reclaiming literacy instruction: evidence in support...

10
63 Reclaiming Literacy Instruction In the government document, Put Reading First, widely distributed to teachers and parents nationwide for free, the authors make a very strong claim that systematic and explicit phonics instruction “significantly improves children’s reading compre- hension. Systematic phonics instruc- tion results in better growth in children’s ability to comprehend what they read than non-systematic or no phonics instruction. This is not surprising because the ability to read the words in a text accurately and quickly is highly related to suc- cessful reading comprehension” (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2001, p. 14). In the same publication, the authors present the “official” government position in regard to literature-based programs as “non- systematic programs of phonics instruction” that “emphasize reading and writing activities. Phonics instruction is embedded in these activities, but letter–sound relation- ships are taught incidentally, usually based on key letters that appear in student reading materials” (p. 17). Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support of Literature-Based Programs Poonam Arya Prisca Martens G. Pat Wilson Bess Altwerger Lijun Jin Barbara Laster Debora Lang Are commercial phonics-based programs more effective than literature-based reading programs in developing phonics, accuracy, and comprehension?

Upload: duongkien

Post on 25-Jul-2018

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support …bashforth/305_PDF/305_FinalProj/Reclaiming... · Every reading act is an event, ... transaction involving a particular reader

63

Reclaiming Literacy Instruction

In the government document, PutReading First, widely distributed toteachers and parents nationwide forfree, the authors make a very strongclaim that systematic and explicitphonics instruction “significantlyimproves children’s reading compre-hension. Systematic phonics instruc-tion results in better growth inchildren’s ability to comprehendwhat they read than non-systematicor no phonics instruction. This isnot surprising because the ability toread the words in a text accuratelyand quickly is highly related to suc-cessful reading comprehension”(Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2001,p. 14). In the same publication, theauthors present the “official”government position in regard toliterature-based programs as “non-systematic programs of phonicsinstruction” that “emphasize readingand writing activities. Phonicsinstruction is embedded in theseactivities, but letter–sound relation-ships are taught incidentally, usuallybased on key letters that appear instudent reading materials” (p. 17).

Reclaiming Literacy Instruction:Evidence in Support ofLiterature-Based Programs

Poonam AryaPrisca MartensG. Pat WilsonBess Altwerger

Lijun JinBarbara LasterDebora Lang

Are commercial phonics-based programs more effective

than literature-based reading programs in developing

phonics, accuracy, and comprehension?

selson
Text Box
Copyright © 2005 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.
Page 2: Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support …bashforth/305_PDF/305_FinalProj/Reclaiming... · Every reading act is an event, ... transaction involving a particular reader

Language Arts, Vol. 83 No. 1, September 2005

64

The implication of these claims is thatliterature-based classrooms withknowledgeable teachers facilitatingdiscussions about books, encouragingchildren to choose what to read froma wide range of authentic materials,making time for them to read andrespond, and teaching phonics andskills in meaningful contexts are noteffective in improving children’sgrowth in reading comprehensionand phonics knowledge. Given thatthis strong position regarding theeffectiveness of systematic phonicsprograms over literature-basedprograms is embedded within the NoChild Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2001)and is driving program mandatesnationwide, we thought that furtherinvestigation was imperative. Conse-quently, we developed a researchstudy that included an analysis of thereading strategies, comprehension,and phonics knowledge of secondgraders in two literature-basedprograms and in two commercialphonics-based reading programs. Webelieve that the findings of our studywill shed light on this most importantand timely question of whether com-mercial phonics-based readingprograms are, in fact, more effectivethan literature-based readingprograms in developing phonics,accuracy, and comprehension.

THE BACKGROUNDOF CURRENT DEBATES

Throughout the 1980s and early1990s, literature enjoyed a prominentplace in the nation’s classrooms.Research documented the importanceof encouraging and allowing childrento just read (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott,& Wilkinson, 1984), the number ofchildren’s books published increased,and teacher researchers, such as Nan-cie Atwell (1987), were successful ininviting children to read and talkabout what they read. Of particularimportance was the resurgence of

interest in Louise Rosenblatt’s readerresponse theory, leading to aparadigm shift in our views of com-prehension, with a heightenedemphasis on interpretation:

Every reading act is an event, or atransaction involving a particularreader and a particular pattern of signs,a text, and occurring at a particulartime in a particular context . . . thereader and the text are two aspects of atotal dynamic situation. The “meaning”does not reside ready-made “in” thetext or “in” the reader but happens orcomes into being during the transactionbetween reader and text. (Rosenblatt,2004, p. 1369)

In literature-based classrooms,reader response theory comes aliveas children talk with each other, askquestions, and make personalconnections as they “live through”their readings and transactions withtexts (Rosenblatt, 1978). Reading isperceived as a process of inquiry(Short, Harste, & Burke, 1996). Thereare no single “right” answers. “Stu-dents read to inquire about theirworld and their lives . . . . Dialogingabout literature allows students tointerrogate their views of the worldand try on new perspectives” (Short,1999, p. 135). Through literaturediscussions, readers sociallyconstruct a meaning that is morethan the sum of their individualmeanings (Rosenblatt, 1978).

