By Dr. Sam Bommarito

The reading wars have become more inflamed in the past few weeks. With recent podcasts and other posts, the social media branch of the Science of Reading has doubled down on its pronouncements that Balanced Literacy is at the root of today’s reading problems. The suggestion has been made that major publishers like Heineman are in it for the money, and they are selling products they know are inferior. That makes for a great public relations campaign. It makes for terrible science. Please consider the following:

• It is not settled science.

Researchers talking to the Washington Post say that it is not settled science LINK, P.L. Thomas says it is not settled science LINK. Most importantly, The Executive Summary of the Reading Research Quarterly says we are not there yet to establish a Science of Reading. LINK. Given all that,  common sense says the claim by Moats and her followers that it is settled and that they represent the one and only SOR is not justified.

• There are problems with the social media version of SOR

Moats’ approach makes almost exclusive use of synthetic phonics. Analytic phonics is ignored or viewed as an inferior approach. There is considerable evidence that programs based on Moat’s approach don’t work for all kids. The Hechinger Report found OG isn’t a magic bullet LINK. A full decade of using synthetic phonics in England has had equivocal results LINK. Reports from Australia indicate that some children don’t progress even after years of synthetic phonics LINK. The research backing up claims of SOR success often uses weak standards LINK. Common sense dictates that we have other things ready when SOR fails to do the job for selected groups of children.  

• Through podcasts and other social media posts, critics of Balanced Literacy have carried out vicious attacks claiming BL has failed. Their attacks totally misrepresent what BL is about. Their data “proving” BL doesn’t work doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny. Too often, the attacks are based on complete misrepresentations of the actual facts LINK. Also, despite research around the long-term negative impact of retention,  LINK, LINK, LINK, they laude the success of literacy programs like the one in Florida, which include retention as part of the program.

What is Balanced Literacy? Consider this excerpt from the 5^th edition of Michael Pressley’s upcoming book.

“.. The cover of this book states that the topic is balanced reading instruction, a term that has recently become associated with meaning emphasis or whole-language approaches to teaching reading. I urge readers not to make that assumption, as this book does not fully support meaning-emphasis (whole language) or skills-emphasis instruction (phonics); it rather pulls the research for the many components required of reading and presents the most effective instructional approaches based on reading research…” (bolding is mine)

For a complete view of BL and what is really done in BL,  readers are also invited to read Fisher & Fry’s book about Balanced Literacy LINK.  

The story currently being told on social media claims that districts have been buying programs that don’t work for decades. Common sense dictates that even the most gullible folks would never keep buying things that don’t work over that length of time. There is plenty of data showing that BL works for many students LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK.

• To some degree, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong.

We’ll begin with the thought that both BL and the constellation of practices encouraged by SOR help some but not all. My dissertation focused on the last round of the reading wars. One of my committee members had an important insight into those wars. He said, “Sam, the reading wars have never really been about phonics vs. no phonics. They have always been about my phonics (analytic) vs. your phonics (synthetic). During the ensuing years (2000-present), many districts adopted programs that favored analytic phonics (meaning emphasis) approaches and deemphasized synthetic phonics (code emphasis)—doing things that way WAS NOT a complete failure. Kids were getting phonics. Analytic phonics did work for many of them. But it did not meet the needs of all the children.

I am critical of both “sides.” We have tried (or we are trying) both ways of teaching phonics and found both helped some but not others. We are at a crossroads. If we go to either extreme (mainly meaning emphasis)  or the other (mainly code emphasis), some children will not be helped. Common sense dictates that we must find a way to provide both approaches to phonics and give each child the kind of phonics instruction that is most likely to help. That is a topic for a future blog.

• There is more to comprehension than providing background LINK. Teaching comprehension strategies requires the use of the time-consuming gradual release model. Yet some SOR advocates call for reducing the amount of time that we spend teaching comprehension strategies. Duke’s work around the Active Reading Model and the Sciences of Reading is compelling LINK, LINK. It makes more sense than the “provide background knowledge & all will be well” approach.

