References
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Institute for Educational Sciences, US Department of Education, nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/. Data tables from https://datacenter.aecf.org/#USA/
Whole language, Phonics, blended or balanced reading instruction (various references)
www.readinghorizons.com/reading-strategies/teaching/phonics-instruction/reading-wars-phonics-vs-whole-language-reading-instruction
www.ascd.org/publications/curriculum-update/fall1995/Whole-Language.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_language
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED545621.pdf
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/11/the-reading-wars/376990/
www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/nrp
www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/smallbook
balancedreading.com
www.parkerphonics.com/post/a-brief-history-of-reading-instruction
Evidence for studies based upon phonics
Most phonics programs claim success based primarily upon improved scores for phonics-related testing. There is no evidence that improvement on phonics tests translates to increased scores for reading fluency and comprehension. There is a broad assumption in the education community that increased phonics scores equals improved reading scores, which is not supported in any recognized studies.
One of the best resources for information is the What Works Clearing House.
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/FWW/Results?filters=,Literacy
For most generally accepted phonics-based reading programs in use today, either there are no studies that show improved reading comprehension or if listed, they actually show there is no effect on early fluency and comprehension.
(9) Kennewick case study
Original information on the immersion, catch-up, concept came from the Kennewick School District in Washington State. A book was written on the study entitled "Annual Growth for all Students, Catch-up Growth for those who are behind", Fielding, Kerr, Rosier, 2007. Subsequently, we have worked with an elementary school in Colorado Springs called Soaring Eagles Elementary. They are a Title 1 school that has won many awards and has been recognized by the state of Colorado as a leading school. They have scored above state average consistently for over 10 years and they attribute their success to the immersion, or catch-up, model.
Percentage of English words that can be sounded out with a true letter-to-sound correlation.
http://readingkingdom.com/files/Reading_Kingdom_Curriculum.pdf
Please go to page 83 for a complete explanation and references.
Phonics rules
blog.allaboutlearningpress.com/when-two-vowels-go-walking/
Reading aloud and talking studies
www.wvearlychildhood.org/resources/C-13_Handout_1.pdf
Soaring Eagles immersion model
See Item (9)
Non-content words
We first learned of the importance of non-content or sight words from Dr. Marion Blank. https://www.drmarionblank.com/
https://www.readingkingdom.com/
Sequencing
https://www.drmarionblank.com/
https://www.readingkingdom.com/
fMRI scans showing differences between good and struggling readers
See the works of Jack M. Fletcher, Ph.D. from the Department of Psychology University of Houston and Stanislas Dehaene.
Dyslexia, hard to determine developmental vs. instructions issues
From an article written by Dr. Marion Blank, not published.
Given the confidence with which that diagnosis is used, it may come as a surprise to find that currently there is no clear, solid test for dyslexia. In 1994, a leading researcher Keith Stanovich in a paper titled “Does dyslexia exist?” argued that there were no persuasive grounds for attempting to distinguish “developmental dyslexia” from any of the other possible causes of reading failure, such as low general ability, lack of family support or poor teaching. Despite the many research studies that have followed, Stanovich’s doubts still hold. Writing in 2017 in the journal Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, John Stein from Oxford University states that “all poor readers seem to have similar phonological problems” making it “difficult to distinguish developmental dyslexia from social causes of reading failure.”
Students who enter kindergarten already reading or on the cusp
www.nomanis.com.au/post/why-do-some-children-learn-to-read-without-explicit-teaching
Early exposure to reading and talking better prepare children to succeed in school.
See above.
Adverse Childhood Experiences
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4732356/
Cognitive skills model
Our work is based upon the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of Cognitive Abilities
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattell–Horn–Carroll_theory
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781118660584.ese0431
www.iapsych.com/chccogachmeta/CHCtheoryofcognitiveabilities.html
Early childhood development, first 2000 days
buildthefoundation.org/initiative/first-2000-days/
Truth: The majority of students in the U.S. face a reading crisis despite widespread implementation of curricula based on the Science of Reading
More of the same approach is not working.
We must understand the cause of failure.
