One of the giants of the literacy world is grappling with the recent push for the 鈥渟cience of reading"鈥攁nd responding to critics who say her early reading program doesn鈥檛 align to evidence-based practice.
Lucy Calkins, the Teachers College professor known for her popular reading and writing curricula, in response to 鈥渢he phonics-centric people who are calling themselves 鈥榯he science of reading.鈥欌��
Growing interest in science-based early reading instruction, spurred by , is leading some districts and states to rethink their practices. Calkins鈥� statement suggests that some of the most established curriculum providers, whose materials have popularized many of the instructional strategies now facing pushback, are feeling similar pressure.
Calkins鈥� program, the Units of Study for Teaching Reading, uses a workshop model. Teachers demonstrate the skills and habits that good readers have, and then students practice them on their own, with teachers acting as guides. The program takes a constructivist approach to education, minimizing direct instruction.
These materials are used in schools across the country. A forthcoming 澳门跑狗论坛 survey will provide some numbers鈥攖he results take a look at which commercial reading programs teachers are using most often in their classrooms.
But critics of the programs have said that Calkins鈥� approach is counter to the scientific evidence base on reading instruction.
Decades of research has shown that teaching students which letter combinations represent which sounds鈥攖eaching systematic phonics鈥攊s the most effective way to ensure that children can read words. (For more on how children learn to read, see our research explainer.)
In Calkins鈥� early reading lessons, in grades K-2, children are encouraged to start to see themselves as readers, get excited about exploring print, and learn reading strategies. There is comparatively little explicit instruction in how to decode words.
Recently, Calkins released her first Units of Study in Phonics program. But marketing materials for the curriculum imply that phonics should not be a central focus in early grades. 鈥淧honics instruction needs to be lean and efficient,鈥� the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project website reads. 鈥淓very minute you spend teaching phonics (or preparing phonics materials to use in your lessons) is less time spent teaching other things.鈥�
In her recent statement, Calkins tows a similar line: She clearly states that students need explicit phonics instruction. At the same time, she cautions against an overemphasis on phonics鈥攃iting concerns that it would take away focus from other areas of reading. There鈥檚 no one way for instruction to improve, she writes, and focusing on phonics might not be the solution for every school.
She also argues that it can be valuable for early readers to use multiple sources of information, not just letters, when they鈥檙e figuring out what words say.
鈥楪uessing鈥� at Words?
This notion鈥攖hat children can use multiple sources of information to solve words鈥攊s based on an idea that many teachers know as 鈥渢hree-cueing,鈥� or MSV. In this system, students are taught to figure out what words say by using the pictures or context clues (meaning), the structure of the sentence (syntax), or the letters on the page (visual).
Students have the option to sound out tricky words, but they can also use other clues instead to guess what the word might be.
Critics argue that cueing directs children to take their eyes off of the words, and note that the .
In her statement, Calkins argues that there鈥檚 no such thing as the three-cueing approach to reading. MSV is only used as an assessment system, she writes, to analyze what source of information might have led a student to make an error.
Still, she writes that it鈥檚 helpful for an early reader to predict words based on all of the information sources available. 鈥淚t would be wise for teachers to say, 鈥楾ry it,鈥� instead of 鈥楪uess,鈥� as, of course, some children do literally just glance at the word or the picture and take wild guesses, which is not what anyone desires or intends,鈥� she writes.
Calkins also discusses decodable and predictable books. Decodable books give students practice with the specific letter-sound correspondences that they have learned, while predictable books are designed to give emerging readers 鈥渟upport鈥� from illustrations and repetitive sentence structures. Both are meant to be used as stepping stones to more authentic texts for kids who are just learning how to read. But critics of predictable books argue that they encourage guessing and attempting to memorize words as wholes.
For more coverage of early reading, see our ongoing series: Getting Reading Right
While Calkins writes that it would be 鈥渁 wise move鈥� to include decodable books in a young student鈥檚 鈥渞eading diet,鈥� she also defends the practice of using predictable books.
鈥淎 few months into kindergarten, a child can 鈥榬ead鈥� a book that says, 鈥業 can read the newspaper,鈥� and 鈥業 can read the recipe,鈥� if the child relies on the pattern of the repeating text, on the pictures, and on first letters,鈥� Calkins writes. 鈥淚 have found value in those books. The child is approximating reading. Her experience is not unlike that of a bike rider who relies on training wheels.鈥�
Teachers who have used the Units of Study for Teaching Reading have pushed back against Calkins鈥� argument that three-cueing isn鈥檛 an instructional strategy.
In an to Calkins in response to her statement, Margaret Goldberg, a literacy coach in California, wrote that guessing was encouraged in Units of Study.
鈥淚 had a chance in 2016 to attend the Teachers College Reading and Writing Program (鈥楾CRWP鈥�) Foundational Skills Institute. At the Institute, we discussed cueing instruction when our trainer displayed the three-cueing Venn diagram and explained the purpose behind 鈥榮trengthening MSV鈥� lessons.
Our trainer frequently used the word 鈥榞uess鈥� to describe what good readers do. Your programs, Units of Study for Teaching Reading and Units of Study for Teaching Phonics, use that word as well.鈥�
Pamela Snow, a reading researcher, also responded Calkins鈥� statement. In a , Snow called Calkins鈥� concern about overemphasis on phonics a straw man argument.
No one on 鈥渢he science of reading side of the debate鈥� would argue for phonics-only instruction, Snow wrote. Young students also need instruction in vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, and writing, which 鈥渉as been resoundingly argued by science of reading advocates for decades,鈥� she wrote.
It鈥檚 not clear whether Calkins鈥� statement signals any forthcoming changes to her materials. (Calkins was not available for comment before deadline.)
Image: Lucy Calkins 鈥擯eter Cunningham-File