Written evidence submitted by Dr Morag
Stuart
to the
Education and Skills Select Committee
in advance of the
Committee Meeting on Reading, November
15th 2004.
Reading: Draft Terms of Reference
Remit: To examine departmental
policy and guidance on the teaching of reading to children in
schools, focusing on foundation-level education through KS 3.
To consider whether any changes are necessary to improve current
guidance/ policy.
Author notes.
Dr Morag Stuart is currently Reader in Psychology
in the School of Psychology and Human Development at the Institute
of Education, University of London.
She has some 16 years experience of teaching 4- to
8-year-old children in Inner London schools.
Towards the end of her school teaching career, she
gained a first class honours degree in Psychology after 4 years
of part-time evening study at Birkbeck College, University of
London.
She then trained as an educational psychologist at
the Child Guidance Training Centre, located in the Tavistock Clinic,
London.
In 1986, she was awarded her PhD from Birkbeck College,
University of London, for a thesis entitled "Phonological
awareness, letter-sound knowledge and learning to read".
She has now been involved in research into reading
and its development for over 20 years.
The terms of reference for this meeting of the Education
and Skills Select Committee invited consideration of six linked
questions:
1. Whether policy/ guidance has a sound base
in research evidence.
looking at relative weight given to synthetic/
analytic phonics, whole word/ language, onset/ rhyme etc.
2. Putting policy into practice - how effectively
is guidance being translated into practice? What variation exists
in practice?
3. Which children benefit from current approaches?
Are all equally well - served by current policy guidance on reading?
4. Introduction of early literacy strategies
- teaching children to read from a very early age.
5. The success or otherwise of current policies
compared to those being pursued in other countries - paying due
attention to differences dictated by different languages.
6. The relative value of pre-literacy experience
- by comparison to those countries with later age start to education.
I have dealt with each of these questions in turn
and in the order in which they appear in the Terms of Reference,
except that questions 4 and 6 are dealt with in a single section.
1. Whether policy / guidance has a sound base
in research evidence.
1.1. As no references to research studies are
given in any of the published documentation for the NLS, this
question is more difficult to answer than it need be: we simply
are not told what research evidence was used in developing, for
example, the detailed term-by-term teaching plans set out in the
Framework for Teaching, and therefore cannot examine the soundness
of the evidence used. There is a post hoc review of the kinds
of evidence that might seem to underlie the NLS Framework for
Teaching (Beard, undated), but this does not cover much in the
way of evidence about reading and its development.
1.2. It is the basis for the Framework for Teaching
that I wish to consider here. Three major influences on the Framework
for Teaching are immediately apparent: the historical context
in which the NLS was introduced, Reading Recovery, and psychological
research into the role of phonological awareness in reading.
1.3. Historical context. When the
NLS was first mooted, the major source of influence on teacher
training with regard to the teaching of reading over the previous
twenty to thirty years was the 'psycholinguistic guessing game'
or 'whole language' approach (Goodman, 1976, 1986; Smith, 1971,
78, 82, 88, 94, 2004). This approach views skilled reading as
'sampling' the printed text to confirm 'predictions' built up
from 'context'. It views reading as a process that develops as
naturally as walking and talking. Therefore, children do not need
to be taught to read; reading will develop naturally as long as
children are in a print-rich environment where adults share books
with them. The first director of the NLS was concerned that the
new approach to reading teaching embodied in the NLS needed to
take along with it teachers who had been trained in a very different
philosophy and pedagogy. There has never been any valid and reliable
scientific evidence to support the Goodman/Smith view of skilled
reading and reading development. However, this view remains to
this day influential among many teachers, a cause for concern
in the light of the OISE report's identification of motivation
to continue with the teaching approach advocated in the NLS as
challenge to its future success (see below).
1.4. Reading Recovery. During the
1970s and 80s, Reading Recovery was very much associated with
the Goodman/Smith view of reading and reading teaching. The value
of Reading Recovery lies in its emphasis on early identification
and intervention for 6-year-old struggling readers. It has also
recently adapted its pedagogy to include phonological awareness
and phonics teaching. Many of the first Literacy Consultants appointed
in LEAs to provide in-service training and consultancy in implementation
of the NLS were Reading Recovery trained teachers: thus, reading
recovery has influenced the NLS both indirectly (through association
with the Goodman/Smith school of thought) and directly (through
Literacy Consultants).
1.5. These two influences are apparent in the
Searchlights 'model' of reading (illustrated in Figure 1 below),
which is the only model of reading that the NLS presents to teachers.
This 'model' of reading has no basis in research
evidence. Its acceptance into the NLS as a means of teaching teachers
to understand reading is therefore at first sight surprising.
1.6 Psychological Research. Adoption by
the NLS of a model with no foundation in research evidence is
especially surprising as, from over thirty years of psychological
research into skilled reading and reading development, we now
have tried and tested models of the processes involved in printed
word recognition as well as models of the factors that influence
comprehension of written texts. Printed word recognition processes
and text comprehension processes are clearly confounded in the
Searchlights 'model', where readers are assumed to get to the
meaning of a text by a combination of sounding out or recognising
the words that comprise the text, and using contextual information
and their knowledge of grammatical structure to predict upcoming
words.