Studies document many benefits forchildren in literature-based classrooms

(Galda & Cullinan, 2003; Morrow &Gambrell, 2000; Tunnell & Jacobs,1998). Children grow as readers andwriters (Elsea, 2001; Gunner, Smith, &Smith, 1999), in their knowledge anduse of written language (Purcell-Gates,McIntyre, & Freppon, 1995), in provid-ing stronger retellings (Morrow, 1992),and in making predictions, evaluatingliterature, and connecting literature totheir own lives (Eeds & Wells, 1989).Children in literature-based classroomsalso perceive themselves as readers andwriters and demonstrate the ability toapply phonics knowledge and usestrategies when experiencing difficulty(Dahl & Freppon, 1995).

However, increasingly since the late1990s, authentic literature has beenreplaced by commercial basalanthologies and decodable texts, andliterature discussions by scripted les-sons that tell the teacher what to askand how the children shouldrespond. To justify this change inreading instruction, publishers ofcommercial reading programs pointto research supporting elements oftheir programs. Promotional materi-als for Open Court, for example,point to a controversial study(Allington & Woodside-Jiron, 2002;Coles, 2000) by Foorman, Francis,Fletcher, Mehta, and Schatschneider(1998) that found that students inOpen Court programs didstatistically better than those inEmbedded Phonics and Whole Lan-guage Programs on measures ofdecoding, phonological processing,and word reading. To promote theirSRA Reading Mastery program,McGraw-Hill published a booklet(Results with Reading Mastery, 2002)coauthored with the American Fed-eration of Teachers and the NationalAssociation of Elementary SchoolPrincipals, which includes testimonyand test scores from eightelementary schools, and a list ofstudies “supporting instruction in

However, increasinglysince the late 1990s,authentic literature

has been replaced bycommercial basalanthologies anddecodable texts.

Reclaiming Literacy Instruction

Page 3: Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support …bashforth/305_PDF/305_FinalProj/Reclaiming... · Every reading act is an event, ... transaction involving a particular reader

65

Reclaiming Literacy Instruction

Reading Mastery” (p. 18). While notall the studies in the booklet exam-ine the Reading Mastery program asa whole, they all support at leastsome component of the program.

Not surprisingly, publishers of thesecommercial reading programs are alsoquick to claim that their programs areconsistent with findings of “scientifi-cally based” reading research, asdetermined by the National ReadingPanel Report (NRP, 2000). Now, withthe implementation of No Child LeftBehind legislation (2001), teachers,locally and nationally, are increas-ingly mandated to use particular com-mercial programs, often Open Courtand Reading Mastery, which meetgovernment criteria for funding. Butis there adequate scientific justifica-tion for mandating these commercialprograms? Our study explores thisquestion.

OUR STUDY OF READINGPROGRAMS

The research we report is drawn froma study that examined the impact ofsecond-grade reading programs onclassroom instruction, and children’sunderstandings and perceptions ofreading and their reading strategies(Altwerger, Arya, Laster, Jin, Martens,Renman, et al., 2004; Wilson, Pitcher,Altwerger, Arya, Jin, Lang, et al.,2003; Wilson, Martens, Arya, &Altwerger, in press). We conductedour study in four second grades infour different schools within a largeurban metropolitan area. Two of theschools used commercial reading pro-grams—Reading Mastery (Engelmann,Bruner, Hanner, Osborn, Ostborn, & Zoref, 1995) and Open Court(SRA/McGraw-Hill, 2000). The othertwo schools used literature-basedinstruction—one an adaptation ofFountas and Pinnell’s (1996) GuidedReading and the other a school-designed adaptation of a system-wideliterature curriculum.

The 100 students in the study werefrom low socioeconomic conditions,but not coded for special educationand not receiving English as a SecondLanguage services. They had all beenin their respective programs since thebeginning of first grade. To study thechildren’s actual reading process anduse of strategies, we used miscueanalysis procedures (Goodman,Watson, & Burke, 1987). Weaudiotaped the children reading aloudto us from trade books that had anidentifiable story grammar. The textswere leveled according to Fountas andPinnell’s (1996, 2001) guidelines. Wehad eight levels of books, ranging fromkindergarten to fourth grade readinglevel, with two to three books at eachlevel. Miscue data was derived fromchildren’s reading of stories that were

challenging (without being frustrating),determined on the basis of miscue per-centages and retelling ability.

As per standard miscue analysis pro-cedure, we told the children that ifthey came to something they didn’tknow while reading, they should pro-ceed as they normally would whenthey read alone, and that we wouldnot help them. We also told them thatwhen they finished reading, we wouldask them to retell the story. Theretelling consisted of two parts. In theunaided retelling, the children shared,without being interrupted, what theyremembered from the reading. Then,in the aided retelling, we asked ques-tions but avoided giving informationabout the text; these questions werere-phrasings of the readers’ commentsor general prompts.

To give us an indication of the chil-dren’s ability to use phonics in isola-tion, we gave the standardized

phonics test from the WoodcockJohnson Psycho-Educational Battery(Woodcock, Johnson, & Bonner,1990). Members of the research teamalso observed and documentedlanguage arts instruction in the class-rooms and interviewed principals andteachers to learn their perceptions ofthe reading program in use. Ourobservations of language arts instruc-tion allowed us to compare the chil-dren’s readings and retellings withwhat was going on during their read-ing instruction. In this manner, webuilt a comprehensive picture of thechildren as readers.

