In 2023, Science of Reading (SoR) supporters were offended by The Science of Reading and the Rejection of Picture Books. At that time, I included reports and observations showing an overfocus on phonics instead of reading for enjoyment in SoR classrooms.
If you’re a teacher who combines phonics with reading picture books for enjoyment and encourages children to find and look at books and reading material freely, I applaud you! However, much in the media indicates that phonics-dominated classrooms crowd out reading for pleasure.
The emphasis on problems with 3-cueing, having children rely on meaning, structure, and visual information (like pictures) to read, may also create confusion.
The dislike of balanced literacy could be another factor.
Here are some of those reports.
1. In Science Of Reading Has Sucked The Joy Out Of Learning To Read, Experts Say, changed to Rigid Approach Has Sucked The Joy Out Of Learning To Read, Experts Say, Morrison describes the work of Wyse and Hacking, saying focusing on synthetic phonics at the expense of understanding and enjoying real whole texts means children miss out on the joy of reading (2024, Forbes).
SoR advocates challenged this title, saying SoR covers Scarborough’s Rope. However, Wyse and Hacking’s recent study shows schools in England have been overly reliant on phonics and decoding for over a decade, and children there aren’t reading well in the long run.
They describe children learning to decode formulaic texts containing a limited number of simple words, designed to encourage familiarization with certain sounds.
In The Balancing Act, Wyse and Hacking promote phonics and quality books for meaning.
2. Scholars Robert J. Tierney and P. David Pearson, in their book Fact-Checking the Science of Reading, describe 3-cueing favorably pointing to the SoR supporting phonics as the overriding instructional plan, saying:
Their consistent message is that phonics, first and fast, is settled science—and it is high time to get on with the policies and legislative action needed to ensure that every child in the U.S. (as well as Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and any other English speaking country) is provided direct access to the code as the first step in the process of becoming a reader (p.X).
3. In Make Time for the Read-Aloud. Here’s How (2024); Education Week’s Heubeck states:
Despite the benefits of read-alouds, it’s unclear how frequently teachers use them in the classroom. Further, research suggests that even when teachers do engage in read-alouds, there’s a tendency not to prepare adequately, thereby limiting the activity’s potential for positive outcomes.
A reporter continues to tell teachers how they should use read alouds implying that they don’t do it and do not understand how important this is to children.
4. Mark Seidenberg, whose book Language and the Speed of Light is often cited by SoR supporters, raised concerns about overemphasizing phonics in 2023.
He said:
A guest speaker gave a rambling talk about “science of reading” (SoR) issues. Then an experienced educator whose work includes teaching other teachers, asked: “if a student is a good reader, do we need to continue with phonemic awareness [PA] instruction?”
My heart sank. Why would a person need to ask this?
Time spent jumping through PA hoops could instead be spent on activities that expand the knowledge that supports comprehending texts of increasing complexity and variety.
He added:
I’m going to lay my cards on the table here: The treatment of PA in the “science of reading”–the idea that a certain level of PA is prerequisite for reading, and that PA training should continue until the student becomes highly proficient at PA tasks regardless of how well they are reading–is emblematic of problems that have arisen within the SoR approach. It is an overprescription that reflects a shallow understanding of reading development, yet has become a major tenet of the “science of reading”. The PA situation and other developments suggest to me that the SoR is at risk of turning into a new pedagogical dogma, consisting of a small set of tenets loosely tied to some classic but dated research, supplemented by additional assumptions that are ad hoc and ill-advised.
5. Newkirk’s The Broken Logic of “Sold a Story”: A Personal Response to “The Science of Reading rebuts reporter Emily Hanford’s Sold a Story.
About pictures he says:
…it would seem to follow from “Sold a Story:, that reading should be taught without the support of pictures—or at the very least it is unclear on that point. Yet it is barely conceivable to imagine children learning to read without picture books, without illustrations, without The Wild Things without Viola Swamp, without The Very Hungry Caterpillar or the illustrations of Goodnight Moon. Beyond the obvious visual and narrative appeal, there are sound reasons for the support to pictures in early reading.
Pictures obviously provide contextual support as does memory. Early readers often read (and reread) books that have been read to them (often many times), and that memory of the reading is a support for their own reading. It is the same principle as scaffolding: learners begin learning a task with some special supports, which are gradually removed (p.9-10).