We must adapt and address the root causes.
Reading scores based upon the U.S. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show no improvement in scores nationwide despite widespread implementation of curricula based upon the Science of Reading. The data shows the U.S. has a serious longstanding educational crisis yet we remain accepting of the status quo. Learn more
Truth # 2
Pre-reading phonics test scores do not reliably predict reading proficiency success in third grade
(more)
Phonics-based test scores in grades K-2 do not reliably predict reading fluency and comprehension success in grades 3 and above for state reading and NAEP assessments. Most, if not all, curricula based on the Science of Reading claim efficacy based upon improvements in phonics scores, not improvements in fluency and comprehension scores.
Students who struggle with reading have some level of a skill gap. The full range of skills required to become proficient in reading go beyond just reading skills. It includes social emotional skills, cognitive processing skills and adequate background knowledge. Homelife can also impact learning.
Curricula based upon the Science of Reading do not address the full range of skills required to achieve proficiency or the variables that can impact student learning. The Skill Gap explains why scores have not improved. The full Skill Gap must be better understood and addressed in order for more students to achieve reading success. Learn more
English is phonetically opaque. This means there is not a consistent, reliable relationship between letters and letter combinations that represents the sounds of language. There is sufficient ambiguity that students must learn a large number of rules to help them figure out the proper letter to sound relationship for most words. This is why dictionary entries require a phonetic spelling for most words.
Some languages such as Spanish are phonetically transparent. Spanish has a very consistent and predictable letter to sound relationship.
The process of fluent reading with comprehension requires at least the following five steps: 1) rapid pattern recognition of the whole word, 2) recall of the word name, 3) connection of the word name to meaning, 4) retention of enough words in working memory that have been read to make sense of the passage, and 5) retention in long-term memory of the meaning of what has been read in order to pass a test on the pasage. Phonics plays a foundational role in connectioning letters to sounds, then words. It comes into play when facing an unknown word and learning the proper pronunciation and spelling, but it does not play an active role in the process of reading fluently with comprehension.
Parents and homelife play a significant role in student success. Foundational brain development required for reading success takes place during early childhood from womb-to-classroom. Children who face greater stresses and have fewer learning experiences during this critical development stage enter school with a deficit of foundational skills that empower academic success. It is difficult for schools to close the full range of this gap. Conversely, students who enter school with a strong foundational skill set with few or no skill gaps often do well in any school using any valid reading curricula.
Teachers can make a difference and with the right appoach can close the Skill Gap for some students. However, this is not happening on a broad scale. Communities must find better ways to support families so more children enter school better prepared. This is happening to some extent, but not to the level needed. Schools must also find ways to better adapt curricula to address the full Skill Gap in early grades.
Phonics-based curricula is not new. The current story line makes it seem like whole language and balanced literacy are the old standard, which were failing, and the Science of Reading is the new solution. Phonics-based curricula and whole language have gone back and forth several times throughout recent history in the U.S. as the dominant curricula.
The last paradigm based upon a whole language approach only came into vogue because the phonics-based approach at the time was deemed to not be working adequately. Whole language was sold as the solution and adopted widely. Now that it is clear that whole language is not working well enough either, phonics-based curricula is now back in vogue, but it is being sold as new, when it is not. It is a repackaging of a previous approach that was deemed to be insufficient which paved the way for the whole language paradigm.
There is sufficient science to suggest that phonics-based curricula is slightly more effective than whole language curricula, but there is insufficient proof to demonstrate that phonics-based curricula is effective for most students unless the full range of skills needed to achieve proficiency are addressed. See the discussion below for Truth # 1 regarding the data.
There is no scalable classroom evidence to show that any curricula based upon the Science of Reading is effective for most students. In fact, there is a vast amount of data proving that curricula based upon the Science of Reading is not working adequately for the majority of students. (See table below.)
Claims that curricula based upon the Science of Reading are effective generally are only touting improved scores on phonics-based tests, not fluency and comprehension. See discussion under Truth # 2 to understand the difference between phonics-based testing and tests on reading fluency and comprehension.