To analyze their miscues, we followedmiscue analysis procedures (Goodmanet al., 1987). Miscue analysis is a“window” (Goodman, 1973) thatallows teachers and researchers to

examine the oral reading “miscues,” orunexpected responses a child makeswhile reading. This analysis indicateshow proficiently the reader integrateslanguage cues, such as syntactic(grammatical), semantic (meaning-based), and graphophonic (phonics)cues, and reading strategies such aspredicting and correcting, with a focuson constructing meaning. Two of uscoded each child’s reading at an inter-rater reliability of .90.

To study the children’s comprehension,we analyzed their retellings forinclusion of characters, setting, plotepisodes, inferences, and connections,and for general cohesion (smoothnessand completeness of the retelling) (Mor-row, 2001). Two researchers analyzedeach retelling transcript by scoring eachelement on a scale of 0 to 2 with a 0indicating no evidence and a 2 indicat-ing strong evidence. We established aninterrater reliability of .95 for this

But is there adequate scientific justification formandating these commercial programs?

Page 4: Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support …bashforth/305_PDF/305_FinalProj/Reclaiming... · Every reading act is an event, ... transaction involving a particular reader

Language Arts, Vol. 83 No. 1, September 2005

66

analysis. The Woodcock Johnson Psy-cho-Educational Battery–R (Woodcock,Johnson, & Bonner, 1990) was scoredaccording to the publisher’s directions,which resulted in standard scores.

WHAT WE LEARNED

Through the analysis of the children’sreading, retellings, and phonics testresults, we constructed profiles ofreaders in each of the two types ofprogram. By observing in classroomsduring language arts, we learneddetails about the instructionalpractices that impacted the children’sreading. Therefore, as we present whatwe learned from the analysis, we con-textualize the profiles of readers in thetwo program types by first describinginstruction in the readers’ classroomsto show the relationship betweeninstruction and reading patterns.

Literature-Based Programs

Characteristics. In the literature-based programs we observed in thisstudy, the teachers focus the childrenon constructing meaning as theyread. Through such experiences asshared reading, read-aloud, guidedreading, independent reading, litera-ture discussions, strategy discussions,interactive writing, guided writing,and independent writing, childrenare supported in integrating all of thelanguage cueing systems (syntactic,semantic, and graphophonic) to pre-dict and construct meaning.

During reading instruction, the teach-ers use authentic fiction andnonfiction trade books. They createand write the lessons, taking intoaccount the children’s interests andneeds and including both reading andwriting experiences. In guided readinggroups, the teachers support the chil-dren in using multiple strategies andcueing systems and provide time forthe children to practice what was dis-cussed that day. Skills and phonics aretaught, but primarily in meaningful

contexts, not in isolation. For ex-ample, when the children encounterdifficulties, the teachers encouragethem to: “Read that again so that itsounds good”; “If you don’t know it,skip it and come back”; and, “Use thesounds and the picture to figure outthe word” (Jordan, 2002). Whenbeginning a new book, the childrenfirst take a picture walk and make pre-dictions about what they will read.After transacting with the texts in theregular discussions of literature, chil-dren share their perceptions andsocially construct meaning. They areencouraged to make inferences andconnect what they are reading tothemselves, other texts, and the world.The teachers support children’s growthin comprehension through such strate-gies as K-W-L, compare/contrastcharts, timelines, and story maps.

Profile of the Literature-BasedReaders. Our analysis of the children’sreadings and retellings in literature-based (LB) classrooms reveals similarpatterns in the children’s use of multi-ple language cues with a focus onconstructing meaning as they read.Their miscues are usually either fullyacceptable in the sentences and textor partially acceptable from thebeginning of the sentence up to andincluding the miscue or from the mis-cue to the end of the sentence. If their

reading isn’t making sense, theyfrequently stop and work to solve theproblem. For example, the readingsample in Figure 1 is from Ted’s read-ing of Peter’s Chair (Keats, 1998).

In this sample, Ted demonstrates hiswillingness to take risks and integratea variety of cues and correction strate-gies when he reads. He begins byreading, “While take.” His substitutionof “While” for “We’ll” shows he ispicking up on graphic and sound cues.Since “While” is not the same part ofspeech as “We’ll,” his attention to syn-tactic cues is less obvious. However,“While” is a common way to begin asentence. When this substitution does-n’t make sense, Ted immediately stopsand corrects. He continues readinguntil he comes to “crocodile.” After anunsuccessful partial attempt (“cro-”),he goes back to the beginning of thesentence and begins again, this timesaying “blank” for “crocodile.” “Blank”is one of the strategies the literature-based children use when they come to something they don’t know whilereading. It allows them to keep read-ing and transacting with the text andindicates their awareness that “gettingall the words” isn’t necessary to under-stand. If that particular text item iscritical to the story, there will be othercues as to the necessary meaning or itwill appear again.

