tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post7805448426972567988..comments2024-03-28T20:36:01.373+11:00Comments on The Snow Report: Are we there yet? The long, steep, and winding road towards improved reading instruction.Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-78040962419186857782021-03-16T18:59:25.678+11:002021-03-16T18:59:25.678+11:00Maybe I have Holden Caulfield syndrome... probably...Maybe I have Holden Caulfield syndrome... probably, I don't know. I just see these kids as being so close to that cliff where, once over, they just free-fall into adult illiteracy. They get to years 9 and 10 completely disengaged from learning, are often seen by their teachers as merely classroom management burdens (particularly for exasperated English teachers that 'just want to teach literature'), and are then forced to endure the ultimate humiliation: the HSC National Minimum Standards test. By this point, NO ONE cares about tending their literacy wound, much less the students themselves. This is the grim reality for many of Dr Hempenstall's 'instructional casualties' trapped in a public education system that has not only failed them, but can't wait to be rid of them. It's infuriating.Dave Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07584100456313671093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-16805925650545136532021-03-16T11:12:41.326+11:002021-03-16T11:12:41.326+11:00I am also interested in this area Dave Fletcher. I...I am also interested in this area Dave Fletcher. I have just looked at the Tier 2 Interventions Review put out by the Catholic Education Office Melbourne and there is very little, if anything, in the way evidence-based interventions with reliable evidence for helping with comprehension above a Year 6 level.Carlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03813012073978238987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-47224502103428995692021-03-12T09:46:48.665+11:002021-03-12T09:46:48.665+11:00“We have to continue the shift. We can’t be upset ...“We have to continue the shift. We can’t be upset by the hard conversations. We can’t have kids in year 7 reading like they’re in year 3.” This quote from Samantha Donnan – a primary school teacher interviewed for the Jordan Baker Good Weekend article you also contributed to Pamela – really drives the point home for me. This is what I'm faced with as a Learning Support teacher who is responsible for years 7&8 LS coordination. I've just administered the Best Start tests for year 7 and my intention is to provide targeted support to those few students whose scores in reading comprehension are well below that of their peers. When I say well below, I mean getting a number of Stage 2 content questions incorrect, and even more Stage 3 questions incorrect. What I'm now desperately trying to find is an evidence-based structured literacy intervention I can run in a small group for these students. What's becoming increasingly demoralising is the inconclusive evidence for the efficacy of stand-alone literacy intervention programs at the secondary/middle school level; the debate and hard-nosed resistance from the top down to the withdrawal of students from regular classroom teaching and learning (presumably because inclusivity); and my resulting inability to say with confidence to my line manager and prinicipal: "please let me try this program to help these students that desperately need it: the evidence strongly suggests this will work." I'm now left with the maddening question... ok, I have the data that identifies significant comprehension weaknesses in students that will render them incapable of accessing the secondary curriculum if not rectified, but HOW DO I BEST HELP THEM? Dave Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07584100456313671093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-34402860618904124992021-03-11T19:10:02.355+11:002021-03-11T19:10:02.355+11:00I could not agree more; critical thinking about wh...I could not agree more; critical thinking about what we are doing is taken quite personally by some and therefore avoided altogether. If you don't try to explore further than the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is easy to disappear into.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-25965638492280059262021-03-10T09:58:00.244+11:002021-03-10T09:58:00.244+11:00Hi Unknown
Thanks for your question. There is an e...Hi Unknown<br />Thanks for your question. There is an enormous amount to be gained from reading to children, as I noted in the blog post, adults reading to children expands "....their vocabularies, their comprehension of complex sentences, their imaginations, and their knowledge of the world". It is also (as you rightly note) one way in which we develop phonological awareness, e.g. through reading rhyming books. So reading aloud to children is profoundly important, but on its own, it will not turn them into readers. What turns children into readers is *being taught how to read*, and most children (especially those who start from behind for a range of reasons)need specific instruction on this. Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-30415655522310687022021-03-10T01:44:35.756+11:002021-03-10T01:44:35.756+11:00Wonderful article.