Each state can choose which test is used to determine reading proficiency and set the standards for students in that state. States often change the test so it is difficult to compare results over any length of time. This makes it impractical to compare test results from one state to another and over extended periods of time. The best choice is to use data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). This standardizes test results nationwide and comparable tests have been used over extended periods of time. Below is a summary of test results from 2011 to 2024.
The data clearly shows there has been no progress since 2011.
The data also shows that Children of Color face a significant inequity in results compared to their White and Asian peer students. However, even the majority of White students are failing.
National Assessment of Educational Progress 2011-2024
Percentage of 4th grade students who scored below proficient in reading by race
(https://datacenter.aecf.org/)
Field Data
The state of Colorado passed the READ Act in 2012. It requires schools to implement approved curricula based upon the Science of Reading in order to receive extra funding, up to $600 per student per year. It also requires extensive professional development.
Despite this statewide implementation and massive investment, scores have not improved since 2012 during which curricula based upon the Science of Reading has been used in most schools.
The following article (link following) written in 2019 discusses this failure and announced a $5 million dollar study to determine the cause of the failure. It is now 2025 and scores have still not improved.
https://www.chalkbeat.org/colorado/2019/11/20/21121741/colorado-has-spent-hundreds-of-millions-to-help-kids-read-now-it-will-spend-up-to-5-2-million-to-fin/
There is a very big difference in the testing process for pre-reading skills in grades K-2 vs. reading fluency and comprehension testing done in 3rd grade and above.
By definition, one cannot test reading skills such as fluency and comprehension until a student can read. Until that time, only pre-reading skills such as phonics and word recognition can be tested. Most people believe that these pre-reading skill tests correlate well with reading success. However, the data suggests that a student who scores at grade level on phonics-based tests, such as DIBELS, does not reliably predict reading proficiency in 3rd grade and above on fluency and comprehension tests.
Tests results for grades K-2 generally are not made public. State test results for 3rd grade and above are made public. So the average person would not have the data to compare pre-reading scores with reading proficiency scores. Every research paper on reading the website author has reviewed used phonics-based test results as their basis to claim efficacy. None reviewed have used fluency and compehension to determine efficacy. This is partly due to the significant lag time from research done in kindergarten and first grade and waiting until third grade or later to measure efficacy. It is difficult to track classroom level data in subsequent grades. Researchers generally claim that improvements in phonics-based testing done in grades K-2 indicate improved reading success. The substantial base of field data as evidenced in the Colorado data and NAEP data just do not uphold that claim.
The author of this website believed phonics-based reading scores indeed proved efficacy until data was compared for several large school districts in Colorado. The author worked as a consultant to two districts and was granted access to aggregated test scores in grades K-2 which was compared to state test results in 3rd grade. The author could see that phonics-based test scores in grades K-2 had improven dramatically once Science of Reading curricula was implemented. However, state test scores in 3rd grade had not improved during this period once K-2 students matured to 3rd grade. For example, in one district over 80% of K-2 students scored at grade level or above on DIBELS. However, only 40% of 3rd grade students scored proficient in reading on the state reading assessment despite having learned on Science of Reading curricula. This data was confirmed in a second district and in several schools around the country. This may be a good subject for further research.
Interestingly, students who score well on fluency and comprehension tests also test well on average on phonics-based tests. But, the reverse does not seem reliable.
Bottom line, phonics-based test scores may not be a reliable predictor of reading success based upon fluency and comprehension. When selecting a curricula, it is paramount that a school or district require proof that the curriculum being considered has proof that it is effective at improving fluency and comprehension.
The author of the website did a review of studies on the What Works Clearinghouse, the department of education website for education research. The author was not able to find a single Science of Reading curriulum on the site that showed efficacy for fluency and comprehension. They all relied upon phonics-based test results, which may not be reliable.
The author did find one independent study on one of the more popular early reading programs by Achieve 3000 called Smarty Ants. This independent study showed the program was not effective at improving fluency and comprehension, yet it is marketed as being evidence-based.