Figure 1. Example of Ted’s (LB) reading of Peter’s Chair (Keats, 1998).

“blank”

While cro-

“We’ll take my blue chair, my toy crocodile,

pictures my

and the picture of me when I was a baby.”

Willie got his bone.

saw

They went outside and stood in front of his house.

c

c

c

uc

Reclaiming Literacy Instruction

Page 5: Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support …bashforth/305_PDF/305_FinalProj/Reclaiming... · Every reading act is an event, ... transaction involving a particular reader

67

Reclaiming Literacy Instruction

In the next line, Ted substitutes“pictures” for “picture” and “my” for“me.” Both of these substitutions showhis attention to syntactic cues (theyare the same parts of speech as thetext items) and graphophonic cues(there is high graphic and sound simi-larity). While “pictures” makes senseand would have been an acceptablesubstitution, “my” is not. Ted stopsand, while he could have just madethat one correction, he goes back tothe beginning of the noun phrase andalso corrects “pictures.” Ted’s substitu-tion of “saw” for “stood” in the lastline again indicates he is drawing onsyntactic and graphophonic cues.“Saw” is also an example of a partiallyacceptable miscue; it makes sensefrom the beginning of the sentence upto and including “saw.” When Tedrealizes that “saw” doesn’t make sense,he immediately corrects it.

The retellings of the literature-basedchildren demonstrate the children’sfocus and understanding that theirreading needs to make sense. Inaddition to including facts from thestory, such as setting, characters, andplot events, their retellings generallyshow some degree of cohesivenessand that the children are makinginferences and connecting to thetext. An excerpt from Terri’s unaidedretelling of Jamaica Tag-Along (Hav-ill, 1989) provides an example:

The little girl went to play with thebasketball with her brother . . . . Buther brother didn’t want her to. Andthen he told her to go play on theswing. And then, the little boy cameand bothered her while she wasmaking her castle and then a womanwas pushing a stroller back andforth and then she said, “Leave thelittle girl alone” . . . . And then herbrother came and they helped herbuild a castle . . . [Jamaica was]annoying . . . because she keeps onasking her brother to take her withhim . . . . By the end [she changes].The boy asks her “Can, do you need

some help” and she said, “Yes, if youwant to help.”

It is clear from Terri’s retelling thatshe constructs meaning as she reads.She gives the gist of the story, includ-ing characters and plot episodes, withsome cohesion rather than only stat-ing scattered details. She also makesan inference, saying that Jamaica was“annoying.”

The literature-based children, then, areimmersed in rich literacy environmentswhere they read, transact, and discussauthentic literature, are encouraged touse multiple cues to make sense oftexts, and learn phonics and skills inmeaningful contexts. When they read,their focus on constructing meaning isevident in their strategy use,corrections, and retellings.

Commercial Phonics-Based Programs

Characteristics. The two commercialphonics-based programs (CPB) aresimilar in that they both are scripted,incorporate systematic explicit phon-ics instruction, and include readinganthologies in their second-gradeprograms. There are some differences,though. The anthology in the ReadingMastery program, for example, iswritten by the program authors whocontrol vocabulary and conceptdevelopment and try to increase chil-dren’s background knowledge(Osborn, 1995). Reading Mastery alsoincludes word practice using lists ofdifficult-to-decode words, commonfeature words, easy-to-decode or

familiar words, and vocabulary fromthe text to be read (Osborn, 1995).During reading instruction, the storiesare read out loud, with the teachersstopping at specific places to insertcomprehension questions. In one les-son, for example, the teacher read,“Everybody, touch the dock,” andpaused for the children to point to thepicture in their books. She continuedby saying, “What do we call a placewith those docks?” and the childrenreplied in unison, “Harbor” (Lang,2002). Students are allowed a certainnumber of errors as they read. If theymake more than the allowablenumber, they re-read; if not, they earnpoints for not going over the limit ofpermissible errors (Osborn, 1995).

The Open Court program providesteachers with detailed lessons andincludes an anthology containing storiesthat have been published elsewhere. Theanthology is set up in thematic units,containing both classic and contempo-rary literature. In addition to the anthol-ogy, pre-decodable and decodable booksare used to explicitly and systematicallyteach decoding skills (SRA/McGraw-Hill,2000). Choral readings and teacher-directed literal and inferential questionsare used to develop reading fluency andcomprehension. The teachers areadvised to follow a three-part scriptedinstructional plan for both word studyand for comprehension at all grade lev-els, focusing on skills such as soundsand letters, phonemic awareness, phon-ics, word knowledge, spelling, vocabu-lary, and comprehension.

Profile of the Commercial Phonics-Based Readers. Our analysis of thecommercial phonics-based children’smiscues and retellings show similarpatterns in their reading. The childrenrely heavily on graphophonic cues asthey read. They often make substitu-tions, either real words or nonwords,which do not make sense and theycontinue reading without even attempt-ing to correct their miscues. The sample

The retellings of theliterature-based

children demonstratethe children’s focusand understandingthat their reading

needs to make sense.

Page 6: Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support …bashforth/305_PDF/305_FinalProj/Reclaiming... · Every reading act is an event, ... transaction involving a particular reader

Language Arts, Vol. 83 No. 1, September 2005

68

from Sandy’s reading of Gregory theTerrible Eater (Sharmat, 1980) in Figure2 provides an example.