One question from an admitted...Wonderful article. <br /><br />One question from an admitted neophyte ... isn't there more to be gained from listening to adults read than your analogy states? I know it is not "natural" in the sense that students who are being read to do not make speech/print connections ... but doesn't read-aloud expand their phonological lexicon, which will help them later when they have to make a lexical decision? Doesn't the increased word/background knowledge enhance their lexical quality? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17272260325083622664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-80373373519360976032021-03-09T23:09:32.430+11:002021-03-09T23:09:32.430+11:00Thank you and I agree. some policy makers are list...Thank you and I agree. some policy makers are listening and displaying openness to change, but others are not. It's interesting isn't it, that schools say they want their students to be critical thinkers, but that's the very attribute that is not always on display by the adults. Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-10844016307828901732021-03-09T23:08:05.668+11:002021-03-09T23:08:05.668+11:00Yes I agree. We seem to be doing what we in Austra...Yes I agree. We seem to be doing what we in Australia call "blockies" - driving around and around the same block of roads.Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-42894043448982145452021-03-09T23:06:37.506+11:002021-03-09T23:06:37.506+11:00Thank you Harriet. I do like a metaphor ;-)Thank you Harriet. I do like a metaphor ;-)Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-3883092801999427902021-03-09T23:06:04.100+11:002021-03-09T23:06:04.100+11:00Hhhm interesting but I would think they don't ...Hhhm interesting but I would think they don't account for the majority of piano teachers. A big part of musical instruction is understanding the notation ("writing")system.<br />Thanks for the affirming feedback. Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-38282619704084287332021-03-09T23:04:42.066+11:002021-03-09T23:04:42.066+11:00Renee you've summed things up so well here and...Renee you've summed things up so well here and I heartily agree - though as someone pointed out on Twitter today when I shared your words, being well-informed doesn't always allow parents to exert much influence over what happens for their children instruction-wise. We must keep advocating for all students at all ability levels. Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-86800457635450074012021-03-09T23:02:28.686+11:002021-03-09T23:02:28.686+11:00Hello again and thanks for your further response t...Hello again and thanks for your further response too. I'm a bit confused about your example of "chrain" for "train" in relation to your earlier point about phoneme-phone distinctions though. There's a wide range of reasons (many developmental) that such a substitution might occur in a child's speech and yes I agree it's important that teachers have a sufficient grasp of phonetics in order to be able to help children map speech to print, even when they are still making speech sound errors on school entry (which many are). To my mind, this puts us in furious agreement - teachers need to exit university being more knowledgeable about how the language system works and phonology is of course part of the language system. Apologies if I have misunderstood you. <br /><br />On the question of play, that is important for all children at all ages and stages and should be a particular focus of the pre-school years. I am not aware, however, of play-based pedagogies that are efficient for early reading instruction. That said, I see many instances of classrooms where children are being taught explicitly from a young age with engaging materials and by engaged teachers and they are clearly enjoying the experience. So, is that any more or less valuable than play? I don't think we should pit explicit teaching and play against each other. They both have a place in young children's daily routines. Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-59822651499911858562021-03-09T22:49:23.055+11:002021-03-09T22:49:23.055+11:00Hi Anonymous thanks for your thoughtful contributi...Hi Anonymous thanks for your thoughtful contribution - an interesting perspective for sure. I am aware that reading instruction begins very early in the UK (or at least compared to Australia it does) and as an SLP I have often said that it would be preferable in many ways if we could spend a year consolidating oral language skills and print concepts before moving into formal reading instruction. That said though, there are some children who are ready - there's no easy answer of course. You are probably aware of Courtenay Norbury's SCALES study in the UK that shows particular vulnerability language-wise for the youngest children in a reception class. <br /><br />On the issue of accountability, I agree that there's a lot of top-down activity in the UK (and to a lesser extent here in Australia) but I would argue that if education as a discipline had a similar approach to professionalism and accountability as some of the other disciplines I mentioned in the blog, then some of these "bolted on" approaches would not be necessary. When groups don't apply practice parameters for themselves, eventually they will be externally imposed. Again, I can only speak for Australia here, but there is a general flavour of "choose your own adventure" as a teacher when it comes to reading instruction and it defies common sense, let alone empirical evidence that they are all equally efficacious. Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-31517044571837953662021-03-09T12:17:32.000+11:002021-03-09T12:17:32.000+11:00Remarkable! Remarkable! Aísa Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03564311619368613308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-52450014308709769602021-03-09T09:58:30.586+11:002021-03-09T09:58:30.586+11:00Thanks for your time and thoughts.
