Latest / The Reading Instruction Show / Reading Instruction, Whole Language, and a Flux Capacitor

Transcript

Reading Instruction, Whole Language, and a Flux Capacitor · The Reading Instruction Show

0:00
This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your
0:03
host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic of today's
0:07
podcast, or title, perhaps, reading instruction,
0:11
whole language, and a flux capacitor. And this
0:15
is an excerpt from my book, Making Sense of the
0:18
Science of Reading, Teachers Matter, published
0:21
by Guilford sometime in 2027, hopefully. Part
0:26
one, pre -service reading methods courses. The
0:30
Single Reading Methods course, taken as part
0:32
of my teacher education program at the University
0:37
of Wisconsin, River Falls, back in 1981, was
0:42
largely gobbledygook to me. That was due in large
0:47
part to the fact that I was not at all interested
0:51
in the topic. Imagine that, a future literacy
0:56
professor, found the topic of reading instruction
1:00
to be of little interest. Somehow I managed to
1:05
cram enough reading stuff into my brain to pass
1:08
the tests. But to be honest, that's all I really
1:12
wanted to do, pass the tests. If a little incidental
1:18
learning occurred along the way, well, that was
1:20
just peaches. As a result, I left my nine -week
1:25
reading methods course with a shallow and disjointed
1:29
knowledge base related to the small amount of
1:33
reading stuff that I'd managed to temporarily
1:37
paste into my brain. And most of this stuff seemed
1:42
to quickly leak out of my head. And I'm sure
1:47
my mindset back then was not much different from
1:51
that of many of my students today in my recent
1:55
to literacy methods courses. Now my understanding
2:00
of reading instruction entering that class in
2:04
1981 was based largely on my own experience as
2:10
an elementary student back in the 60s. I thought
2:14
that to teach reading You just teach children
2:19
how to sound out words. You just follow the directions
2:25
in the teacher's manual and everything would
2:28
be just fine. All students would learn to read
2:32
just like that. And if a student didn't know
2:37
a word, you just tell them to sound it out. How
2:41
complicated could it be? And nine weeks later,
2:45
I left that class thinking the exact same sorts
2:49
of things. Now, when I got into student teaching,
2:54
all the teachers were following the directions
2:58
in the teacher's manual, as if it were wholly
3:01
writ. And of course, I did the same. Social learning
3:06
is a powerful thing. And when I got my own second
3:11
grade classroom, that's what I continued to do.
3:15
I followed the directions. And although the term
3:19
wouldn't become popular for another 30 years,
3:24
I followed the directions with fidelity. And
3:28
because of my fetalness to the manual, I thought
3:33
I was a good reading teacher. I also thought
3:37
I was a good reading teacher because I could
3:40
hold students' attention long enough to do round
3:43
-robin reading in small groups while other students
3:47
completed worksheets and copied passages from
3:50
the board. And I thought I was a good reading
3:55
teacher because most students passed the end
3:57
-of -unit tests. Then I say most. Those who were
4:02
unable to pass end -of -unit tests were sent
4:06
down to a lower group where the end -of -unit
4:09
tests weren't quite as difficult. But I wasn't
4:13
really a reading teacher back then. I was a direction
4:18
follower. Ah, the good old days. And if truth
4:24
be told, Anybody with a sixth grade education
4:27
could have come along and followed the directions
4:31
in a teacher's manual. A trained monkey could
4:36
probably have taught reading as well as I did
4:38
back in the 80s. Now if I want to be honest,
4:43
and I do, I didn't enjoy teaching reading in
4:49
the 80s. And my students didn't enjoy my teaching
4:53
of reading to an even greater degree. Nobody
4:58
enjoyed much of anything back then. Reading class
5:02
was 60 minutes of unenjoyment. All of us would
5:07
have much rather been outside on the playground
5:10
kicking red rubber balls into the air. But there
5:14
we were, stuck inside doing boring stuff that
5:18
nobody enjoyed because we Had to. As a result,
5:23
my students learned how to unenjoy reading. Even
5:28
though there were no behavioral objectives related
5:31
to unenjoying reading, that was the outcome.