Both of Sandy’s substitutions in thisexample demonstrate her dependenceon graphophonic cues at the expenseof meaning. There is a high degree ofgraphic similarity and sound similaritybetween “$wipped” and “wiped” andbetween “excited” and “excused,” indi-cating she is using her phonics knowl-edge. In addition, both substitutionsshow her attention to syntactic/gram-matical cues since both are the samepart of speech as the text item. How-ever, neither makes sense, and Sandycontinues reading without correcting.

The retellings of children in the com-mercial phonics-based programsshowed understanding of facts(setting, characters, and plot events)and some cohesiveness, but few infer-ences and personal connections to thetext. Excerpts from Jeff’s retelling ofFlossie and the Fox (McKissack, 1986)provide an example (slash lines indi-cate the interviewer’s murmur ofencouragement to continue):

A dog ran after a fox. And, the foxwas faster than the dog./ And Flossiethought the fox was a cat when thecat had yellow [eyes] and big sharpclaws/ Like the fox./ And the fox hada long red tail/And Flossie known itwas a fox when the fox ran faster thanthe dog . . . Flossie known the fox wasreally fast./ The fox has a long nose.The fox is in the daylight. The fox hadsharp teeth. The fox could talk./ Thefox told Flossie that he was a fox.

Jeff’s retelling is notcohesive; he starts with thelast part of the story, andtells bits and pieces as heremembers them. By the endof the retelling, he had sup-plied information about allbut one plot episode. Whilehis overall retelling score is82%, Jeff is not used to dis-cussing what he reads with-out strong teacher guidance

in the form of questions.

The commercial phonics-based chil-dren, then, when they read, tend to bemore concerned with graphophonicsimilarities than with meaningconstruction, often continuing to readwhen their substitutions do not makesense. While their retellings indicatesome comprehension, they lackcoherence and inference.

Comparative Miscue Analysis Findings for the Literature-Based andCommercial Phonics-Based Children

Table 1 contains mean miscueanalysis scores that are representa-tive of children in both theliterature-based and commercialphonics-based programs. Multivari-ate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)was used to compare the meanscores for meaning-related variablesand graphophonic-related variablesof children in literature-based andcommercial phonics-basedprograms. Table 1-A contains meansfor selected meaning relatedvariables. The “MeaningConstruction No Loss” pattern isalso referred to as the“Comprehending Score” in othermiscue analysis research. This scoreincludes miscues that were fullyacceptable in the story or wereunacceptable but successfullycorrected. The comprehending scoremeasures how proficiently studentsare using the reading process bydetermining the quality of readers’miscues and readers’ ability to suc-

cessfully focus on meaning duringthe reading (Goodman, 2003). It dif-fers from the comprehension score(measured by the retellings) thatfocuses on meaning after they’re fin-ished reading.

The “Meaning Construction PartialLoss” pattern includes miscues thatare fully acceptable but have somemeaning change or are partiallyacceptable from the beginning of thesentence up to and including the mis-cues or from the miscue to the end ofthe sentence. It also includes miscuesthat the reader attempted to correctbut was unsuccessful. The “MeaningConstruction Loss” pattern calculatesthe reader’s unacceptable miscuesthat are not successfully corrected,thereby causing the reader to losemeaning (Goodman et al., 1987).

As Table 1-A shows, while there aresome differences between theretelling scores (comprehensionwhen they finish reading) and mean-ing construction no loss scores (theircomprehending as they are reading)of children who participated in liter-ature-based and commercialphonics-based programs, thosedifferences are not statisticallysignificant at the 0.05 level. In otherwords, students perform equally wellwhile reading and in talking aboutwhat they read. The meaningconstruction loss and partial lossscores, however, are statistically sig-nificant at the 0.05 level. Thisindicates that the literature-basedchildren are risk takers who do nothesitate to use available cues to atleast make meaning in parts of sen-tences if they are having difficultywith the entire sentence. When theirmiscues don’t make sense, they oftenattempt to correct, though they arenot always successful. As a result ofthis concern for meaning, the litera-ture-based children have lowpercentages of miscues that have “noacceptability”—they are less willingto continue reading when their read-

$wipped

He wiped his mouth with

his napkin.

excited

After Gregory was excused from the table . . .

Reclaiming Literacy Instruction

Figure 2. Example of Sandy’s (CPB) read-ing of Gregory the Terrible Eater (Sharmat,1980).

