Classroom walls for young children learning to read are often covered with words, letters, word sounds, symbols, vocabulary, and even speech therapy pronunciation mouths, which are creepy. For years, Word Walls have ruled.
Bare walls are also dull and uninviting, but Word Walls scream emergency. Children must learn fast, real fast, and it’s laid out in front of them, in their faces, all day long.
If teachers want to turn classrooms into warm, inviting areas where learning is highlighted and children feel at home, they might imagine what it’s like to look at those walls like students.
Do the walls inspire children? Do they show them something new, easy to understand, and appealing to think about?
So many letters and words on the wall could affect children with (or without) reading disabilities, neurodiverse learners, or children who need more development. Young children can quickly become bored or overstimulated by the amount of stuff on the walls.
We’ve been here before.
In 2014, Fisher et al. studied kindergartners in classes with visual stimuli they intentionally manipulated from more to less to see how children do.
Children were more distracted by the visual environment, spent more time off task, and demonstrated smaller learning gains when the walls were highly decorated than when the decorations were removed.
They also found that children attended more to classmates in sparsely decorated classrooms, and the authors recommend optimizing classroom stimuli to help children focus.
Zazzi and Faragher (2018), concerned about students on the autistic spectrum, asked them what visual input they liked and disliked, determining that color palette, feature congestion, affordances, and spatial size mattered.
In 2018, McDowall and Budd determined that children with cerebral visual impairment experienced physical and mental fatigue and increased anxiety with too much classroom stimuli and that by decluttering the classroom, not only students but their teachers experienced a calming effect.
I have listed a few reasons why wordy stuff on the walls might confuse children, both when they observe the information alone and when the teacher directs them to follow their instructions during Word Wall lessons, especially since they may still need to develop these skills.
Attending Behavior
A child may have difficulty focusing on a visual object or print. They might be unable to locate visual objects or pictures when given directions. Students may zone out if there’s too much to look at. If they stare at these Word Walls all day, will the information become meaningless?
Ocular pursuit
Moving your head from left to right and keeping your eyes focused on reading a line of print in a book can be confusing for a young learner. Looking up at a board with lots of signs might be more difficult. Children may be unable to coordinate eye movements to follow the teacher and what’s on the wall.
See Pursuit eye movements in dyslexic children: evidence for immaturity of brain oculomotor structures.
Speed of Looking
Some children may take longer to comprehend an object or a picture visually or read a word, sentence, or paragraph. Even though they can process the information, they could fall behind and become frustrated because they require more time. They may need help keeping up with the teacher’s direction when using a Word Wall for a lesson.
Visual Discrimination
Children may not see differences or be able to match connected objects, pictures, words, or letters. Will the information blur or run together because there are no visual boundaries? There’s so much to look at, and the child may find it hard to zero in on any main points.
Visual Memory
When students see so much, they may have trouble remembering objects or details in pictures, letters, or words. They might understand the information a teacher presents in a lesson but forget it later.
Visual Motor Coordination
Think about copying what one sees amidst a sea of letters and words when eye-to-hand fine motor skills still need to be fully developed.
Visual Sequencing
Recalling a specific order of objects, pictures, or words may be difficult. Children may get letters mixed up in a word or be unable to remember specific visual patterns.
_____
Creating classrooms that inspire children, showcase their work, and ensure manageable information is essential. Lessons might be better with a portable chart, board, or workbook that simplifies the information so that they observe smaller amounts of information.
Wouldn’t it also be better to decorate the classroom in non-threatening ways so that students can easily observe information that’s both interesting and educational? Educational games that students will be able to master or information and pictures highlighting a book that the class may be reading together come to mind.
It’s also important to provide children with vision screenings as they develop. They may not understand that they need glasses.
In general, ask how much stimuli children get throughout their lives, every day and all day, and see how to visually tone it down so they can better understand what they see in their world.
References
Fisher, A. V., Godwin, K. E., & Seltman, H. (2014). Visual Environment, Attention Allocation, and Learning in Young Children: When Too Much of a Good Thing May Be Bad. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1362–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614533801
Zazzi, H., & Faragher, R. (2018). “Visual clutter” in the classroom: voices of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 64(3), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2018.1468619
McDowell, N., & Budd, J. (2018). The Perspectives of Teachers and Paraeducators on the Relationship between Classroom Clutter and Learning Experiences for Students with Cerebral Visual Impairment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 112(3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1811200304
The same clutter is also in modern children’s book design. A middle grade reader, from the last century might have six or seven words per line, all in large type with a serif font and wide margins. This is great for eye tracking. New books can have a plethora of fonts, a crazy quilt layout and be hard to follow.