5:37
Back in the 80s, the stories in the teacher's
5:39
manuals were designed to reinforce letter patterns
5:43
being taught. Reading the back of a cereal box
5:47
would have been much more interesting than the
5:50
mush. Students were forced to read out loud at
5:53
small tables using round -robin reading while
5:57
I told them to sound it out. Students never talked
6:03
about or made connections with anything they
6:06
read. How silly! They never... had opportunities
6:11
to practice using the skills learned in reading
6:14
by reading real books. Students only got to find
6:19
a book to read when their quote work unquote
6:22
was finished. There was no time set aside for
6:27
daily reading and students copied things but
6:31
never wrote their ideas on paper for others to
6:35
read. In retrospect, I realized that many of
6:40
my second grade students learned to read despite
6:43
my fidelity to the teacher's manual, not because
6:48
of it. Nutty new whole language. I first heard
6:54
about whole language back in 1988. Like anyone
6:58
who encounters something new, I used the file
7:02
folders in my head to try to make sense of it.
7:06
And the file folder in my head related to reading
7:10
instruction was filled with my own experiences
7:14
learning to read in the 60s, as well as all the
7:18
sounding out word stuff in the teacher's manual
7:21
in the 80s. That's it. Nothing in my teeny tiny
7:28
cognitive file enabled me to understand this
7:32
more complex understanding of literacy And language,
7:37
that was whole language. Whole language is the
7:41
language learning theory. So of course, it made
7:45
no sense to me. I compared the new to the old
7:50
and since it didn't match, I declared the new
7:53
to be nutty. It was nonsense. It was silly. It
7:58
was wrong. I came to this conclusion based on
8:03
a very shallow and disjointed knowledge base.
8:07
And in this way, I was no different from the
8:12
Minnesota state legislators who passed the Reid
8:16
Act in 19... in 2023. The small tidbit of 1988
8:24
information related to whole language was quickly
8:27
put in a file folder in my head marked crazy
8:31
stuff, filed away, and forgotten. Infidels. The
8:39
story would normally end there. However, a couple
8:42
years later I entered a PhD program at the University
8:46
of Minnesota. And for five years, I was able
8:51
to study and immerse myself in research literature
8:56
related to learning, literacy, and literacy instruction.
9:01
I had conversations with eminent literacy scholars
9:05
and read lots of research articles. But just
9:10
as important, I supervised practicum students
9:15
and student teachers out in the field. I was
9:20
able to visit hundreds of classrooms in and around
9:25
the Twin Cities area. Here I saw reading classes
9:30
that were interesting and enjoyable. Students
9:36
were reading books, having conversations, writing
9:41
about reading, writing, things about other things,
9:45
and generally using literacy for real -life purposes.
9:52
Direct and explicit instruction was used to teach
9:56
phonics and other reading subscales, but it didn't
9:59
occur in a workbook. It occurred within the context
10:03
of authentic reading and writing activities.
10:08
and the stuff I was experiencing in the field
10:12
aligned with all the new stuff I was learning
10:16
about literacy, cognitive psychology, linguistic,
10:21
psycholinguistics, and how human beings learn.
10:27
But in these interesting and enjoyable reading
10:31
classes, I was seeing there were no teacher's
10:34
manuals. How was that possible? How could any
10:41
learning possibly occur without a teacher's manual?
10:46
How did teachers know how to teach reading without
10:49
being able to follow directions? How did they
10:53
know what to teach? How did they know what to
10:57
say without a teaching script? How did students
11:02
learn new words without vocabulary worksheets?
11:06
And how did students learn how to comprehend
11:09
without comprehension worksheets? How did teachers
11:13
know if learning occurred without end of unit
11:16
tests? And how did teachers know who was a high,
11:20
middle, and low reader? And if they weren't following
11:25
a teacher's manual with fidelity, Did that mean
11:29
these teachers were infidels? As a literacy professor
11:35
at Minnesota State University of Mankato in the
11:38
mid -90s and early aughts, I was able to continue
11:43
to visit classrooms across southern Minnesota
11:47
and expand my research agenda. The 90s and aughts
11:52
were a golden time for literacy instruction.