6. Emily replies, citing her work saying: To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with pictures. They’re great to look at and talk about, and they can help a child comprehend the meaning of a story.
Context – including a picture if there is one – helps us understand what we’re reading all the time. But if a child is being taught to use context to identify words, she’s being taught to read like a poor reader.
Saying there’s nothing wrong with pictures, isn’t exactly endorsing the joy these books bring and all children can learn from them.
To be fair, 3-cueing critics have provided examples of poor teaching in this regard, but if children have 3-cueing difficulties teachers should notice by continually observing, assessing, and monitoring how a child is learning to read, recognize difficulties and providing support.
7. In 2022, the Shanahan on Literacy blog post What do you think of “phonics first” or “phonics only” in the primary grades? starts out with this question from a teacher:
At my school, the district inservice has made a big deal out of Scarborough’s rope. Nevertheless, when it comes to daily instruction, we (the primary grade teachers) have been told that decoding is the most important thing and that we are to emphasize that. They’ve sent us to LETRS training, purchased instructional programs on phonics, and require testing students’ “nonsense word fluency” frequently. At what grade levels is it appropriate to teach the “language comprehension” portions of the rope?
8. In What’s Happening to Shared Picture Book Reading in an Era of Phonics First (2021, Australia), mentioned previously, Campbell found …shared reading of quality children’s literature is being squeezed out of the early-years classroom teaching day, possibly because of explicit learning objectives, such as emphasis on phonics.
9. Hornsby and Wilson (2014) also stated: They [politicians, education bureaucrats and others] recommend phonics be taught first, in tight sequential programs, unrelated to the diversity of knowledge young children bring to school.
The authors recommended picture storybooks can be valuable tools in teaching children any number of graphophonic relationships.
___
The problem shows phonics often the focus until children learn sounds. But phonics and quality picture books (not only decodables) are not mutually exclusive. And some children need less phonics instruction.
While many teachers may understand this, it sounds like others don’t, or school administrators don’t. SoR supporters who like and use picture books for enjoyment don’t usually talk about this.
Creating language rich classrooms for children that include phonics and a variety of other instructional methods for children based on what they require to learn to read is essential, and it should always be as enjoyable as possible so they not only learn to read but like it!
References
Morrison, N. (2024, May 19) Rigid Approach Has Sucked The Joy Out Of Learning To Read, Experts Say. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2024/05/19/science-of-reading-has-sucked-the-joy-out-of-learning-to-read-experts-say/?sh=1f8a15ce1f58
Heubeck, E. (2024, April 24). Make Time for the Read-Aloud. Here’s How, Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/make-time-for-the-read-aloud-heres-how/2024/04
Campbell, S. (2021, April 27). What’s Happening to Shared Picture Book Reading in an Era of Phonics First? The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2004
Hornsby, D., & Wilson, L. (2014). Early Literacy is More Than Phonics. Practically Primary. 19(3), 12-15. https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.624941039634635?download=true
Prompt: Are there any logical fallacies in this post? Thank you!
ChatGPT-4o: Here are some logical fallacies identified in the post:
False Dichotomy: The post implies a strict either-or choice between phonics instruction and reading for enjoyment (e.g., “phonics-dominated classrooms crowd out reading for pleasure”). This oversimplifies the issue, ignoring the possibility that both can coexist in a balanced approach.
Hasty Generalization: The claim that phonics-dominated classrooms “crowd out reading for pleasure” is not universally substantiated. It relies on anecdotal evidence and specific reports without considering a broader range of classroom experiences.
Appeal to Emotion: Phrases like “phonics crowds out quality reading like picture books” and “Sucked the Joy Out Of Learning To Read” evoke a negative emotional response without providing concrete evidence that phonics instruction inherently diminishes the joy of reading.
Straw Man: The post misrepresents the Science of Reading (SoR) approach by suggesting that it advocates for phonics to the exclusion of all other reading activities, which is a mischaracterization. SoR encompasses a broader spectrum of reading skills, including comprehension and enjoyment of texts.