An interesting observation. Thank you, Marilyn. I like your website and work. It looks fun for children.
This is why in an era of postmodernism and poststructuralism, concepts such as balanced literacy and whole language are no longer defensible.
Let’s just use Using Baudrillard’s ideas as a scalpel to deconstruct here.
We can critique the excessive use of classroom walls for displaying a multitude of words, letters, and symbols, drawing parallels to the concepts of hyperreality and the implosion of meaning.
Hyperreality and Overstimulation: Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality suggests that when signs and symbols become overwhelming, they replace the real experience. In classrooms with excessive word walls, the visual overload creates a hyperreal environment where the actual learning experience is overshadowed by a barrage of symbols, making it difficult for students to engage meaningfully with the content.
Implosion of Meaning: Baudrillard argues that the saturation of signs leads to the implosion of meaning, where the abundance of information causes individual signs to lose their significance. Similarly, the cluttered classroom walls filled with words and symbols can lead to a dilution of meaning, making it hard for children to discern important information from the visual noise.
Simulation of Learning: The word walls simulate the process of learning rather than facilitating genuine understanding. This aligns with Baudrillard’s idea that simulations replace reality, creating an illusion of a learning environment that is more about appearances than effective education.
The Desert of the Real: Baudrillard’s “desert of the real” reflects the idea that over-saturated environments can lead to a barren, unengaging experience. In classrooms, the excessive visual stimuli can turn into a “desert” where students struggle to find meaningful engagement amidst the clutter.
Attention and Focus: Research cited in the article supports that children are more distracted in highly decorated classrooms. Baudrillard would see this as evidence of how an overabundance of stimuli can fracture attention and prevent deep engagement, similar to how hyperreal environments disrupt our ability to focus on reality.
Visual Asepsis: The desire for a clean, uncluttered classroom mirrors Baudrillard’s idea of a “state of asepsis,” where an environment free from overwhelming stimuli allows for clearer, more focused learning experiences.
Speed and Fragmentation: The need for children to process information quickly in such cluttered environments can lead to fragmented learning, where the pressure to keep up with visual stimuli impedes their ability to form coherent understanding. This aligns with Baudrillard’s notion that rapid consumption of signs fragments our perception of reality.
Symbolic Overload: The multitude of symbols and words on classroom walls can become a form of symbolic overload, where the sheer volume of visual data overwhelms the cognitive processes of young learners. Baudrillard would argue that this overload reduces the effectiveness of symbols as tools for learning, instead becoming an oppressive presence.
In summary, applying Baudrillard’s theories to the critique of word walls in classrooms reveals how an overabundance of visual stimuli can create a hyperreal, meaningless environment that hinders genuine learning and engagement. By reducing visual clutter, educators can create a more focused, meaningful, and effective learning space for young children.
Thank you for commenting. I have to disagree with your statement about balanced literacy and whole language, if I understand you correctly. The classrooms I referred to involve the symbols etc. of direct instruction, which I believe the rest of your comment supports. I’m also not saying classroom walls should be bare, but they should be meaningful and serve an understandable purpose for the student. I love seeing the display of student work not only in the classroom but the school hallway as well. This shows pride and lets students know adults care about their work.
The conversation around reading instruction has moved on from outdated methods like word walls and whole language approaches.
Embracing both hard science and critical theory allows us to develop more effective and meaningful educational practices that truly reflect how the brain learns to read, aligning with contemporary mainstream educational research and current pedagogical practices.
Mainstream and Contemporary Consensus:
Current educational research strongly supports phonics-based instruction over whole language approaches. Studies have consistently shown that explicit phonics instruction is more effective in developing reading skills.
Dr. Stanislas Dehaene, a leading cognitive neuroscientist and professor at Collège de France, provides a scientific foundation for this consensus through his extensive research on the brain’s mechanisms for reading and numerical cognition.
Stanislas Dehaene’s Research:
Credentials: Dehaene is renowned for his work in cognitive neuroscience, particularly in understanding how the brain processes language and reading.