re phone-phone...Thanks for your time and thoughts.<br /><br />re phone-phonemes, I'd say it's actually quite important. My son does not say 'train' - like his parents, he says 'chrain'.This is not because we or he are sub-standard speakers, and the example word is pretty important for him. A teacher who does not understand this is in danger of leaving him confused, or even ashamed, about his sub-standard speech.<br /> <br /><br />Likewise, the biological primary thing is not splitting hairs. On the premise that much learning occurs through play and informal interaction, progressive teachers have concentrated for years on building atmospheres and activities in classroom which encourage and foster the kind of play and informal interaction which build language skills. Some of the arguments for explicit instruction which are now circulating imply - or state outright - that this is all an awful mistake. The question absolutely has implications for the classroom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-49672210195179876072021-03-09T05:25:29.728+11:002021-03-09T05:25:29.728+11:00We need to be critical readers, for sure. No singl...We need to be critical readers, for sure. No single article or perspective will provide the answers we seek. That’s why we need to read it all, to make informed decisions.ssandenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13928593592386199568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-34047476661742777242021-03-09T04:22:46.319+11:002021-03-09T04:22:46.319+11:00I agree that the September science of reading issu...I agree that the September science of reading issue of RRQ is must reading, particularly Mark Seidenberg's piece, "Lost in Translation? Challenges in Connecting Reading Science and Educational Practice", which cautions us all to tread carefully. However, reader beware! Not all of these pieces are convincing. For example, the article A "Confluence of Complexity: Intersections Among Reading Theory, Neuroscience, and Observations of Young Readers" has some internal inconsistencies that are deeply troubling. This is frustrating for us practitioners who are trying to rely on peer-reviewed research and oftentimes just come away confused.Harrietthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12842078830306596039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-89685630599535301582021-03-09T04:12:27.163+11:002021-03-09T04:12:27.163+11:00I strongly recommend a careful review of the three...I strongly recommend a careful review of the three latest issues of Reading Research Quarterly, in which educators and researchers from multiple perspectives provide a broad and comprehensive look at the many facets of reading and reading instruction. All of us who claim to want what’s best in the name of children’s reading should also desire to know all we can across the broad range of the sciences of reading. I assume we are in agreement that knowledge is power and that we should aim to avoid advocating for reading instruction based on a narrow interpretation of a limited band of research.ssandenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13928593592386199568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-79360532062759078302021-03-08T23:31:29.662+11:002021-03-08T23:31:29.662+11:00I have worked as a teacher for many years and am n...I have worked as a teacher for many years and am now an SLT so I can see this problem from both sides. I think a more realistic and effective solution would be if teachers were allowed to teach reading when each child is developmentally ready for it. The pressure put on teachers to somehow get ALL children in reception to reach specific reading targets by the end of the year is frankly soul destroying. We know as SLTs that many children this age are still trying to sort out their phonological processes. It doesn't matter which approach you use to teach them reading. Theyrey not going to get it!<br />There are developmentally appropriate goals that those who design these targets seem totally oblivious of. <br />We start forcing reading on our children in the UK far too early, to the detriment of all of the other skills that our children should be learning through play. <br />I don't disagree that better quality education and training teaching reading is needed. But I take issue with your argument that teachers are not being held to account. What you have misunderstood is that it's actually the accountability measures that are driving the curriculum,not the stage and needs of the individual child. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves because the targets they are being told to reach for children are unrealistic and cruel. If you are working with teachers, it's really helpful to understand that.<br /> Let's start with providing proper education and training for those sitting in the ivory tower of target setting. These are the people who should be highly knowledgeable in how and when children acquire and comprehend language. Maybe then our four year olds can experience the joy of just being four.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-90396505617937681552021-03-08T23:08:42.151+11:002021-03-08T23:08:42.151+11:00Hello Anonymous