Appeal to Authority: Citing experts like Wyse and Hacking or Seidenberg without critically evaluating their arguments or considering opposing viewpoints can be an appeal to authority. This fallacy occurs if the cited experts’ opinions are presented as definitive without sufficient analysis or counterarguments.
Slippery Slope: The post hints that emphasizing phonics will inevitably lead to a reduction in the quality of children’s reading experiences and their long-term reading abilities. This assumes a negative progression without providing evidence for such a direct causal link.
These fallacies can undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the arguments presented in the post.
How clever to use chatGPT, a product that profits the same privatizers who avidly promote SoR as if it is a working miracle. As a former elementary principal, I witnessed the motivation to learn sucked out of too many students who rejected reading, often because standardized tests misapplied to kindergartners frequently communicated that students were not smart if they couldn’t read by the age of six. I have a daughter, who was reading fluently by age five, who gave up on reading for pleasure because her academic reading requirements were profoundly laborious. Finally, I ran a school where Question Answer Relationships were the reading strategy of the day. We reached over 95% proficiency by second grade, but struggled to get a 90% pass rate when the tests focused on comprehension. What we began to see was students who began to rebel against QAR because they understood the main process and simply wanted to read the passages and answer the questions. It took some time to convince the teachers that once the students mastered the process it was not necessary to teach it. The biggest problem in all of this wrangling over the so called reading wars is that too many seem to forget why we read in the first place, or the importance for motivation to read. We have made reading fluency the gatekeeper for later academic opportunity at the detriment for many children are denied the opportunity to learn more about our world.
You cover a lot of good stuff here, Paul. “…too many seem to forget why we read in the first place, or the importance for motivation to read.” Could all this be why kids no longer like to read. I’d say it is a part of it. Thank you!
Interesting! Here’s what I asked Chat GPT. It matters how you ask a question.
Also, in fairness, I left in the criticisms. Writing more under each reference would have been nice, but the blog post was already long. I wanted to hit the high points and provide links to explore this issue further.
Is it perfect? Of course not. But I got some points across, and I am pleased that people are discussing this, especially on some Facebook pages.
But thanks for the challenge!
Here’s what I got. To challenge your reply.
I asked, “Does the following post make some good logical arguments?” It answered in a more balanced way:
The post presents a series of arguments and observations that critique the current implementation of the Science of Reading (SoR) approach, particularly its emphasis on phonics. Here’s an evaluation of the logical coherence and strength of these arguments:
Strengths of the Arguments:
1. Balanced Perspective: The post acknowledges the value of phonics but argues for a balanced approach that includes reading for pleasure and the use of picture books. This balanced view is a logical stance, as it doesn’t dismiss phonics but rather calls for an integration of different methods.
2. Citing Specific Examples and Studies: The post references specific studies, experts, and publications (e.g., Wyse and Hacking, Robert J. Tierney and P. David Pearson, Mark Seidenberg). Citing these sources adds credibility to the argument and shows that the critique is grounded in research and expert opinion.
3. Identifying Potential Issues: The post logically identifies potential negative consequences of an overemphasis on phonics, such as a lack of enjoyment in reading and inadequate comprehension skills. It supports these claims with observations and expert testimonies.
4. Consistency with Educational Theory: The argument aligns with well-established educational theories that advocate for a diverse set of instructional methods to cater to different learning needs and styles.
Weaknesses or Areas Needing Clarification:
1. Generalizations and Scope: While the post mentions media reports and observations, it sometimes generalizes the situation in classrooms without providing extensive empirical data to support these claims. More detailed, large-scale studies could strengthen these points.
2. Potential Bias: The post might benefit from addressing potential biases of the authors and studies it cites. For example, if Wyse and Hacking are critical of phonics, their background and the context of their research should be clearly explained to assess their perspective’s validity.
3. Counterarguments: The post briefly mentions SoR advocates’ responses but could strengthen its argument by more thoroughly addressing and refuting these counterarguments. Acknowledging and engaging with the strongest points from the opposing view would make the critique more robust.
4. Practical Implications: The post could be improved by offering more specific recommendations for how to achieve the balance it advocates. Practical strategies or examples of successful integration of phonics and pleasure reading in classrooms would be helpful.