Empirical Evidence:
His studies demonstrate that the brain requires systematic instruction in phonics to effectively decode and comprehend written language. Dehaene’s research underscores the importance of phonemic awareness and structured literacy, advocating for teaching methods that align with the brain’s natural learning processes.
Critique of Whole Language:
Whole language instruction posits that reading is best learned through immersion in meaningful text, rather than through explicit phonics instruction.
Jean Baudrillard’s critique of language as a simulation provides a valuable perspective for understanding the shortcomings of whole language theory. Baudrillard argues that in the postmodern era, language has become a hyperreality, filled with signs and symbols detached from their real referents.
Whole Language as Hyperreality:
Baudrillard would critique whole language as creating a hyperreality—a simulation where students appear to understand text but lack a deep, structural understanding of phonemic principles.
Whole language methods create a simulacrum of reading proficiency, focusing on the recognition of words in context rather than on the fundamental skills needed to decode and understand language. This results in superficial learning, detached from the concrete realities of how the brain processes language.
Advancing the Conversation:
Beyond 20th Century Tropes: The debate between whole language and phonics-based instruction is rooted in the educational theories of the 20th century, which often lack the nuance and scientific grounding of contemporary research. It’s time to move on.
Few are looking at the programs being marketed as Science of Reading which have little research to suggest they work! And honestly, children need and can learn to read with both phonics and whole language approaches, hence why we call it Balanced Literacy.
Baudrillard is sociologist, philosopher and poet, not a reading teacher. And I’ve been reading through Dehaene’s book and honestly, while his descriptions of language, reading, and the brain are interesting, his connection to a Science of Reading, and dissing of Whole Language, is vague and not well proven. He gives far too much credit to the National Reading Panel, and must of missed American linguist, educational researcher and activist Professor Stephen Krashen’s excellent explanation in the Kappan about what actually happened with Whole Language in California. In addition, while Dehaene says that imaging tools today don’t allow us to track reading progress in the brain, and that it is far from prescriptive, he then seems to prescribe phonics.
I’m not saying whole language is perfect, not at all, many children definitely need phonics instruction, and I taught it, but they need much more and a lot of that other stuff involves much of what many of us learned as whole language. In addition, there’s much bizarre stuff coming out with the SoR surrounding especially pictures that I find quite alarming when it comes to early reading instruction, along with expecting children to be reading by the end of kindergarten. Also might want to listen to some pushback from another neuroscientist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uorpsdpl97E
I appreciate your engagement, but it’s important to recognize that the field of education has evolved significantly. The science of reading, supported by extensive research, has shown that explicit, systematic phonics instruction is fundamental in teaching children to read. Whole language approaches, which are integrated into balanced literacy, have been found lacking in effectiveness compared to these newer methods.
Dr. Krashen’s work, while influential and considered cutting-edge in the 1970s through the 1990s, is now considered outdated. His theories, often associated with Ken Goodman’s approaches, have not stood up to the rigorous findings of contemporary cognitive neuroscience and educational research. Furthermore, Goodman’s work has faced significant critique and lacks the strong empirical support that modern educational theories require.
Goodman’s thinking, rooted in mid-20th century discourse, emphasized constructivist theories of learning. These theories posited that children construct knowledge through immersion in language-rich environments, assuming that exposure alone would lead to reading proficiency. This approach often downplayed the necessity of systematic, explicit instruction in phonics, relying instead on the belief that reading skills would naturally emerge through context and meaning-making activities.
Modern research, however, has demonstrated that this immersion-based approach lacks the necessary structure for many children to develop strong decoding skills. The science of reading emphasizes that a systematic approach to phonics is crucial for building the neural pathways required for efficient and effective reading.
We must move forward and not replay the controversies of the past decades. Today’s children need educational practices grounded in the latest research, not discredited discussions that were considered cutting-edge in the early 1970s. This older thinking took place not just before today’s students were born, but before practically all of their parents and perhaps even most of their grandparents were born. While the voices of experienced educators can be informative, it is crucial to embrace cutting-edge neuroscience, hard research, and data gathered in schools aligned with common standards and democratic processes. We must also adopt modes of thinking that are widely used and respected in contemporary academia.