Page 7: Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support …bashforth/305_PDF/305_FinalProj/Reclaiming... · Every reading act is an event, ... transaction involving a particular reader

69

Reclaiming Literacy Instruction

Table 1. Mean miscue analysis scores for children in the literature-based and commercial phonics-based programs

A. Means for Meaning-Related Variables

Mng. Constr. No Loss Mng. Constr. Mng. Constr. Retelling (Comprehending Score) Partial Loss Loss

Literature-Based 60.61 NS 36.19 NS *21.17 *43.01

Commercial Phonics-Based 54.35 34.38 *12.44 *52.27

B. Means for Graphophonic-Related Variables

Phonics Miscues Per Sound Similarity Graphic Similarity Stand. Score Hundred Words

Literature-Based 86 NS 92 NS 103.09 NS 9.02 NS

Commercial Phonics-Based 83 90 109.81 10.23

Note:

NS = No statistically significant differences were found

* = Statistically significant differences were found at p < .05

Mng. Constr. = Meaning Construction

Sound Similarity = High Similarity + Some Similarity

Graphic Similarity = High Similarity + Some Similarity

Phonics Stand. Score = Phonics Standard Score from the Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery—R, AchievementWord Attack Subtest. Standard scores are based on an average standard score of 100 with a standard deviation of 15.

ing doesn’t make sense than are thecommercial phonics-based children.In contrast, the commercial phonics-based children produce considerablymore miscues that render the textsentences meaningless than theliterature-based children.

Table 1-B represents findingsregarding students’ use ofgraphophonics. “Sound similarity”and “graphic similarity” reflect thechildren’s use of sound and graphiccues in context and the “phonicsstandard score” shows their use ofphonics out of context on thepseudo-word test (Woodcock, John-son, & Bonner, 1990). “Miscues perhundred words” indicates the read-ers’ accuracy as they read.

There are no statistically significantdifferences between the scores ofchildren in literature-based andcommercial phonics-based programsin their use of phonics in or out ofcontext. This means that despite theheavy emphasis on isolated phonics

and their use of decodable texts,commercial phonics-based programsdo not produce readers who differsignificantly in their use of grapho-phonic cues in or out of context ascompared with readers in the litera-ture-based programs. Furthermore,findings on miscue frequency, asmeasured by miscues per hundredwords, indicate that the commercialphonics-based programs’ emphasison phonics and word identificationdoes not result in more accuratereaders than the literature-basedprograms. Apparently, programsthat focus on integratinggraphophonics with other cues whilereading authentic texts for meaningproduce readers that are not at adisadvantage in using graphophoniccues or in reading accuracy.

CONCLUSION

According to claims in Put ReadingFirst, the children in commercialphonics-based programs, which

emphasize systematic explicit phonicsinstruction, should be superior intheir use of graphophonics within thereading process and in isolation. Inaddition, they should be more accu-rate readers and have an advantagein their ability to construct meaningduring reading and in their overallcomprehension of the texts. Based onthese claims, school systems, alongwith their state and federal policymakers, are mandating programs thatemphasize the use of systematicexplicit phonics instruction.

In our study, however, we found nosupport for the claims made in PutReading First and translated into theNo Child Left Behind Act. Our find-ings show that the children in thecommercial phonics-based programsare not significantly better than thechildren in literature-basedprograms in phonics use, in or outof textual context. Neither are theysignificantly better on accuracy oron comprehension. In fact, they are

Page 8: Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support …bashforth/305_PDF/305_FinalProj/Reclaiming... · Every reading act is an event, ... transaction involving a particular reader

Language Arts, Vol. 83 No. 1, September 2005

70

statistically weaker when it comesto a willingness to take risks; as aresult, they continue reading,accepting meaningless text. Thecommercial phonics-based childrenread decodable and controlled texts,often answer questions with onecorrect answer rather than multiple

divergent answers, and rely heavilyon graphophonics. This may handi-cap their ability to use multiplestrategies for both text processingand comprehension.

On the other hand, children in liter-ature-based programs, through theirtransactions with texts and immer-

sion in rich discussions, attempt atevery level to make sense of texts.They use what they know about lan-guage and the world, and integratemultiple strategies to constructmeaning as they read. They focus ongraphophonic cues, but do not relysolely on them. Because they demon-

Reclaiming Literacy Instruction

Many of us feel a deep sense of hurt when districts seem toabandon trust in our decision making about students’ liter-acy lives in favor of prescriptive programs. Although it ishealthy to grieve over this loss of trust, it is not healthy toremain marginalized and feeling helpless. Since every actionis political, including non-action, we need to consider theactions we can take in pushing for more respectful andresponsive outcomes within a program adoption.

• Never act alone. Teachers are too vulnerable to consideracting alone. Find a group of teachers and initiate con-versations about the status of any pending or completedadoption. If you need to have such conversations awayfrom the school site, do that. But do not stop talking.Talk is the forum in which our problems get focused andour actions take shape and form.

• Get involved in the adoption process. Most districtsinclude teachers in adoptions because district administra-tors want to be able to claim that teachers were involvedin the process and, therefore, should not complain aboutthe choice. Getting your voice and the voices of like-minded colleagues on these committees is crucial.

• Slow the process down once you are on the committee. Itis in the slowing down that you can expose any problem-atic aspects of the process. Ask questions: What are someother choices? How are English language learners served?How is reading defined and assessed? How much doesthis cost? What other companies have materials toexplore? Who else has tried this in a district like ours?

• Unpack the definition of reading in these meetings. Forexample, if the children are asked to read non-words aspart of the reading instruction, the definition of readingmust include that it involves saying nonsense.