• The weaponization of research. Some folks use the SOR label in order to sell a particular program. See what Jorden Page says in this blog entry LINK. Also, consider Rachel Gabriel’s thoughts on this topic LINK.

.

Finding common ground and common practices.

I’ve often explained my centrist point of view LINK and my concept of a Reading Evolution LINK. They are rooted in P.D. Pearson’s concept of “The Radical Middle” LINK. I want to take special note of something Pearson said in that paper:

“In educational research, more generally, I find the debate about qualitative versus quantitative research about as compelling as the new phonics versus whole language debate. I cannot imagine why any field of inquiry would want to limit itself to a single set of tools and practices. Even though I find both debates interesting and professionally useful, I fear the ultimate outcome of both, if they continue unbridled by saner heads, will be victory for one side or another. That, in my view, would be a disastrous outcome, either for reading pedagogy or educational research…”

The common sense solution of cutting through the Gordian Knot around the issue of how to best teach reading is to use the best ideas from all sides.  

Doing that is the key to identifying common ground. Districts must create a curriculum first, find materials and programs to fit it and implement it. The key to making that implementation happen is informed, empowered teachers working within that curriculum. Districts must be allowed to create a curriculum that fits their particular children the best. They should not be forced to buy expensive programs that may or may not fit their needs, especially since research-based alternatives are available. LINK.

So as I first said four years ago- it’s time to walk the centrist path and create a Reading Evolution. Dare to dream!

Dr. Bommarito has a 51-year career in education, teaching every grade from K through graduate school. He has served as chair of both the St. Louis and the Missouri ILA affiliates. He’s made numerous presentations at ILA (formally IRA) conferences, including national conferences. In spring 2022, he was a featured speaker at the LitCon conference. the main speaker at Albany New York’s ILA conference. Most of his career was spent working in Title 1 buildings as a reading specialist and/or staff developer. He has a weekly blog about literacy https://doctorsam7.blog/

By Patty McGee

Grammar.  The word alone harkens deep emotions in many of us. We all have a grammar story to tell.  My grammar story has diagramming sentences as its main character. Raise your hand if you loved this exercise.  I know I sure did!  I was stellar at horizontal lines holding the subject and predicate, tagging below on diagonal lines the other parts of speech, the adjective below the subject, the adverb below the predicate, and on down the page with more and more sophisticated usage.  

The problem was I had no idea how to transfer that know-how into my actual writing in order to inject it with power, purpose, and craft.  My personal experience is indicative of the central core of failed grammar instruction: grammar learning is oftentimes siloed so far away from writing that the leap is just too much for students to make. I offer you five instructional moves to ensure grammar and writing instruction stay up close and personal. 

Move #1: Expand the Definition of Grammar

In many cases, grammar is perceived in a prescriptive approach, which includes a set of rules to follow that we learn through identifying parts of speech and sentence types. Instead,  let’s redefine grammar in a transformational manner as a set of tools that a writer uses to mold, construct, and shape their writing. I liken grammar to the artist’s paintbrush or the whittler’s blade. The more we know how to use grammar, the more we are able to sculpt our writing to amplify our voice.

Move #2:  Teach Grammar in Units of Study

When we give students time to explore a set of related grammar concepts over an extended period of time, we build grammar know-how while creating ample opportunities to use this in their writing.  Here are a few tips for creating a grammar unit:

1. Remember that a true study gives learners the chance to question, hypothesize, seek answers, experiment, memorize, seek feedback, and reflect. Create 5-10 minute pockets of time, three to five times per week to study grammar.  Mix up the time to include a variety of these experiences.
2. Go deep with a focus area. For example, spend an entire unit on a sentence study exploring, playing with, and using simple, compound, and complex sentences (I suggest always starting a series of grammar units with a foundational unit on sentences).  
3. In each unit, follow the research on the three phases of learning which includes surface learning, deep learning, and transfer (Hattie 2008).  In phase one, surface learning, study the grammatical concept in mentor texts.  Notice how writers use, let’s say, different sentence structures.  Then study those sentence structures across time.  Practice using those sentence structures with partners.  In the last part of the unit, set up time to transfer these new skills into writing.  Be sure to revisit these new skills in writing across many text types across the year.

