What’s Missing From K–2 Reading Instruction?
During the 40 years I’ve taught, observed, and studied beginning reading instruction, I’ve survived various renditions of the Reading Wars—whole language vs. phonics, balanced literacy, guided reading, and now the science of reading. Don’t get me wrong, my many large-scale, multisite research studies in Title 1 schools is a major contributor to the science of reading. However, as soon as this evidence-based research became an acronym—SOR—I knew we’d lose some essential elements of the science. The science of reading refers to the compelling evidence that informs (a) how children learn to read and (b) instructional practices that promote proficient reading. This compelling evidence has been known for several decades and has been summarized in consensus documents (e.g., National Reading Panel, 2000), practice guides produced by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES; Baker et al., 2014; Foorman, Beyler, et al., 2016; Gersten et al., 2007, 2008; Shanahan et al., 2010), and in meta-analytic summaries of research (e.g., Berkeley, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2010; Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001; Ehri, Nunes, Willows, et al., 2001; National Institute for Literacy, 2008; Therrien, 2004; Wanzek et al., 2016).
My research shows that reading success is associated with the interaction of quality teaching, curriculum, and students’ initial reading ability (Foorman, Schatschneider, et al., 2006; Foorman, 2023). This translates to quality teaching that focuses on curriculum with an evidence-based scope and sequence of letter-sound patterns and word-building practice; decoding/encoding to ensure word identification is accurate; differentiation of instruction; daily practice in text to support what’s taught; handwriting fluency; vocabulary; and writing to support reading. Recommended strategies to address these areas are provided in The IES Practice Guide on foundational reading skills (Foorman, Beyler, et al., 2016), and videos of K–2 teachers teaching these strategies are freely available on the website of the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Southeast.
Next week, I will be a guest on the EDVIEW360 podcast that addresses what’s missing from these evidence-based practices. For example, teachers may be trying to put together their own curriculum and missing how best to sequence alphabetic instruction and orthographic mapping and word-building practice (Rayner et al., 2001; 2002). Knowing when to use decodable text and sight-word/leveled text to practice what is taught is important (Foorman, Francis, et al., 2004). Emphasizing word-identification strategies over the three-cueing system and first-letter-then-guess strategies is critical for accurate word reading (Foorman, 2023). Meeting students where they are by differentiating instruction via flexible reading groups and providing meaningful activities for students working independently (e.g., FCRR student center activities) requires the use of screening, formative, and progress-monitoring assessments. Finally, the reciprocity of writing to reading will be stressed, along with the importance of vocabulary instruction (e.g., Foorman, 2022) and writing letters/words accurately and fluently so cognitive resources are freed for composition and comprehension.
I hope you’ll tune into the podcast next week as we discuss these topics and more. You can learn more here.
References
Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., … Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/english_learners_pg_040114.pdf.
Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropier, M. A. (2012). Reading comprehension instruction for student with learning disabilities, 1995-2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423-436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355988
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393-447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393
Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D., M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2
Florida Center for Reading Research Student Center Activities. FCRR Student Center Activities | Florida Center for Reading Research
Foorman, B. (2023). Learning the code. In S. Cabell, S. Neuman, & N. Patton Terry (Eds.). Handbook on the science of literacy (pp. 73-82). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 000-Cabell_Book.indb (thereadingforum.com)
Foorman, B. (Fall, 2022). Improving comprehension through vocab: Effective instructional strategies in grades 4–8. Literacy Today, 39–41. Foorman_ILA.pdf (fcrr.org)
Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C., Dimino, J., …Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_070516.pdf
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Davidson, K., Harm, M., & Griffin, J. (2004). Variability in text features in six grade 1 basal reading programs. Scientific Studies in Reading, 8(2), 167-197. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0802_4
Foorman, B.R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M.N., Fletcher, J.M., Moats, L.C., & Francis, D.J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.003
Gersten, R., Baker, S.K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/20074011.pdf.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W.D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read, an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
National Institute for Literacy (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Retrieved at https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
Rayner, K., Foorman, B., Perfetti, C.A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2002). How should reading be taught? Scientific American, 286(3), 84-91.
(4) (PDF) How Should Reading be Taught? (researchgate.net)
Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31-74. http://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.00004
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/readingcomp_pg_092810.pdf
Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250040801
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N., Gatlin, B., Walker, M. A., & Capin, P. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 551-576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7