• Unpack the “research” that is presented in the meetings.Ask to see the studies to which program representatives

refer. Find out how many children used the exact programin the study. Ask about the demographics. Find out whattests were used. Ask to see those tests. Ask how long thechildren were in the program. Ask if you can speak withteachers from the schools in the study to find out whetherthey supplemented the program. You may find that theteachers, not the program, made the success. Presentother research from journals, such as Language Arts.

• Make your concerns about the product and the processpublic within adoption meetings. Explain what youwould do instead. Take a lot of airtime and say that youare doing so in order to be clear about what yourstudents need. Orchestrate your time in these meetingsas thoroughly as the presenters orchestrate their presen-tations. Bring overheads of your students’ work and askif there will be time for activities such as writers’ work-shop, art, etc. Make sure that there will be people toagree with you (by shaking their heads or by stating so).

• Bring information to your colleagues at school. Tell themwhat is happening and invite them to come to the nextmeeting as your guest. If families in your school are ableto come, consider bringing them, too, to speak abouttheir perspectives and support for what is currently hap-pening in your classroom.

• Talk to your union. A union is not supposed to take astand on a specific curriculum, but they are supposed tomake sure your voice is heard. See if the local unionleader will attend meetings and write op ed piecesabout the processes within adoptions.

• Finally, don’t give up. You may lose the first round, butyour voice and your mind are crucial facets of yourteaching. Don’t let anyone take them away.

—Richard Meyer

Participating in Textbook Adoptions: Be Present, Talk Back, and Live Tenaciously

Page 9: Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support …bashforth/305_PDF/305_FinalProj/Reclaiming... · Every reading act is an event, ... transaction involving a particular reader

71

Reclaiming Literacy Instruction

strate processing of both surface anddeep structures of language, theyare able to grapple with text andword-level processing and compre-hension. This will enable them todevelop independence as developingreaders.

This study of children’s readingraises many critical questions andconcerns. We must ask whetherweaknesses in commercial phonics-based programs will launch readerswho will be less independent inusing multiple strategies for textprocessing, comprehending, andcomprehension. Instead of teachingphonics more effectively, do thecommercial phonics-based programscreate readers for whom constructingmeaning is less important thangraphophonic similarity? Ourconcern is that the widespread use ofcommercial phonics-based programs,instead of literature-based programs,will have a debilitating effect on thedevelopment of a whole generationof young readers. Although somefirst graders in commercial phonics-based programs may excel in decod-ing, they may ultimately havedifficulty with the reading and com-prehension demands placed on themin higher grades.

This study supports the contentionthat to grow readers who aresuccessful in text processing andcomprehension, and who can usegraphophonic as well as other strate-gies efficiently during reading, theremust be an emphasis on authenticand appealing literature in class-rooms. Furthermore, there must beteaching beyond a scripted lesson. Ateacher must model interaction withtext, provide opportunities for chil-dren to talk about what they read,and facilitate peer interactioncentered on reading. In the begin-ning grades, it is important for stu-dents to gain much more thanmastery of grapheme–phonemecorrespondence—they must learn

how to use texts to make meaningwhile they are reading. Thisapproach to reading will serve themfor many years and with many dif-ferent types of texts. The students inthe literature-based programs in ourstudy were adept at using grapho-phonic cues, but they were alsosuperior in comprehending and com-prehension at higher levels. With thecurrent trend toward mandatingcommercial phonics programs, weare concerned that many studentswill be given less than what theyneed to be successful readers.

Author’s NoteMiscue analysis markings used in thefigures: • Substitutions are writtenabove the text; words omitted arecircled. • A small circle connected to aline(s) under a portion of text indicates aregression, and the letter(s) in the circleindicate what occurred: C indicates themiscue was corrected; R indicates astraight repetition of the text; UC meansan unsuccessful attempt was made tocorrect the miscue. • A $ means that thesubstitution is a non-word.

ReferencesAllington, R., Woodside-Jiron, H. (2002).

Decodable test in beginning reading: Aremandates and policy based on research?In R. Allington (Ed.), Big brother and thenational reading curriculum: How ideol-ogy trumped evidence (pp. 195–216).Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Altwerger, B., Arya, P., Laster, B., Jin, L.,Martens, P., Renman, N., et al. (2004).When research and mandates collide:The challenges and dilemmas of teachereducation in the era of NCLB. EnglishEducation, 36, 119–133.

Anderson, R., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkin-son, I. (1984). Becoming a nation of read-ers. Champaign, IL: Center for the Studyof Reading.

Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J.(2001). Put reading first: The researchbuilding blocks for teaching children toread. Washington, DC: Partnership forReading, a collaborative effort of theNational Institute for Literacy, theNational Institute of Child Health andHuman Development, and the U.S.Department of Education.

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, read-ing, and learning with adolescents.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Coles, G. (2000). Misreading reading: The badscience that hurts children. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Dahl, K. L., & Freppon, P. A. (1995). A com-parison of inner-city children’sinterpretations of reading and writinginstruction in skills-based and wholelanguage classrooms. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 30, 50–74.

Eeds, M., & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversa-tions: An exploration of meaning construc-tion in literature study groups. Research inthe Teaching of English, 23, 4–29.