Move #3:  Prioritize Usage

The ultimate goal of grammar instruction is for students to use grammar effectively in their writing.  Take, for example, this piece from a primary student.  I have labeled the way this student used grammar.

Without knowing this student, I am confident that she was probably not saying to herself, “Let me begin this piece using a sentence with correct subject/verb agreement in the simple past tense.”  She did, however, do just that!  With a focus on usage, students are more likely to incorporate what they are learning into their writing.

Move #4:  Teach Grammar Strategically

When students are taught how to strategically use grammar, they are more likely to eventually master those concepts.  When teaching strategically, create an anchor chart that includes a step-by-step on how to use the grammar concept in writing. Model in your own writing so learners can envision what each step looks like.  It may look like this chart:

Move #5:  Build in time to play

Playful grammar?  Yes, please!  One way to play with grammar is to use Grammar Word Cards.  These cards are a collection of different parts of speech, endings, and punctuation. Here’s how to use them:

1. After printing out the cards, laminate so they will last for a long time.  Then cut the words out. Put in a baggie or envelope.
2. Create partnerships or trios of students.  Ensure there are enough bags of words for each partnership or trio.  So if there are 20 students in your class, be sure to have about 10-word bags.
3. Challenge students to use the Grammar Word Cards in different ways.  You might say:
   1. Build a compound sentence
   2. Build a compound sentence with words in alphabetical order
   3. Build a simple sentence that is more than ten words long
   4. Build a few simple sentences.  Combine them into a compound sentence.  Try to make them into a complex sentence.

Tip!  In lieu of correcting students if their attempts are off-base, challenge students to find and correct the error.  For example, if there is a comma missing in a compound sentence say, “That is almost a compound sentence. There’s one more thing you need.” Encourage students to problem solve.

These five simple yet powerful instructional moves will have a huge impact on how students use grammar as their artistic tool to mold, construct, and shape their writing. 

Go teach grammar brilliantly!

Learn more about Patty McGee- Click here!

By Tim Rasinski

The world is full of patterns. When we see a red octagonal sign while driving, we immediately think, “STOP!” Football fans can instantly recognize the shape of a goalpost and know what it’s used for. And when we hear the melody to a familiar song (think “Wheels on the Bus’ or “The Star-Spangled Banner”), we immediately recall the words. If you have a dog or cat at home, you are probably attuned to the pattern of the barks and mews. Indeed, look around the room in which you are in right now, and your are likely to see many patterns—from the way the ceiling tiles or lights are arranged to the way the classroom desks are arranged, or to the pattern of the quilt covering the couch.

            Patterns can be defined as a regular and repeated arrangements of shapes, letters, lines, numbers, colors, and sounds that can serve as guides. As human beings, we are predisposed to detect patters in our environments. Our ability to see, hear, feel, and identify patterns makes our lives safer, easier to negotiate, and more productive.

            Besides the types just mentioned, linguistic patterns can be used in teaching reading and writing. Of course, the letters of the alphabet and phonemes they represent are among the first patterns we teach children. Interestingly enough, we often teach the letters to young children with a song—The Alphabet Song—which itself is a patterned text.

However, there are many other patterns that can be used in teaching reading—patterns that can make learning more productive and more efficient for students. In this blog, I will share a few that I found to be very helpful in teaching children to read in the Kent State University reading clinic: Camp Read-A-Lot.