Copy of the study
Every district, school, and reading teacher should ask for a copy of the study or studies that were used to select their current reading program. Do the studies show efficacy for improving fluency and comprehension, or only phonics-related test scores?
Every district, school, and reading teacher who has any significant number of students who are not passing the state reading test should investigate the true efficacy of their reading curricula. Allowing any children to struggle with reading because schools are blindly believing in the Science of Reading is a terrible situation. This continued high failure rate despite using Science of Reading curricula must be challenged.
Additional studies suggesting Science of Reading curricula is not working:
Article, https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/jan/19/focus-on-phonics-to-teach-reading-is-failing-children-says-landmark-study
There is a link to the study report within the article.
Phonemic awareness study, https://psyarxiv.com/ajxbv
Conclusion:
At present, recommendations to spend instructional time on advanced phonemic awareness training outside of print, or that students should develop “phonemic proficiency” to become proficient readers, are not evidence-based.
Learning how to read proficiently requires the development of a specific set of skills. Students who struggle with reading have Skill Gap.
From womb-to-classroom, ages 0-5, children experience a foundational stage of brain development that paves the way for learning effectiveness when they enter school.
Students who struggle with reading generally enter school with a deficiency in their foundational skills which makes learning more difficult for them. They don't have the right background information and have not developed the processing skills that empower effective learning.
Most schools do not address the full range of skills, so many students who enter school with a skill gap often do not catch up.
There are three major types of skills required for reading.
1. Social emotional skills, including mindset
2. Basic learned skills and background knowledge
3. Cognitive processing skills
Children are also impacted by stress, trauma, nutrition, and sleep.
It is important to also assess these elements when evaluting potential causes of reading struggle.
Any one of the skills listed below could impact a student's ability to read proficiently.
A student who struggles may also face circumstances in their homelife that could impact reading success.
Most students navigate language in two modes: 1) oral, and 2) visual by understanding written patterns that express words. Since most students learn a language via the oral mode first, they have to learn to match the sounds of language to written patterns. They have to navigate the language sounds associated with letters, the names of words and word patterns automatically and connect words to meaning.
Two ways have evolved to teach reading: 1) phonics which is considered a bottom-up approach (understand letters and sounds first and build/understand words), and 2) whole language which is considered a top-down approach (understand the word-level first, then understand letters and sounds. Students have learned how to read using either approach. Proponents of each approach argue their approach is better. But neither approach has demonstrated an overall high efficacy rate nationwide.
Phonics and whole language proponents have argued the superiority of their approach with the upper hand going back and forth over time. This argument spawned the term "Reading Wars".
Phonics has experienced a resurgence as the dominant approach for the last 10-20 years. The term often associated with this approach is the Science of Reading (SoR).
Understanding the sounds of langauge and their correlation to letters is an important element of reading. However, the following information may help to explain why an emphasis on phonics may be confusing and insufficient to help most students learn to read proficiently.
English has a rich and diverse foundation built from many languages. This diversity has introduced the need for many variations in codes (letters and letter combinations) to represent sounds. Although there are only 26 letters that represent words in English, there are 40+ sounds and close to 200 different spellings to represent those sounds.
Examples
There are at least 24 different ways it is possible to phonetically spell the word "cake". The "c" and the "k" letters represent the same sound. There are four different combinations of how the "c and k" could be used in the word: c-k, c-c, k-k, and k-c. Then there are six different ways to spell the long "a" sound. Examples of possible phonetic spellings include caik, cak, ceik, kayk, etc. Two different dictionary entries show the pronunciation as "keyk" and "kāk". A student truly only learns how to spell and pronounce the word "cake" by memorization.
There are ten different ways to pronounce the “ough” code: 1: enough (uff), 2. plough (ow), 3. through (ew or oo), 4. though (rhymes with go), 5. thought (rhymes with spot), 6. thorough (oh), 7. cough (off), 8. hiccough (up), 9. hough (ock), and 10. louch (loch). No rules could possibly help students figure out how to "sound out" these words. They just have to memorize the correct pronunciation for each word as they do with most words.