Elsea, B. (2001). Increasing students’ readingreadiness skills through the use of abalanced literacy program. East Lansing,MI: National Center for Research onTeacher Learning. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED454505)

Engelmann, S., Bruner, E., Hanner, S., Osborn,J., Osborn, S., & Zoref, L. (1995). Readingmastery. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M.,Mehta, P., & Schatschneider, C. (1998). Therole of instruction in learning to read:Preventing reading failure in at-risk chil-dren. Journal of Educational Psychology,92, 37–55.

Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guidedreading: Good first teaching for allchildren. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Foutas, I. & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Leveledbooks for readers. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Galda, L., & Cullinan, B. (2003). Literature forliteracy: What research says about thebenefits of using trade books in the class-room. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, & J.Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research onteaching the English language arts (pp.640–648). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Goodman, K. (1973). Miscues: Windows onthe reading process. In K. Goodman (Ed.),Miscue analysis: Applications to readinginstruction (pp. 3–14). Urbana, IL: ERICClearinghouse & NCTE.

Goodman, K. (2003). Miscue analysis:Research on the reading process. In A.Flurkey & J. Xu (Eds.), On the revolution ofreading: The selected writings of KennethS. Goodman (pp. 105–116). Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Page 10: Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support …bashforth/305_PDF/305_FinalProj/Reclaiming... · Every reading act is an event, ... transaction involving a particular reader

Language Arts, Vol. 83 No. 1, September 2005

72

Goodman, Y., Watson, D., & Burke, C. (1987).Reading miscue inventory: Alternativeprocedures. Katonah, NY: Richard Owen.

Gunner, A., Smith, J., & Smith, S. (1999).Improving comprehension and attitudetoward reading using a balanced readingapproach. East Lansing, MI: NationalCenter for Research on Teacher Learning.(ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED435095)

Havill, J. (1989). Jamaica tag-along. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Jordan, N. (2002). Teaching reading andlearning to read: The guided readingschool. Unpublished manuscript.

Keats, E. J. (1998). Peter’s chair. New York:Penguin.

Lang, D. (2002). Unpublished field notes.Towson University.

McGraw-Hill Education. (2002). Results withreading mastery. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McKissack, P. (1986). Flossie and the fox.New York: Scholastic.

Morrow, L. M. (1992). The impact of a litera-ture-based program on literacy achieve-ment, use of literature, and attitudes ofchildren from minority backgrounds.Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 251–275.

Morrow, L. M. (2001). Literacy developmentin the early years: Helping children readand write (4th ed.). Needham Heights,MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Morrow, L. M., & Gambrell, L. B. (2000). Liter-ature-based reading instruction. In M.Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R.Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research,Volume III (pp. 563–586). Mahway, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teach-ing children to read [video, 2nd ed].Washington, DC.: National Institute ofChild Health and Human Development,National Institutes of Health, Departmentof Health and Human Services.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, H.R.1,107th Cong. (2002). (enacted).(www.thomas.loc.gov).

Osborn, S. (1995). Reading mastery seriesguide. Worthington, OH: SRAMacmillan/McGraw-Hill.

Purcell-Gates, V., McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P.(1995). Learning written storybook lan-guage in school: A comparison of low-SES children in skills-based and wholelanguage classrooms. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 32, 659–685.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text,the poem: The transactional theory of theliterary work. Carbondale, IL: SouthernIllinois University Press.

Rosenblatt, L. (2004). The transactionaltheory of reading and writing. In R.Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoreticalmodels and processes of reading (pp.1363–1398). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Sharmat, M. (1980). Gregory the terribleeater. New York: Scholastic.

Short, K. (1999). The search for “balance” ina literature-rich curriculum. Theory IntoPractice, 38(3), 130–137.

Short, K., Harste, J., & Burke, C. (1996). Cre-ating classrooms for authors and inquir-ers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2000). Open courtteacher edition.

Tunnell, M. O., & Jacobs, J. S. (1998). Using “real”books: Research findings on literature-based reading instruction. In C. Weaver (Ed.),Reconsidering a balanced approach to read-ing (pp. 373–386). Urbana, IL: NationalCouncil of Teachers of English.

Wilson, G. P., Pitcher, S., Altwerger, B., Arya, P.,Jin, L., Lang, D., et al. (2003). The impact offour reading programs on children’s read-ing strategies: Research summary report.Towson, MD: Towson University LiteracyResearch Center.

Wilson, G. P., Martens, P., Arya, P., &Altwerger, B. (in press). Readers, instruc-tion, and the NRP. The Kappan, 86.

Woodcock, R., Johnson, W., & Bonner, W.(1990). Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educa-tional Battery—R, New York: Riverside.

Reclaiming Literacy Instruction Author Biographies

Poonam Arya is associate professor ofReading, Language, and Literature atWayne State University. Prisca Martensis associate professor of Elementary Educa-tion at Towson University. G. Pat Wilsonis assistant professor of Early ChildhoodEducation at the University of SouthFlorida. Bess Altwerger is professor ofElementary Education at TowsonUniversity. Lijun Jin is associate professorof Elementary Education at Towson Univer-sity. Barbara Laster is director of theGraduate Reading Programs at Towson Uni-versity. Debora Lang is a lecturer of Ele-mentary Education at Towson University.