Help Students See Word Patterns: Phonemic Word Families/Phonograms/Rimes

One of the most widely used linguistic patterns taught in the primary grades are the phonemic word families—also known as phonograms or rimes. A phonemic word family is a part of the syllable that begins with the vowel (every syllable by definition needs to have a vowel or vowel combination) and all other letters that follow the vowel represent a regular or consistent set of phonemes or language sounds. For example, -each in ”teach”, and the –ent in the second syllable of “student” are word families. The significance of word families is that they are regularly occurring letter patterns that represent regularly occurring sound patterns.  Not only does knowledge of –each help a developing reader decode the word “teach,” but it can also help students decode “beach, breach, peach, preach, reach” and even longer, more complex words: “preacher, teachable.” Indeed, in a seminal article, Dr. Edward Fry identified thirty-eight-word families, knowledge of which allows readers to decode over 650 single-syllable words. Moreover, the number of multisyllabic words that can be decoded from knowledge of these letter patterns is in the thousands. For example, the word family –am finds its way into ambulance, camera, family, hamster, and many more.

            If we have this natural ability to see patterns, why not use them with students in our teaching of phonics and word decoding? Dr. Fry’s thirty-eight-word families could easily be taught once per week in first grade. Students would leave with the ability to analyze and decode a multitude of English words.

Edward Fry’s Most Common Phonograms -ab         -at        -ink       -ore                           -unk -ack       -ay       -ip         -ot                              -y -ag         -ell       -ight      -out -all         -est       -ill        -ow (how, chow) -ain        -ew       -im       -ow (bow, throw)   -am        -ed        -in        -op

Enlarge Students’ Vocabulary With Morphemes – Word Roots

Phonograms or word families are not the only letter patterns worth teaching. Morphemes are word parts or patterns that not only represent a consistent or regular occurring sound, they also represent meaning and, as such, are well worth teaching if your goal is to expand students’ vocabularies or knowledge of word meanings. Another common name for morphemes is roots. Some of the most common morphemes in English derive from Latin and Greek. The logic behind the use of morphemes in reading instruction is the same as with teaching phonograms—knowledge of one morpheme can help students unlock the meaning to many words—in some cases over 100 English words.

            The numerical prefix bi– can be found in English words such as bifocals, biplane, bicycle, biannual, bipartisan, and many more. Similarly, base word roots, morphemes that are the foundation of words, help form the meaning of many English words. Knowing that ject- means “to throw” can help students determine or affirm the meaning of words such as: eject, inject, object, object, reject, interject, conjecture, and many more. Indeed, it has been estimated that the word root trac/tract, meaning pull, draw, drag, is found in over 140 English words! Moreover, most of our multisyllabic words in English as well are academic words (think science, social studies, mathematics) are made of morphemic word roots.

            Again, the logic then suggests that teaching a limited number of morphemes or word roots can give students patterns that will allow them to determine the meaning (and sound representation) to a near-limitless number of English words. Then, teaching morphemic word patterns should be seen as the natural follow-up to teaching phonemic word families or phonograms. (Find out more about teaching word roots in my blog article: “A Little Latin (and Greek), and a Whole Lot of English Building Vocabulary with Word Roots,” on the Robb Review – https://therobbreviewblog.com/uncategorized/a-little-latin-and-greakk/

Teach Reading With Poetry: Use Textual Language Patterns

Beyond individual word patterns, we also have language patterns that exist at the text level. Of course, when talking about teaching reading to children, I am referring to poetry for children. Poetry, and I’m including song lyrics as well, follow highly predictable patterns in terms of rhythm and rhyme. That is why poetry, especially poetry and rhymes for children, is so easy to learn. Nearly all children in primary grades can easily recite a plethora of nursery rhymes, poems, and song lyrics. How many of us, as adults, can easily recall song lyrics and poems that we last heard years ago? The textual patterns make them easy to remember.

            When working with younger readers, we want them to meet success in learning to read. What better way to ensure success to learn to read poems or other patterned texts each day or two. Of course, such learning requires repetition, and repetition (repeated reading of actual texts is a hallmark of reading fluency development.

            One more thing that’s worth noting about poetry for children: most poems rhyme. Returning to what I had previously mentioned, words belonging to particular word families (phonograms or rimes) generally rhyme. So, the use of poetry as a way to develop fluency and success in reading connected text can also be sued as a wonderful way to follow up word family phonics instruction. After learning the –eep word family and associated words, your students can read, reread, and eventually perform Little Bo Peep. Instruction with the –ick and –ock word families can be followed with Hickory Dickory Dock.