An often-used phonics rule states: When two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking. Unfortunately, that rule is incorrect about 60% of the time. It does not work for words such as: good, about, earth, bear, noise, author, and friend. Rules seem to work at first under controlled circumstances, but in the end, they confuse students more than they help. Some rules are initially helpful in controlled text, but in the end, they are not overly helpful when it comes to proficient reading.
One might think that the "ea" combination (code) would be easy to sound out. Since it contains two vowels, students are taught that the first one does the talking as noted in the above example. However, this particular code has many different sounds as noted in the example below. (http://readingkingdom.com)
Phonics does play an important role in learning how to read. Students need to understand the connection between letters and the sounds of language. However, as noted above, English is not a language where sounding out words is directly practical in most cases. Over time students figure out that most words have to be memorized and that only sometimes can direct letter-to-sound correlations be used to help learn new words.
For example, once a student learns how to decode the word "cake", that helps them to learn similar words such as "take" and "bake" more easily. Once they learn the word "cat" that letter blend is helpful to learn new words that use "cat" as part of the word such as "category". When students encounter a new word they often can use similar words they already know to give them guidance on how to pronounce this new word. However, that technique cannot be relied upon consistently.
In the end, a student must memorize the name of each word so they can recall it automatically when reading. More on this topic is discussed below.
There is a huge difference between the phase of trying to sound out a word to originally learn it vs. fluent reading. Fluent reading requires the memorization of the name of the whole word. We don't sound out words as we read, we recall words from memory based upon pattern recognition.
Clear example that we rely upon pattern recognition vs. sounding out words to read:
There is an interesting puzzle that has circulated for some time which challenges conventional wisdom about how we read and the role of phonics in the act of reading. People react to it differently. Many phonics advocates dismiss it, but the reality presented cannot be ignored. The information below shows two paragraphs where the letters in words are mixed up. The beginning and last letter are correct for each word, but the letters in between are mixed up. Yet most people who read fluently can actually read this mixed up presentation of text. See for yourself. The following quote comes from a blog created by a literacy writer named Mem Fox from Australia.
And if phonics is so important, so fundamental, so essential—as so many claim—and so crucial to our ability to make meaning from text, how come we can read the following with ease?
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is that the frist and lsat ltteers are in the rghit pclae: the rset can be a toatl mses but you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm. This is bcuseae we don’t raed ervey lteter but the word as a wlohe.
So, hey, waht does this say abuot the improtnace of phnoics in raeidng? Prorbalby that phonics ins’t very imoptrnat at all. How apcoltapyic is that, in the cuerrnt licetary wars!
Mem Fox, https://memfox.com/for-parents/for-parents-the-folly-of-jolly-old-phonics/
If you are able to read the “mixed-up” paragraph above, it clearly shows that you are relying upon the visual memory of the whole word and not the sounding-out principles of phonics in order to read.
Please read a sentence or two on this page and contemplate the nature of what really took place.
You likely did not "sound out" any words or consciously apply any rules of phonics if you read fluently.
Reading fluently with comprehension involved the following major systems in your brain:
-
You visually saw the information through your visual optical system and the sensory input was transferred to the proper place in the brain for processing.
-
You attended (paid attention) so that the process of reading could be accomplished. You were not distracted and were able to complete the task. All of the sensory information got to the right place in your brain and was processed correctly.
-
The information was recognized by your brain as text and was run through your word pattern recognition system. You recognized each letter pattern as a word from memory.
-
Each word pattern was run through your naming system (network) to identify the name associated with each word.
-
Each word was then associated with the proper sound and meaning in your memory.
-
You retained the meaning of each word in working memory until you determined the overall meaning of the text you read from your perspective and background knowledge.
-
You decided what meaning from the text to store in long-term memory for recall later as part of your background knowledge.
-
You did not rely upon the "sounding out" capability in your brain unless you encountered a new word. Then you would use the capability as needed and appropriate to help build the name of the new word and its meaning in your visual and auditory memory. Because most words cannot be sounded out, most people must rely upon another source to ensure they understand the proper way to say the new word and then commit that name of the whole word to auditory memory. If the word is similar to another word you already know, or can be fully or partially sounded out, sounding out the word may be helpful. But, it is also wise to confirm the proper name of the word to make sure it is correct.