Overall Assessment:
The post makes some good logical arguments by advocating for a balanced approach to reading instruction that includes phonics and reading for pleasure. It is grounded in research and expert opinion, but it could be strengthened by providing more empirical evidence, addressing potential biases, and engaging more deeply with counterarguments. The overall logic is sound, but the argument would benefit from additional details and practical recommendations.
Here’s what I know after teaching nearly all grades and adults for the past 32+ years: Reading, like learning anything should be organic. I never liked the “we are only doing it this way.” When I first started teaching (3rd grade), I knew nothing except how I learned to read. The kids didn’t know their “sounds” (as I knew) later to understand it was all about phonemic awareness. In 1990, it was now all about “whole language” so we were instructed to throw out all the phonics books. Like a good tool, no matter the age, if it works, I keep it. My wife often says, “Why did you keep that?” “Because all the new stuff is cheap junk and this tool (usually a paintbrush or a hammer) and these are built solid. As for reading, I had a student I called, “Super Dupe Lupe.” She was a great reader; her fluency was flawless, but as I learned with EL students, they can fool you. She could memorize well and when I sat down with her about what she was reading, there was an issue. She read well, but didn’t really know what the words meant. So, I had to make sure to really check for understanding. And at that time it was okay to read aloud to students. I loved doing all the voice for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, King Midas Touch, and whatnot. The kids would listen and then from the description of what I said, they drew what they thought , well, the Oompa Loompa looked like. We had so much fun. In middle school, the kids were forced to do “Just Read.” It was a reading competition to see how many books students could read. I had to turn in my “book count” each week. Some kids told me, “Mr. Charvet I feel really stupid because I can’t read a lot of books.” I said, “Well, hold on. How many pages can you read and still like what you read?” I can read 5 pages a night. “Hmmm…let’s do some math. The admin told us that 150 pages equals a book. In one month you will have read a book you like at your pace!” Now there are 10 months in the school year and you will have read 10 books! You know how many books I read last year? Two. And that’s because I was on a plane. For some reason, I read really well on a plane.” The student was happy. The “Just Read” program was supposed to get kids to love reading and learning, but then there were far too many rules. Many of my kids would go to the magazine cabinet (supposed to be for art collages as I taught art for many years) and they ended up reading. I would say, “Hey, what are you doing back there?” They would pause and then say, “Mr. Charvet, we found these really great articles on these huge spiders in Africa. And another article on giant ships.” They were so excited and I told them when I would go put back all the magazines, I would end up doing the same thing. Unfortunately reading National Geographic or items deemed “that’s not a book!” were off the table. One week, I was late on my “Just Read” book count. Principal was on me. So, I was “pissed” but understanding a few things about making reading fun, I went to the library and checked a ton of children’s books and brought them back to class. I told the class these are great books with great stories and if you want to become an illustrator, these have the best pictures in them. The kids said, “Isn’t this cheating? These are little kid books.” I told them the rules stated they could read to their little brothers and sisters so how do you know if it is a good book unless you read it? They agreed. That was the last time I saw kids LOVING reading. They all remembered an elementary teaching reading to them and reflected on how they loved that. I found some great books to teach art as well. It was wonderful. Also, there is mention of “picture books” quite often. Well, I went to the an art conference and the presenter asked us, “Is a painting text? Can you read a painting? Does it encourage dialogue?” Well something to that effect. I mean can you say, “Art history” and the many hours I studied paintings every time I went to the Chicago Arts Institute? We had that same discussion. And it encouraged me to read more.
The last classes I taught before I retired the kids constantly said, “I hate reading.” They were tested nearly every day on reading speed, vocabulary knowledge, and based on their Accelerated Literacy score, they could only check out books based on the lexile number. During Covid, one student asked if they could read a book that wasn’t in their lexile range. I told the student, “If you want to read that book because YOU WANT TO, then read it. If you get stuck, we can work on the words you don’t know or you can ask questions about what are on the pages. It’s not a race. Remember, reading can take you anywhere!
In sum, very few students like reading; it is painful to them. I tried, but there were too many walls to many “reading panaceas” that never seemed to pan out and the stuff that worked, well no time for that.
Made no sense to me, but if I didn’t play by the rules, I was not a team player. All I know is if a student was interested in reading more, I made sure they had a book — I bought many books for my students.