Balanced literacy, with its roots in whole language, is increasingly seen as a relic from a bygone era. It is out of touch with the pressing needs of today’s students and fails to address equity and the demand for evidence-based practices that ensure all children, regardless of background, receive the best possible education. Even school districts like New York City Public Schools and institutions like Teachers College, where Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study were first adopted decades ago, have moved on to programs better supported by contemporary research. Lucy Calkins herself, with commendable effort, is updating her ideas with research showing the importance of the science of reading.
Regarding Baudrillard, over the past few years, critical theory has become increasingly relevant in academia (despite some backlash). Baudrillard’s influence has grown as postmodernist and deconstructivist modes of thought have become more prominent. His ideas on hyperreality and the implosion of meaning are not just philosophical musings but tools for understanding how overstimulation in the classroom can impede learning.
Balancing well-supported research with outdated, discredited ideas is no longer constructive. We’re in the 21st century, and our educational practices should reflect advancements in our understanding of how children learn to read. Methods like whole language are weak compared to modern approaches grounded in scientific evidence. Reducing visual clutter and focusing on evidence-based instructional practices will create a more effective learning environment.
In summary, we need to embrace modern, scientifically-backed methods while using critical theory to analyze and refine these approaches. This combination will help us move beyond outdated debates and provide the best educational experiences for today’s students. While I am not old enough to have participated in these earlier debates (though U.S. history was one of my favorite subjects in high school), it is clear that these ancient and obsolete methods—reminiscent of the outdated, ideologically driven pseudoscience of Lysenko and his followers—need to be left behind.
Why rely on reading ‘science’ that was developed not just before the invention of the GPU, but before the inventors of the GPU were born? Consider how past computing was done without neural networks, which have now unlocked the potential of AI. Similarly, understanding how neurons function in reading is key to modern educational practices.
Very naive to believe that one person’s cutting edge research is now old and to be cast aside. Do you think the brains of kindergartners have evolved to where they now should be reading by first grade?
Also, thus far you have not cited any research other than a neuroscientist and a sociologist who are far removed from the classroom, and certainly more opinion than proof. I never used Calkins but it is strange that the Science of Reading advocates do not question online programs like iReady and Amplify which have little research that they work.
It’s becoming clear that the SoR is more about marketing than science. Please check out the link I gave to another neuroscientist Dr. Steven Strauss MD and PhD. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uorpsdpl97E Take care.
“Very naive to believe that one person’s cutting edge research is now old and to be cast aside”
It’s very simple: old research is old. We learn new things, we move on. Such is the way of the world.
It would be naive to say otherwise.
The Lucent 5ESS Telecommunications Switch used to be cutting-edge technology, and it is a truly impressive piece of engineering.
But no one is going to suggest setting up a modern communications system with circa 1982 technology. It’s not just old hardware; it’s an older form of networking design.
We learn, we move on.
Not with children. Take a course in child development.
“Not with children.”
Your terms are acceptable.
First, you’ve got to congratulate me on finding that connection between Krashen and Goodman. I practically conducted an archeological dig to connect them.
But since you value old research, let’s keep going back in time.
Roughly 100 years ago, neurologist Dr. Samuel Orton predicted that the methods that would later become known as ‘whole language’ would cause reading issues similar to those we see today.
Orton’s early research highlighted the importance of phonics and warned against neglecting this crucial aspect of reading instruction.
It seems reality has shown Dr. Orton to be right. The New York City Public Schools, Teachers College, and Lucy Calkins herself wouldn’t be making the changes they’re making if it were otherwise.
The issues we see today in reading proficiency can be traced back to the very practices he cautioned against.
Modern cognitive neuroscience has validated his early insights, underscoring the need for systematic phonics instruction to build strong reading skills.
And since you say you have no firsthand experience with Units of Study, my kids and I did. All the critiques of it align with my experience.
It also aligns with what the New York City Public Schools, Teachers College, and Lucy Calkins herself are doing. They’re moving on to stay relevant.
So you can move on to stay relevant. Or you can argue that old research should still guide our decisions. Either way, whole language techniques need to be curtailed.
Oh dear. I hate to argue with you, but, I studied learning disabilities, Orton and Orton-Gillingham are a very poor comparison for what you’re trying to state, because even though it has been around for a long long time, the research is slim to nonexistent that OG works. There’s a lot of trying to justify it but the research is just not there after 80 years (I think).