Phonology is foundational to building reading skills, but it is not sufficient alone to empower a student to become a fluent reader with comprehension. Fluent reading with comprehension requires building additional skills that strongly rely upon visual processing, pattern recognition, memory, naming, sequencing, syntax, and meaning. Fluent reading with comprehension requires automatic word recognition linked to meaning.
Based upon the long-standing national scores, it is evident that the current phonics-based instructional system is not sufficient for most students, especially those who have a Skill Gap.
However, we are not advocating traditional whole language instruction as an alternative. That system is not sufficient alone either. But, it is important to realize that fluent reading requires the recognition, naming, and meaning of whole words. The question is how best to develop the full skill set that empowers fluent reading with comprehension.
There are four stages of academic development: 1) womb-to-classroom, 2) K-3, 3) grades 4-12, and 4) post-secondary education, which includes career technical training.
Obviously infants are 100% dependent upon parents or caregivers during ages 0-5. This period of time is the most significant period of foundational brain development and building the right neural connections that facilitiate learning. (First 2000 days)
Since schools generally do not interact with families during this period of time, it is important for communities to engage, educate, and support families so parents provide the right life experiences children need to build foundational skills.
This includes:
-
Reading aloud with children 20 minutes daily
-
Talking with children often to build auditory processing skills, vocabulary, and background knowledge
-
Building strong social emotional skills
-
Playing to build strength, gross and fine motor skills, and bonding
-
Providing interactions with other children to build social skills
-
Providing the proper nutrition and sleep
-
Minimizing stress and trauma, addressing experienced trauma
Children who receive a sufficient, balanced set of life experiences build the skills that empower academic success. These activities continue into grades K-3 but are geared to more directly support the instruction children are receiving in school.
Family plays an important role in academic success. Homelife experiences throughout the education process impact student academic outcomes.
Prior to the mid 1800's, phonics was the primary method of reading instruction in the US. In the mid 1800's whole language gained traction and was the dominant approach until around 1950. In 1955 a book was published entitled, "Why Johnny Can't Read--and What You Can Do About It" by an author named Rudolf Flesch. This kicked off a period of time known as the "Reading Wars".
In 1967 a book entitled, "Learning to Read: The Great Debate", was published by Jeanne Chall. This book made the case for explict phonics instruction being better and more effective than the whole language instructional approach. The work by Chall and others became the foundation for the Science of Reading.
Despite a strong base of research supporting phonics instructions as being superior to whole language instruction, whole language remained the dominant instructional approach until the 1990's. At this time a new approach called Balanced Literacy developed to try to address the continued poor reading scores under whole langauge. Balanced Literacy tried to incorporate both whole language and phonics to meet the needs of each individual student.
Balanced literacy was considered more of a philosophy of instruction with no clear standards. With its flexible approach, it worked for some students but not all. It was appealing to most teachers because of its flexibility, but results remained inconsistent.
Research has continued and this growing body of research is often referred to as the Science of Reading. However, it incoporates a more structured and explicit approach to instruction compared to whole language or balanced literacy. The science of reading does recognize five major components: 1) phonemic awareness, 2) phonics, 3) fluency, 4) vocabulary, and 5) comprehension.
Reference (https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/the-science-of-reading-vs-balanced-literacy-the-history-of-the-reading-wars).
It seems like the science is supportive of the idea that reading instruction that is more structured and rooted in phonics instruction is superior to whole language or balanced literacy. Yet, the data noted in Truth # 1 remains concerning. There is no evidence that implementing approved curricula based upon the science of reading is meeting the needs of most students.
Phonics instruction prior to the development of whole language and balanced literacy may not incorporate all of the nuances of curricula based upon the science of reading. But phonics-based instruction is not new. Whole language and balanced literacy developed in response to the longstanding failure of instruction based upon phonics. There has been a significant deployment of curricula based upon the science of reading yet scores have not significantly improved for most students using this curricula.