Hope I made sense, but I loved reading; my mom read to me when I was little, and I tried to pass that love onto my students.
Side note: I was cleaning out my parent’s garage and found the original Uncle Wiggly In the Country and my mom’s “Primer” reading book from early ’20s.
And, if you have not seen the “Reading Rainbow” documentary on Netflix, it is worth the watch.
Thanks for listening. Peace to you all.
Thanks, Rick. Lots of interesting information here. And thanks for the reminder about Reading Rainbow. What a great show!
There is a reason why graphic novels are so popular. Perhaps it would do proponents of SoR well to understand why.
Exactly! I remember picking out the words I knew in Dennis the Menace comics. I liked other books and magazines too, but comics make it easier.
Thank you for this posting, Nancy. Also, thanks for the link to Thomas Newkirk’s The Broken Logic of Sold a Story: A Personal Response to the “Science of Reading”. Your reference in the posting is to the role of (and possible problems with) pictures as contextual information for children learning to read. Newkirk writes about that and much more. I appreciate his attention to the work of Marie Clay, discussing how her work has been misrepresented. He clarifies. I learned about phonemic awareness through Clay’s Reading Recovery training. No one should think that Marie Clay did not care about letter/sound. She did teach for flexibility, though, for the importance of giving children the tools and the opportunities to use all possible information (semantic, syntactic, orthographic) to process for accurate reading of appropriate, motivating text. She believed teachers need to be flexible as well, enabled through professional training to know how to actively observe children in order to provide what will be most helpful, depending upon their observation of the child. As with most things in school and in life, teaching in this way has never been perfect. It doesn’t come with a guarantee, as I know from experience. Still, this way of working commits to learning more about the person learning, along with what that person needs to learn. That is a daily commitment for as long as you work with students.
Thanks, Bruce. I agree. I was not a Reading Recovery teacher, but I knew parents who appreciated the program and others who later did not. The RR teachers I know are deeply committed to working with children and the flexibility you mention seems foremost in their thinking. I wonder if the fact that it is a program that individualizes a prescriptive plan for students working with individuals and small groups makes it less than ideal for those who want a one-size-fits-all approach. I see similarities with the drive to end special classes in special education. I appreciate your comments to help others better understand the program.
In 1984, the Apple introduced the Macintosh computer that focused on visual communication. Prior to this, the PC industry was floundering because all of the programming software used letters and digits. The product was so successful that Microsoft introduce its Office products the next year and Bill Gates became a billionaire. What is ignored in this tiring diatribe about reading is that people learn, and are motivated to learn, from a variety of forms of communication. I was a latent reader when that was ok back in the 1960s. Once I learned the value of reading to learn about a world that was exciting to me, I worked hard to learn to read. I was fortunate. My house was full of “Time Life” picture books on history, science, sports, and popular culture. Our World Book encyclopedias were full of pictures. My elementary principal, who I visited frequently in primary school, would tell my mom I was obviously intelligent because I could talk about anything (thus the reason for our relationship). Forcing all students to read, no matter whether they are ready, has done nothing to promote learning or comprehension. Test scores of all sorts have been demonstrating this for decades now. Yet, too many insist that reading is the threshold to learning. People were drawn to reading with movable type because they knew it led to better prosperity and they quickly saw it improve agency. They were motivated to read. If we simply throw words in front of students out of context, too many dismiss reading as a waste of time. Now, the very tech innovators who understood the value of the picture to accentuate wealth want us to believe it is all about the written word.
This is excellent! Children learn with books they find interesting and they need opportunities to explore which books they like. I love your description of the Time Life picture books. Thanks, Paul.
One aspect of balanced literacy not mentioned is the role that early writing plays in helping children understand and apply the sound system of English. It is a powerful tool that reinforces the sound/symbol relationship, syntax and thought. Children will learn better and faster when they have to actively produce rather than simply identify as in most phonics activities.
Oh absolutely! Karen, thanks for this. Trying to gather my thoughts about this exact subject and invented spelling. Phonics cannot exist in a vacuum.
Thank you VERY much for your work. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate it. I have been interviewing teachers about science of reading. You are expressing their concerns beautifully.
Thanks, Dory. I appreciate your comment very much. Take care.