One of the more unusual questions I’ve received recently is, “Does the science of reading allow kids to read books?”
I suspect the person asking this question was influenced by educational product reviewers, who think a product can’t align with the science of reading unless it provides explicit and systematic phonics-based instruction. Extending this flawed logic leads to an absolute absurdity: Books (other than phonics textbooks) must not be aligned with the science of reading because they do not teach phonics!
Renaissance produces an enhanced digital library of texts, and some reviewers say that it doesn’t align with the science of reading because they see no phonics instruction in it. Another product that encourages the reading of trade books and tracks students’ comprehension received the same criticism.
But does a lack of phonics instruction equal no science of reading?
The phonics-only fallacy
Some discussions around the science of reading myopically focus on the role of phonics to the extent that other necessary elements aren’t appropriately considered.
Many phonics proponents have gravitated to the science of reading because they see it as a reflection of the extensive research supporting a phonological approach. However, any author or publication presenting phonics as the totality of the science of reading is portraying an incomplete picture. The research around promoting literacy goes well beyond phonics.
In expressing this concern about too narrowly focusing on phonics, I do not wish to diminish the critical role that phonics instruction plays in promoting literacy acquisition. Phonics approaches have been consistently found to be effective in supporting younger readers to master the basics of reading and are “more effective on average than other approaches to early reading,” as noted by the Education Endowment Foundation. The same summary points out that the research base for phonics has “very extensive evidence.”
Conceptual models of the science of reading
While early grades phonics skills are a strong foundation for literacy, we don’t live on foundations. We live in structures. To complete the job of developing literacy, we must also be concerned about those things we must build on top of the foundation laid by phonics. The most common visual depictions of the science of reading speak to these other elements, yet some overlook them.
Consider Philip Gough and William Tunmer‘s “The Simple View of Reading.” This visual is presented as a multiplication problem, and — if we remember our math lessons — any value multiplied by zero results in zero. That means that 100% precision with phonics paired with a lack of vocabulary and/or background knowledge still results in little to no comprehension.
Similarly, look closely at the multiple strands of Hollis Scarborough’s “Reading Rope.” An entire section is devoted to the critical phonics skills previously noted. Then, consider the breadth of the rope’s language comprehension section, which includes background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures and more.
In our most recent work, “Literacy Reframed,” my co-authors, Robin Fogarty and Brian Pete, and I present a conceptual organizer that seeks to focus on the essential elements known as “The Big Three” of reading comprehension:
- Decoding: Can you decipher the text? Can you use phonics to sound out unknown words? If so, how fluently?
- Vocabulary: Do you know all the words in the text? If not, what percentage is unknown to you? Can you use context clues to help?
- Knowledge: Do you have the necessary background knowledge to understand the context and references in the text? Do these things make sense to you?
Rebalancing the conversation: the importance of books
Here’s my point: Regardless of which conceptual organizer you prefer, they all honor the role of phonics and also expressly note the need for other critical elements — vocabulary and background knowledge.
However, many of these other critical elements seem relegated to the shadows, while phonics takes center stage in many current discussions and reviews. Instead, what should be understood as an ensemble cast becomes a one-person phonics show.
When we allow the conversation to become overly myopic, things get distorted to the point that we must remind people that, under the science of reading, it is not only all right for kids to read books; it is essential.
Let’s work diligently to ensure that the totality of the science of reading is honored and addressed to set all learners on the path to reading successfully.
Opinions expressed by SmartBrief contributors are their own.
Subscribe to SmartBrief’s FREE email newsletters to see the latest hot topics on educational leadership in ASCD and ASCDLeaders. They’re among SmartBrief’s more than 200 industry-focused newsletters.