            In Kent State’s Camp Read-A-Lot reading clinic, where young students make remarkable progress in reading in as little as five weeks of instruction, our goal is for students to learn to read something well each and every day of instruction. And that something is usually a poem or a song. Moreover, the poems and songs that students learn are usually tied to the phonemic word families they are also learning.

            Sometimes our teachers/clinicians are unable to find a poem along with a word family under instruction. In such cases, the clinicians write their own poems. One added benefit of poetry is that the patterns in poetry can easily be parodied to write new poems that follow the patterns of already-known poems. For example, the nursery rhyme “Diddle Diddle Dumpling My Son Jon” was rewritten by a clinician to reinforce the –ag word family:

                        Diggle daggle dumpling, Aggie and Mag

Had a dog, and his name was Tag

Tag had a tail that would wiggle and wag

Diggle daggle dumpling, Agnes and Mag.

Imagine the sense of accomplishment Taylor felt as he stood in front of classmates and family members to perform his own poem. Teaching and learning doesn’t get any better than that!

            Find out more about teaching and using poetry in my blog article: “Why Poetry, Let Me Count the Ways,” on the Robb Review: https://therobbreviewblog.com/?s=poetry

References and Resources

Fry, E. (1998).  The most common phonograms.  The Reading Teacher, 51, 620-622.

Harrison, D., Rasinski T.V., & Fresch, M. (2022). Partner Poems & Word Ladders for Building Foundational Literacy Skills: Grades K-2 and 1-3. New York: Scholastic.

Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Newton, R. & Newton, E. (2020). Building Vocabulary with Greek and Latin Roots: A Professional Guide to Word Knowledge and Vocabulary Development (2^nd ed.). Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Educational Publishing. (Professional Development Book)

Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Newton, R., & Newton, E. (2019). Building Vocabulary from Word Roots. Huntington Beach, CA: Shell Educational Publishing. (Vocabulary Instruction Kit for Grades K to 11).

   By: Travis Crowder

I watched as he finished his book, then stared at the cover.

            After several moments, he glanced around the room and caught my eyes. We need to talk, his expression said. So, I maneuvered my way through the tangled mass of readers to check in with him.

            Last school year marked my seventh year in 7^th grade. At the year’s end, I was asked to move back to 8^th grade, practically looping with many of the kids I had taught and returning to the grade level where I started my career. I knew this reader because I had watched him advance from formulaic to complex narrative structures the year before, finding his way into books with multiple narrators and novels written in verse. Last week, he had already finished his first book, and this was his second. Now, he needed to talk.

“Hey, John, what did you think of the book?” I asked.

His response was laced with emotion and reflective thinking. He told me about characters, motivations, and why he loved the book. At the end of our conversation, he admitted, “I would not have been ready for this book last year. Now, I’m more interested in nonfiction. I want to read more like this.” So we looked at his to-read list and other books in the classroom library related to the one he had just finished. He found one and settled into it during the last precious moments of independent reading.

Earlier in my teaching life, I leaned toward teacher-centric approaches to teaching reading. I viewed my role in a traditional way: students read books, poems, informational texts, and short stories and answered the questions I generated. I graded their answers, went over them in class, then introduced another text that I massacred with more questions. When I started reading professional texts, the ideas I found in them challenged how I thought about reading and thinking about texts alongside students. Response—the thoughts, reactions, feelings, wonderings and noticings readers have about texts—seemed to be the more humane option. I have never regretted altering my approach.

I tend to believe that standardization has caused us—students and educators—to forget that we are sentient beings and capable of expressing feelings about the things we read. Part of pushing back against this paradigm involves me asking students how they feel about texts. And why. Naturally, we establish ways to interrogate those feelings, but response remains an important part of textual analysis. I’ve found that it leads readers to deeper thinking and connection.

             But not everyone agrees.