Yes, there is much work to do on l...Hello Anonymous<br />Yes, there is much work to do on lifting the language knowledge of the teaching workforce, a problem that is traceable to pre-service teacher education in English-speaking countries in recent decades. While you’re no doubt right about the confusion between phonemes and phones, that is so far down in the linguistic weeds as to be a luxury topic in my part of the world. Perhaps things are further advanced in the USA, but that's not my impression. <br /><br />Language and reading are both things that humans do so we have an evolutionary advantage for them over members of other species. Having oral language gives us the capacity to learn to read provided we receive adequate and appropriate instruction. It also confers the ability to learn a second language, provided again, we are exposed to and “taught” in some way. To take your logic to extremes though, would be to say that playing a musical instrument is partly biologically primary, because we can all move our arms. To that extent, all learning is “biological” because it involves the body and the brain, but I don’t think such hair-splitting helps classroom teachers.<br />Pamela Snow | The Snow Reporthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754222675609183221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-49585860000810869452021-03-08T22:47:26.701+11:002021-03-08T22:47:26.701+11:00For a more balanced view from a phonics advocate o...For a more balanced view from a phonics advocate on the evidence for the high intensity drilling of GPCs (here, 'systematic phonics'), see the blog-post linked to below.<br /><br />The takeaway is that more research is needed before we can say for certain that systematic phonics is clearly better than the alternatives (none of which are as effective as any of us would like), but that schools which already teach phonics may as well persist, given that it's unlikely to be much worse that what else is out there.<br /><br />https://gregashman.wordpress.com/2020/01/15/is-jeffrey-bowers-right-that-there-is-no-evidence-to-support-phonics-teaching/<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-67183329037130605622021-03-08T21:27:53.954+11:002021-03-08T21:27:53.954+11:00There is indeed a lot of linguistic ignorance knoc...There is indeed a lot of linguistic ignorance knocking around. <br /><br />Most advocates of high intensity GPC drilling (I refuse to use the 'p' word, it's too confusing) that I have come across show no understanding whatsoever of the phoneme-phone distinction. This ignorance - manifest in the persistently muddled claim that a phoneme is a 'sound' - leads to many problems in spelling further down the line. Most advocates of 'phonics' also seem unware of just how marginal the evidence in favor of high intensity GPC drilling actually is. The result is often wildly inflated claims about how much impact adopting high intensity GPC drilling is likely to have (and correspondingly inflated guilt-tripping of teachers who don't use it). <br /><br />Also, given the fact that even the 'simple view of reading' attributes a lot of reading success to language comprehension, and given that language comprehension is by your own admission biologically primary, your own logic demands that you acknowledge that reading is at least in part biologically primary, no? Or are you suggesting that reading is is in fact just decoding?? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-91989620031875272372021-03-08T11:28:43.637+11:002021-03-08T11:28:43.637+11:00If parents can educate themselves about the scienc...If parents can educate themselves about the science, best practice, and laws, educators and administrators can as well. The information isn't locked away in a tall tower being guarded by a fiery dragon. Being the most, or only, informed person at an IEP meeting while reminding the LEA that one is an equal IEP team member is unacceptable. If reading was taught scientifically, those IEP meetings wouldn't be needed for the vast majority of dyslexic students. Meanwhile, I advocate for science so no more students are tossed aside.Renee Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07716804719081657989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-71822639140086989282021-03-08T08:46:05.893+11:002021-03-08T08:46:05.893+11:00Great to read and nails the problems. It needs to ...Great to read and nails the problems. It needs to be so much widely shared as it still not really being acknowledged at the highest levels of educational policy. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16999785568233670488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-673598978629390697.post-89858155009373722522021-03-08T07:04:31.420+11:002021-03-08T07:04:31.420+11:00In addition to always making simple sense of compl...In addition to always making simple sense of complex issues, you are the master of the metaphor! Thank you!Harrietthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12842078830306596039noreply@blogger.com