The New Art and Science of Teaching Reading. Robert J. Marzano

of Literature In Becoming a Nation of Readers, Richard C. Anderson, Elfrieda H. Hiebert, Judith A. Scott, and Ian A. G. Wilkinson (1985) advocate for an increased amount of independent reading in elementary reading programs. Nancie Atwell, with her popular 1987 book In the Middle, inspired many teachers to help students explore literature through reader’s workshops. Many basal readers and reading programs paled in comparison to the richness and complexity of authentic literary texts. Addition of Critical Literacy Pearson and Cervetti (2017) describe critical literacy as a set of practices that “encourage students to analyze texts with attention to the contexts and features of their construction and the ideologies that underlie them, asking, among other things, whose interests are served by particular texts and particular readings of those texts” (p. 34). Such practices require skillful teaching and facilitation of complex analysis in the classroom.

      For many reading researchers, theorists, and educators, the whole-language approach represented the leading edge of reading research and instruction.

      Nevertheless, throughout the 20th century, there were persistent concerns about students who simply couldn’t read. For example, in 1955, Rudolf Franz Flesch wrote the highly controversial Why Johnny Can’t Read—And What You Can Do About It, a book that advocated for phonics instruction over more holistic, comprehension-based approaches. In 1965, the U.S. federal government passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and began infusing significant funding into education in general, and into reading instruction and intervention in particular. Over the next fifty years, the federal government would continue to pour money into reading instruction. With so much money at stake, legislators wanted to know how effective different instructional approaches were at improving students’ reading abilities. The following documents and reports attempt to answer those questions and strongly influenced reading policy during this time.

      • A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983)

      • Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998)

      • Report of the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000)

      • Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002)

      • Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (August & Shanahan, 2006)

      • Developing Early Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008)

      While all of these works were influential, none was more so than that of the National Reading Panel (NRP), published in April 2000. The report focuses primarily on five areas related to reading instruction: (1) phonics, (2) phonemic awareness, (3) fluency, (4) vocabulary, and (5) comprehension. For each area, the panel conducted a review of the extant research and makes recommendations for practice.

      Many praised the work of the NRP for its rigorous methodology, but others (particularly those who advocated for a whole-language approach) found fault with the areas the NRP chose to focus on. Advocates of whole-language approaches viewed the NRP’s emphasis on decoding skills (phonics, phonemic awareness) as a step backward. Although the NRP’s report includes comprehension as one of its areas, many researchers and educators believed that there was a subtle repositioning: “Comprehension became the natural consequence of teaching the [alphabetic] code well in the early stages of instruction instead of the primary goal and focus of attention from the very beginning of a child’s instructional life in school” (Pearson & Cervetti, 2017, p. 39). A lively debate, often called the reading wars, ensued; the crux of the conversation centered on whether a phonics-based approach or a whole-language approach was best for students.

      In 2010, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers released the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Although the standards are surrounded by controversy (much of which stems from the false notion that the federal government created the standards), many reading researchers see them as striking a healthy balance between phonics and comprehension. Advocates of whole language, such as Pearson and Cervetti (2017), describe the publication of the CCSS for English language arts standards as a “comeback” for reading comprehension (p. 12) and state that “the CCSS for reading seem to be well grounded in solid theories of reading comprehension” (p. 45).

      In their chapter of the fourth volume of the Handbook of Reading Research, William E. Tunmer and Tom Nicholson (2011) summarize the benefits and drawbacks of both whole-language approaches and phonics approaches:

      Whole language provides plenty of opportunity for children to read but is weak on teaching the alphabetic principle…. Phonics gives lots of practice in learning the alphabetic principle but does not provide much opportunity for putting the alphabetic principle into practice through actual reading of text. (p. 425)

      They conclude their comparison of whole language and phonics by suggesting that the most effective reading instruction “draw[s] on key elements of both approaches to provide instruction that best suits the needs of individual children” (Tunmer & Nicholson, 2011, p. 425). In the next section, we elaborate on how we believe teachers can best provide such reading instruction. Here, it suffices to say that the current state of research in reading acknowledges the importance of both phonics and whole-language approaches.

Development-Based Reading Instruction

      As we mention previously, Tunmer and Nicholson (2011) assert that effective reading instruction looks different depending on what students already know and are able to do:

      The search for the “best method” of teaching reading is fundamentally misguided, as the most effective approach used with any given child depends crucially on the reading-related knowledge, skills, and experiences the child brings to the task of learning to read. (p. 405)

      They use the term literate cultural capital to describe the literacy assets that students may or may not have when they begin school. Table 1.4 (page 16) lists literacy activities that children may experience at home or in the community before they come to school, along with the reading-related knowledge or skills that they may learn from such activities.

Table 1.4: Literate Cultural Capital

Literacy Activity	Reading-Related Knowledge and Skills
Seeing parents and other adults reading for entertainment or informational purposes	Understanding the value and purpose of reading
Listening to and participating in conversations	Developing oral language Developing vocabulary knowledge
Playing alphabet games (such as I Spy) and reading alphabet books	Building knowledge of letter names and sounds
Playing rhyming games (such as using pig Latin or reading nursery rhymes) and reading rhyming books (such as Dr. Seuss books)	Gaining sensitivity to individual sounds and groups of sounds in spoken words (phonemic and phonological awareness)
Inventing spellings (such as KLR for color or FRE for fairy)	Developing sensitivity to spelling-sound correspondences (phonics knowledge)
Participating in shared reading experiences	Gaining a basic understanding of concepts and conventions of printed language Gaining a familiarity with Скачать книгу В начало < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 > В конец