This suggests there are other factors that need to be considered.
Additional Information
There are several additional elements of reading instruction that are not addressed well enough in most reading instruction or they are over-emphasized with no clear benefit to helping students achieve reading proficiency.
Non-content words
Non-content words represent a relatively small percentage of all words, yet are used extensively to create the structure of text. They often represent over 50% of words in a given text. They are also often referred to as function words. They stitch the content words into the proper grammatical structure. Examples of function words include in, the, to, there, was, do, under, and a. Function words include auxiliary verbs, prepositions, articles, conjunctions, and pronouns.
Non-content words usually are difficult, if not impossible, to sound out. So, they are often referred to as sight words. Because they have no content meaning, their importance is often minimized. They are often taught out of context through rote memorization, often with the use of flash cards. This usually does not teach the proper meaning which impedes comprehension.
Teaching non-content words properly with a focus on meaning is critical to developing comprehension skills. Non-content words provide hidden clues on meaning and pronunciation. Consider the following example. The farmer uses equipment to produce the produce. In the first case, the non-content word “to” signified what follows is a verb. In the second case, the non-content word “the” signified what follows is a noun.
Sequencing
Visual sequence in nature is often not critical. If you see a deer and two fawns, it usually does not matter in what order they appear. You would still say I see a deer and two fawns, and the meaning would be clear. If you see a lion in nature, it would not matter if you see it from the left side or the right side. Mirror images of objects usually do not matter as you recognize the item either way. Left side vs. right side does not matter in most cases. What matters is that you recognize the lion no matter which way they are facing.
However, in text order does matter. There is a difference between a "b" letter and "d" letter even thought they are mirror images. The difference must be learned.
It is important to read from left to right and not jump around in the sentence when reading. It is also important to decode a word from left to right. In the following three words, they all have the same letters, but letter order creates a different word. (now / won / own)
Most students pick this concept up naturally, but many do not. It requires explicit instruction to address and must be systematically evaluated. Most traditional programs do not address this key element of reading adequately.
Sophistication of early-reading materials
-
Most early vocabulary is usually limited to words that fit the phonics model of instruction.
-
This limits the scope of stories and often creates nonsensical storylines that don't match the oral skills of students and the complexity of what they can handle with their oral language skills.
-
This confuses most students and unfortunately may bore them.
-
Oral vocabulary relies upon the name of the whole word. Early phonics instruction introduces a new concept of deconstructing the word into individual sounds that can lead to confusion. Students are taught words that can be sounded out but soon run into words that cannot be sounded out. They are then given confusing and complex rules to try to make it seem as if most words can be sounded out or they are told to just memorize the words. Some students can get through this confusion relatively easily while most do not.
-
This often leads to drilling word lists which are boring and don't lead to the richness of reading comprehension.
Dyslexia
Dyslexia is a term that is often used to represent that a student has difficulty with reading properly. The word itself does not necessarily identify the underlying cause of the difficulty. Some students reverse letters or words, others do not but still have difficulty reading properly.
Several studies have shown differences in brain development and neural network activation between good readers and struggling readers using fMRI scans. Some researchers claim that 20% or greater of students have dyslexia. According to some researchers, the symptoms of dyslexia are similar for students who have a true brain dysfunction and students who have experienced inadequate instruction.
We believe that most students who have difficulty with reading, and who may or may not be diagnosed as having dyslexia, can benefit from the proper training to ensure development of the full set of skills that empower reading success. Closing the Skill Gap can help most students.
Conclusion
The intent of this website is to provide information about the reading crisis and to envoke the debate necessary to find a solution that works for most children.
We can no longer afford to accept the status quo. The facts clearly show that even when curricula based upon the science of reading is implemented most students fail fluency and comprehension tests.
We can continue to improve curricula, but the other factors that impact student success cannot be ignored.
Volunteers
Add the main advantages of your business that make it unique and the best. Add text why customers have to choose your products or services and what benefits they will get after the product is purchased. Write your own text, style it and press Done.
About
Subscribe