11:56
Literacy was good. Infidelity was rampant. Unenjoyment
12:02
seemed rare. What about the test scores, you
12:06
asked? Well, what about the test scores? Didn't
12:10
all that whole language stuff make test scores
12:13
drop, you ask? The test scores were just fine.
12:19
If you look at NAEP reading test scores for Minnesota
12:22
students in fourth and eighth grade, from 1998
12:27
to 2011 were above the national average, just
12:34
fine. They rose slightly, as a matter of fact,
12:39
from 98 on up. What about all that whole language
12:45
stuff? We know that whole language stuff has
12:48
been debunked, you say? Well, there may have
12:52
been research illiterates who claimed it was
12:55
debunked, but saying something's debunked doesn't
12:59
make it debunked. Whole language as a language
13:04
learning theory has never been debunked. In fact,
13:08
it's fully bunked. There has never been research
13:13
proving that whole language doesn't work, and
13:17
research doesn't prove things, by the way. Now,
13:21
should a reading scores were just fine during
13:24
the 90s, during the apex of whole language, if
13:29
we look at NAEP reading scores? The real problem,
13:36
whole language was never the problem. The real
13:41
problem was that big publishing couldn't make
13:44
money if there were no teacher's manuals. consumable
13:48
workbooks, end of unit tests, and comprehension
13:51
worksheets. And teachers couldn't be controlled
13:55
if they were allowed to make decisions about
13:59
what's best for their students. And if children
14:03
were able to select the books that they wanted
14:06
to read, they could end up believing all sorts
14:10
of crazy shit. It was never about whole language,
14:15
people. In fact, if big publishing could double
14:20
their profits by convincing the Minnesota legislature
14:24
to use whole language approach to literacy instruction,
14:29
the Read Act Minnesota would be the Whole Language
14:32
Act Minnesota. The flux capacitor. But a blight
14:39
came upon the land in the form of the National
14:43
Reading Panel Report. No Child Left Behind and
14:47
the Reading First Initiative all happened in
14:51
early 2000. The Education Science Reform Act
14:56
of 2002 excluded certain types of research from
15:00
the research conversation. And soon after, people
15:05
with no expertise in reading instruction magically
15:10
became experts in reading instruction. Behavioral
15:15
psychologists, accountants, medical doctors,
15:18
neuroscientists, physicists, journalists, business
15:21
leaders, linguists, educational psychologists,
15:26
speech therapists, psychometricians, politicians,
15:30
government employees, direct instruction specialists,
15:34
conservative think tanks, the National Council
15:36
on Teacher Quality, Education Week, and secretaries
15:40
of education were now experts in reading instruction.
15:47
And some of these new magical reading experts
15:51
were so powerful they could tell us what research
15:57
said about reading instruction without ever reading
16:01
a research article. Imagine that. And literacy
16:07
experts who had spent decades developing their
16:10
expertise through teaching research. service,
16:14
and scholarly work were magically transformed
16:18
from experts into speed bumps on the road to
16:23
profit -based reading instruction. And slowly
16:27
starting in early 2010, all the joy began being
16:33
sucked out of reading classes across Minnesota.
16:37
And today you'd be hard -pressed to find a reading
16:40
class in which students were engaged in authentic
16:44
literacy activities. In 2026, teachers in Minnesota
16:51
are required to square fealty to the Minnesota
16:54
Department of Education and follow the approved
16:58
teacher's manual with fidelity. All the love
17:02
of reading has been stomped out of students.
17:06
Reading, writing, listing, thinking, and critically
17:10
evaluating information. has been replaced by
17:14
remembering, responding, regurgitating, and filling
17:18
in bubbles on standardized tests. This story
17:23
ends where it began in 1981. The Read Act Minnesota
17:28
and the science of reading have brought us forward
17:33
to the past. We've been transported back to 1981.
17:41
This has been the reading instruction show. I
17:43
am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.