Searching for best reading outcomes

The Minister of Education has announced funding for structured approaches to literacy. Ahead of this, two independent evaluations of the various structured approaches were published.

Both these evaluations provide timely evidence to consider whether structured approaches are successful for students in Aotearoa New Zealand. Both evaluations show that children learn what they are taught.

But what evidence is missing? No evidence is provided on the effects of decoding-focused teaching on reading, understanding, knowledge, vocabulary and writing. (Decoding refers to pronouncing words - teaching children to figure out what words say, not what they mean.)

In general, children learning in structured approaches succeeded in tests of decoding. Older students were assessed on children’s ability to pronounce non-words, that is, to decipher/say words that do not occur in the English language. (Some call these “alien words” since they do not make sense.)

The non-word test, the Bryant Test of Basic Decoding Skills, is a valid test of decoding, and measures the intended outcome of structured literacy approaches. The “Bryant” shows children can sound out alien words that have no meaning.

Not measured or reported is whether that ability to blend sounds into nonwords led to increased ability to read. For some reason, the evaluators could not agree on a norm-referenced test of real word reading.

So, the reported evidence is based on children’s ability to read nonwords, and their ability to read words was not consistently assessed. The report suggests that the approaches are successful in teaching children to blend sounds together to decode words. What is not clear yet is if learning to decode benefited children’s writing and comprehension more than current methods.

Structured approaches to literacy teach word-reading skills cumulatively and explicitly. The approaches ensure every child has access to a predefined set of letters, sounds and spelling patterns, at increasing average difficulty, in a specified sequence.

The longstanding tension between prescriptive structures and responsiveness to children is highlighted in the evaluations. Too much insistence on structure potentially creates a ceiling, if children are not allowed to “move up”; that is, given credit for knowing things further up the ladder.

Adapting teaching materials for the needs of students is the craft of teaching. Noticing and supporting what the child contributes to their learning is the essence of professional teaching. Culturally sustaining approaches acknowledge the strengths and knowledge of children’s diverse literacy experiences.

For children who are bilingual, or becoming bilingual, opportunities to think and talk using their first language competence provide a platform for further language learning. Texts with authentic English are critical for learning the language structures of English. Decodable texts are not good models of English for language development, a high priority of the Ministry of Education.

The unmeasured or unreported aspects of literacy include understanding, knowledge, vocabulary, language and writing. One of the two evaluations mentioned above, of the Early Literacy Approach, notes the importance of a comprehensive approach to literacy teaching and of including attention to storybooks and motivation. It is one thing to measure school skills; lifelong literacy and an informed society stems from growing engaged, avid and critical readers.

A comprehensive literacy approach defines reading as a higher order skill than calling out words from a list. Teaching reading comprehension, for example, requires talking and thinking about the literal and implied meanings of texts. Teaching critical literacy includes attention to sources of information and bias. If children are taught to neglect or suppress meaning in order to decode, unintended negative effects emerge.

So, while the evaluations focus on the potential of structured approaches for decoding ability, there remain questions about checking on the effects of the programmes on skills that are not taught and the impacts on reading and writing more widely.

Potential negative outcomes include a decline in reading motivation when accountability is overly focused on testing artificial outcomes. Opportunity costs to reading comprehension and writing potentially arise from an overly intense focus on decoding. When this happens, we work against our own intention.

In sum, policy needs to enable highly skilled teachers, who make culturally sustaining, responsive decisions based on evidence, and who can adapt teaching materials for students. Structures can support teachers to do this, but we can be more purposeful about avoiding unintended barriers to further or wider learning.

An evidence-based approach requires checking on the intended and unintended effects of programmes, reviewing and refining, and serving all children. Our evidence should include both.

Dr Rebecca Jesson is an associate professor in literacy education at the University of Auckland. She is the academic and research adviser for Reading Recovery and Early Literacy Support, and serves as a trustee on the Marie Clay Literacy Trust.