The debate surrounding reading instruction, especially the balance between decoding and language comprehension, continues to spark discussion among educators. Inspired by the “Teacher question” provided, this guide explores the crucial role of both elements in fostering proficient readers, referencing Scarborough’s Rope and the science of reading. It also addresses the prevalent “decoding first” or “decoding only” mentality and argues for a more balanced approach.
It’s understandable that your district emphasizes decoding. After all, phonics, phonemic awareness, and decoding skills are fundamental for early reading success. However, neglecting the “language comprehension” portions of reading, as depicted in Scarborough’s Rope, is akin to prioritizing one side of a ship over the other, potentially leading to imbalance and hindering overall progress. This approach contradicts a wealth of research, including the National Reading Panel report and the work of prominent researchers in the field.
The overemphasis on decoding stems, in part, from media attention highlighting gaps in phonics instruction. This leads to understandable concerns from parents and administrators, driving a focus on ensuring decoding proficiency. However, history teaches us that instructional practices can swing like a pendulum. A previous emphasis on comprehension strategies in the 1970s and 80s resulted in a neglect of phonics instruction. The current trend risks repeating this imbalance, prioritizing decoding at the expense of vocabulary, prosody, and broader language skills.
Ignoring language comprehension is not only counterproductive but also potentially detrimental to students’ long-term reading development. It’s similar to loading all the passengers onto one side of a ship – a recipe for disaster. A balanced approach is crucial, one that acknowledges the interconnectedness of decoding and language comprehension.
Evidence Against “Decoding First”
Several key studies and models challenge the “decoding first” or “decoding only” approach:
-
Jeanne Chall’s Research: Chall, a prominent advocate for phonics instruction, never promoted phonics in isolation. Her research emphasized the importance of simultaneous development across multiple skill areas.
-
Marilyn Jager Adams’ “Beginning to Read”: This landmark work explicitly rejects “phonics first” or “meaning first” approaches, labeling them as “misguided” and “simplistic.” Adams highlights the lack of empirical support for either extreme.
-
Hollis Scarborough’s Rope: Scarborough herself clarified that her model emphasizes the simultaneous and interactive development of both word recognition and language comprehension skills from the beginning. The original graphic included an arrow indicating “time” moving from left to right, illustrating that these skills should grow together.
-
The National Reading Panel Report: While the NRP report supports explicit, systematic phonics instruction, the studies analyzed typically embedded phonics within a comprehensive reading program.
-
NICHD Research: Research from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development revealed that even after students reached average decoding levels, many still struggled, highlighting the importance of other factors beyond decoding.
-
Dyslexia Interventions: Interventions developed for students with dyslexia by researchers like Sharon Vaughn and Maureen Lovett also emphasize the need for more comprehensive approaches beyond just decoding supports.
-
Prioritizing Language Activities: Research by Connor, Morrison, & Katch (2004) indicates that engaging proficient decoders in comprehension and language activities yields greater learning progress than continued phonics instruction.
-
Comprehensive Approach: The work of Karen Harris and Steve Graham demonstrates that first-graders thrive with a comprehensive approach that integrates foundational skills and language skills from the start.
A Balanced Approach: Apportioning Time and Skills
A more effective approach involves carefully allocating time to different components of literacy. Research suggests dedicating approximately 30 minutes per day to phonics instruction, alongside comparable time for reading comprehension, writing, and fluency.
In Chicago, implementing this approach started with beginning every workshop with an overview of all the skills needed to read. This helps ensure that all components of reading, including decoding and comprehension, are addressed effectively.
Conclusion: Towards a Comprehensive Literacy Education
Prioritizing decoding is essential, but not at the cost of neglecting language comprehension. The research clearly supports a balanced approach that fosters both skill sets simultaneously. By embracing the science of reading and avoiding the temptation to “sink the boat” with extreme measures, educators can provide a comprehensive literacy education that empowers all students to become proficient and engaged readers. It is important to advocate for balanced literacy and encourage administrators to address the diverse needs of all children.
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(4), 305-336.
Fletcher, J. M., & Lyon, G. R. (1998). Reading: A research-based approach. In W. M. Evers (Eds.), What’s gone wrong in America’s classrooms (pp. 50-77). Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Harris, K. R., Kim, Y., Yim, S., Camping, A., Graham, S., & Fulton, M. L. (Under review). Yes, they can: Developing transcription skills and oral language in tandem with SRSD instruction on close reading of science text to write informative essays at Grades 1 and 2.
National Reading Panel (U.S.) & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read : an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