Also, I’ve studied and written about New York City Public Schools new SoR reading and EL Education, etc. The programs they’ve chosen last I looked have little proven research that I can see, and it is hard to tell what they mean by the Science of Reading. I believe even parents who support the SoR are concerned. It really is a good example of what the SoR is about, marketing. So be careful of stating what you believe to be relevant. Certainly we can learn new ways for instruction, but the idea that phonics is some new science is strange.
I’m also sick of hearing about Calkins, as her program has been used as a scapegoat, same with F & P and RR. Children need phonics but they need much much more to become good readers, and there are many fine activities to help children read that are connected to WL. You have to be a teacher to know that.
So you’re saying Dr.. Sam Orton is… out of date? Not aligned with the latest research? needs to be… cast aside.
It’s good to hear that you no longer hold the position that, as you wrote, “[i]t is very naive to believe that one person’s cutting-edge research is now old and to be cast aside.”
Checkmate.
Yes. OG’s lack of research has been commonly noted throughout the years. Unlike Krashen, it never was cutting-edge. So no.
Nancy, I was careful to cite Dr. Sam Orton, not the Orton-Gillingham curriculum. Dr. Orton did original research that was cutting edge at the time, and he is broadly recognized as a pioneer in his field. It’s disappointing to see my words distorted.
The relevance of Orton’s research lies in his early insights on the importance of phonics, which modern cognitive neuroscience continues to validate. His warnings about neglecting phonics are echoed in today’s educational challenges.
The need for systematic phonics instruction is supported by extensive contemporary research. This is the core issue we should be focusing on, rather than outdated and discredited methods like balanced literacy and whole language.
I guess I would argue that it wasn’t cutting edge if he and Gillingham were not able to use what they understood about phonics to make substantive changes with their OG program.
That said I’m not anti-phonics but only the idea that it must be systematic and Direct Instruction so early and for all children. Also, having been a longtime teacher in this area, I challenge your assertion that balanced literacy is discredited and that there’s research to prove systematic phonics (today that’s often online instruction which has little proof of success) is the way to go for all children. And I wonder how old you are since this is not a new debate.
Nancy, I appreciate your perspective, but I must emphasize that the core issue remains the need for effective reading instruction methods that are supported by contemporary research.
Dr. Sam Orton’s pioneering research on phonics provided foundational insights that modern cognitive neuroscience continues to validate. His contributions laid the groundwork for understanding the importance of phonics in reading instruction.
The argument for systematic phonics instruction is backed by extensive research demonstrating its efficacy. Numerous studies have shown that explicit, systematic phonics instruction significantly improves reading outcomes, especially for early learners and those struggling with reading disabilities.
Balanced literacy, with its roots in whole language, has faced significant criticism and scrutiny. While it may work for some children, it lacks the empirical support that systematic phonics instruction has garnered. Even long-standing proponents like Lucy Calkins have acknowledged the need to integrate more phonics into their programs.
This is not about dismissing the value of various instructional approaches but about ensuring that our educational practices are grounded in methods proven to be effective through rigorous research.
Given your experience and dedication to education, I’m sure we both agree that our primary goal is to provide the best possible reading instruction for all children. It is essential to remain open to evolving research and adapt our methods accordingly to meet the diverse needs of our students.
Thank you for the discussion, and I hope we can both continue to advocate for evidence-based practices that benefit all learners.
Many believe Calkins bent under pressure. Your research is not the only research, and you’ve only mentioned Orton and Dehaene. While neuroscience is interesting, it’s challenging to connect it to classroom reading instruction. I again refer you to the link I previously provided by Steven Strauss, who is also a neuroscientist, who is well-respected.
These free online books, Fact-checking the Science of Reading by Rob Tierney, P. David Pearson, and a newer book by Thomas Newkirk, are generating positive discussion on Facebook and X. They may add to your understanding of the current discussion surrounding reading.
https://literacyresearchcommons.org/
https://literacyresearchcommons.org/resources/
Have you seen that PECS nonsense. Supposed to help those with autism communicate. Just clutter of words and pictures that is actual a copywritten/patent product. I have seen these systems in autism classrooms. Not helping much with reading or speech therapy/communication.
A “phonics cheat sheet” did help me in elementary school to improve my reading.
No, I have not. I’ll look into it, Bill. Thanks.
I had a phonics chart in third grade that we all recited daily. I spell pretty well.