whole-group differentiated instruction that included the various types of reading and writing, letter and word work, oral language, observation, assessment, homeschool connections, all supported by good teaching.”

I spent many years working to become proficient at all the things included in that quote. I learned how to take running records and how to understand MSV. I learned what to do when a student did not use ALL of the cues (including visual letter cues) to read accurately, and I learned how to improve oral language so that reading comprehension would also grow. I learned how to manage whole class and small group instruction in every grade, K-5, and I improved my skills as a writing teacher. I opened my classroom as a lab and invited other teachers to observe my practice and reflect on it with me – a process that helped me as much as it did them. I trained teachers in many of the things that I was learning.

And I had decent scores on state tests. I live in Washington state, and our first high-stakes test was called the WASL. I was there when they rolled it out, and my kids did OK. Then we had the MSP, and finally the SBAC. My kids always do fine. I’ve spent my entire career teaching in schools with high poverty rates and usually many multi-language learners, and my kids made good growth each year. But, despite my best efforts, I never reached my goal of 100% of students at standard on the test….

So, Balanced Literacy might not be enough…..?

In my quest to help all students reach the standard, I did what I always do. I read, I researched, and I learned. I tried new things in my classroom. And in 2004 I read this book, “Building Background Knowledge for Academic Achievement”. If you know Marzano’s work, you know that he approaches a question by studying ALL the available research around it – his conclusions are based on meta-analysis. That means hundreds, or even thousands of research studies. Better him than me!

In this book Marzano makes the case that academic achievement will increase when kids know stuff. In other words, background knowledge, also called schema, is key to helping kids comprehend and achieve at high levels. During the past 20 years, as school systems struggled to meet the demands of the high stakes tests, they have reduced and eliminated instruction in any subject that isn’t tested. So, it is normal for students to spend an entire year in an elementary classroom learning only reading, writing and math. If a student is lucky, science might get a little time. But the bulk of instruction time is spent on reading and math.

Since many published reading curricula focus on fiction, the majority of time is not even spent reading content. So students are not building background knowledge, which means they are not gaining the skills and vocabulary that they need to comprehend. Marzano made the case for building background knowledge in 2004. Natalie Wexler is making that case in The Knowledge Gap right now.

Is Science of Reading the Answer?

Well, yes and no. It is important to pay attention to what cognitive science tells us about reading development. But we can’t be simplistic and cherry pick the science. It is tempting to pay attention to the Science of Reading that is quantifiable. It is easy to assign certain phonetic skills to kindergarten, others to first grade etc. Systems love that kind of clarity, and I suspect, that’s why Science of Reading is becoming synonymous with systematic phonics.

But it’s not going to be enough. If the pendulum swings back to an all-phonics approach, we are going to face the same problems we faced in the 1990’s when kids could fluently decode any text, but they didn’t have any idea what the text was about. Right now, we need to take a good look at ALL of the Science of Reading – everything. There is a growing bank of cognitive research around what really works to help ALL students become good readers. The short answer is not a simple list of phonics skills to teach, it is much more complext than that.

Come on this journey with me as I dive into the Science of Reading. Together let’s explore what cognitive science says about reading proficiency. Let’s learn how phonics is part of the puzzle, and figure out which phonics skills should be taught when. Let’s understand the importance of vocabulary and background knowledge in fostering comprehension, and let’s figure out which reading strategies lead students to greater success as readers, not just in elementary school but in life.

Cognitive Science has answers for us, and together we can bring reading success to ALL of our students by bringing the science to our classrooms. This is going to be a lot of fun!

Ready for Part 2? Click here for the next post in this blog series.

What IS Science of Reading?