While there is literature to support response (Probst, 2014; Roessing, 2007; Rosenblatt, 1995; Vijayarahoo & Samuels, 2013), response can get pushed aside in favor of more “academic” pursuits, sometimes in the form of multiple-choice tests, “right” answers, and teacher-centered discourse. And I get it—especially when teachers feel pressure to “teach to the test.”

But it does not have to be this way.

And for administrators reading this, I encourage you to consider what students and teachers are missing when response is not validated in the classroom. Response goes beyond “I enjoyed it” or “It was interesting.” It comes from the heart AND the mind. When readers respond, they lean in to their thoughts, feelings, questions, and concerns. After we discuss critical lenses, students not only question the texts (what’s missing—voices, ideas, perspectives—and why?) (German, 2021; Moje, 1999; Slattery, 2013) but also reflect on their reactions and feelings. What might have caused me to react this way? What does this tell me about myself as a reader? What questions do I have? What is my reading life missing? What texts would help fill my reading gaps and answer the questions I have? Response carries students further. It is a necessary component of our instructional practice.

            John used response to think more deeply about his book. After discussing what he liked and how the book made him feel, I nudged him further. What is something you noticed? He mentioned how the book’s structure, written in a multigenre format, and how that structure engaged him as a reader and helped him understand the characters even more.

“How?,” I asked.

“Because I could see them from different perspectives.”

“Can you show me an example?,” I asked.

He turned through pages, showing me several instances of solid characterization and character development.

“Why do you think the author did this?,” I asked.

“I’m not sure,” he replied.

So I invited him to spend several minutes in his notebook and share with me a bit later. If we don’t understand the main character, we don’t understand the story, he wrote. Seeing different perspectives helps me understand why the character did what he did. But with all of these different friendships and relationships with people, why would he make the decision he did? His response led to analysis (Probst, 2014). And while I could invite him to think further, his final inquiry demonstrates that he is still wrestling with an analysis. He picked up another book with multigenre elements and multiple narrators for his next read. As he reads this new one, new insights will form that will open new possibilities for response (and analysis) regarding this current book and his last one. I can’t wait to hear his thinking.

I continue to advocate for response because, again and again, I watch students’ ideas evolve when they have opportunities to write or speak to their ideas and feelings. They respond their way into intersections of inquiry and many times realize the text holds more than they first realized. Beautiful thinking emerges, and instead of focusing on my questions, they are focusing on theirs.

Given time to respond to the texts, I am confident that students will lean toward analysis, citing evidence to support their thinking. I am also confident that provocative, relevant texts can generate plenty of conversation between and among students, prompting them to dig beneath the surface, consider their relation to the text, change their minds about ideas, and ask questions. Response is that powerful.

Louise Rosenblatt (1995) stated that part of the work of the literature teacher is helping students understand what literature means and does for them. Response guides students to this discovery. And it’s just good practice. Without response, I wonder what John would have noticed. I believe that time to talk about his reactions and to write about his wonderings strengthened his understanding. He started with what the text meant to him, then responded his way to analysis.

I look forward to another year of thinking and learning alongside students. As we continue to read, I will nudge them to pay attention to their reactions and feelings. Here’s to another year of reading and honoring the beauty of response.

I look forward to what you and your students will notice, wonder, and learn.

References

Probst, R. (2014). Response and analysis: Teaching literature in secondary school (2^nd ed.).

Heinemann.

German, L. (2021). Textured teaching: A framework for culturally sustaining practice.

Heinemann.

Slattery, P. (2013). Curriculum development in the Postmodern Era: Teaching and learning in an

age of accountability (3^rd ed.). Routledge.

Moje, E. (1999). From expression to dialogue: A study of social action literacy projects in an

urban school setting. The Urban Review, 31(3), 305-330.

Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as exploration (5^th ed.). Modern Language Association.

Vijayarajoo, A. R. & Samuel, M. (2013). Reader-response pedagogy and changes in student

stances in literary texts. The English Teacher, 42(3), 174-186.