1.7 However, when we consider the historical context
within which the NLS was first introduced, adoption of the Searchlights
'model' is less surprising, because this 'model' represents an
uneasy attempt to produce a compromise between the different approaches
to the teaching of reading that follow from two diametrically
opposed conceptions of the processes involved in skilled reading
and reading development: the Goodman/Smith approach (and its initial
acceptance by proponents of Reading Recovery), and the approach
that results from psychological research, which is outlined briefly
below.
1.8 The approach taken by psychologists views
skilled reading as consisting of two essential dimensions: printed
word recognition, and text comprehension (e.g. Gough & Hillinger,
1980; Hoover & Gough, 1990). This is illustrated in Figure
2 below.
1.9 According to this view, reading development
therefore requires that children develop (which includes being
taught) procedures for recognising printed words, and procedures
for understanding the texts that their word recognition skills
allow them to decipher. Teachers need to understand the procedures
required for success in each dimension. Psychological research
has provided valuable insights into the nature and development
of procedures necessary for this success in each dimension.
1.10 Although printed word recognition processes
and text comprehension processes are clearly confounded in the
Searchlights 'model' and in the Goodman/Smith approach, from which
it in part derives, they are not confounded in the Psychological
approach, nor are they confounded in children's minds. Different
factors predict successful development of printed word recognition
processes from those that predict successful development of the
ability to understand printed texts. Moreover, there are children
who cannot understand the texts they read, despite appropriate
printed word recognition skills (suggesting a specific problem
with reading comprehension and/or language comprehension generally).
There are also children who, despite relatively poor word recognition
skills, can make remarkably good sense of texts (suggesting a
specific problem with word recognition processes, combined with
a strength in language comprehension). That is, a double dissociation
has been observed between the two dimensions, suggesting that
they are indeed separable aspects of reading.
1.11 Given the huge amount of psychological research
into reading and its development over the past thirty years, it
is also disappointing that only one psychological theoretical
perspective is easily discernable in the original word level work
at Key Stage 1 in the NLS Framework for Teaching: that concerned
with the role of phonological awareness in facilitating successful
reading development proposed by Bryant & Goswami (e.g. Goswami
& Bryant, 1990). Many aspects of this particular account
have been hotly contested and refuted by subsequent research.
This has been reflected in some of the changes made to early KS1
word level work in later versions of the NLS (e.g. Progress in
Phonics), where the emphasis on rhyme and onset-rime units is
much reduced.
1.12 The questions that the Select Committee is interested
in under this heading (i.e. the relative weight given under the
NLS to synthetic/analytic phonics, to whole word/language and
to onset-rime, etc) all relate to this essential conflict between
different conceptions of reading that is inherent in the Searchlights
'model'. I will be happy to answer any detailed questions in these
areas.
2. Putting policy into practice
2.1 In this section, I have relied on the Final
Report of the External Evaluation of England's National Literacy
and Numeracy Strategies (OISE report, Earl et al, 2003)[1].
Whilst this report recognises that, for both strategies, "the
gains to date have been impressive", it also suggests "there
is still considerable ground to be covered if significant and
lasting improvement is the goal".
2.2 Two of the barriers to significant and lasting
improvement identified in the
OISE report are (1) teachers' limited understanding
of reading and (2) the fact that many teachers are not yet convinced
that the NLS is worthwhile in terms of improving pupil learning.
They support the goal of the NLS, but not necessarily the means
of getting there.
2.3 Teachers' understanding of reading.
To date, both Initial and In-Service Training has
concentrated on training teachers to deliver the NLS. It has not
presented any research-supported model of the processes involved
in skilled reading, or of the ways in which children are thought
to develop these processes. The OISE report quotes Willows (2002,
p1) to emphasise the dangers of this approach to teacher-training:
Training teachers to implement instructional methods
when they don't truly understand the underlying rationale is futile.
Without understanding, teachers do not have the knowledge to adapt
an instructional strategy to address various student needs…..Without
understanding, teachers can become inflexible and dogmatic, unable
to integrate new research-supported practices into existing approaches.
Yet data collected by the OISE team indicate that
most teachers believe they do have the necessary skills
and knowledge to teach children to read. That is, teachers do
not know that their understanding is limited.
2.4 However, limitations on teacher understanding
were perceived by the majority of Consultants, who felt that "teachers
still needed detailed classroom guidance, deeper subject knowledge
and greater pedagogical expertise" (OISE report, p93), and
by Headteachers, who made comments like: "there's another
layer missing and that's the understanding of how children learn";
" (teachers) are very good at bashing out the curriculum,
but they need to work on looking at where the children are at,
listening to their needs. They still have a lot to learn about
how children learn" (OISE report, p94).
2.5 This is a dangerous state of affairs, as "If
teacher learning does not become a routine feature of ongoing
practice, the principles behind the Strategies may be diluted
or distorted by well-intentioned people who are unaware of the
gaps in their understanding" (OISE report, p.134).
2.6 The persistence of large numbers of teachers
unconvinced that implementing the NLS has led or will in the future
lead to improvements in pupil learning carries with it the danger
that focus on improving literacy will erode. In my opinion, those
aspects of the NLS Framework for Teaching that are still somewhat
controversial (e.g. the emphasis on word level work and phonics)
are likely to be most threatened.
2.7 In my opinion, this threat relates directly
to the lack of teacher knowledge about reading and to the failure
of the NLS to educate teachers about reading.
3. Which children benefit from current
approaches? Are all equally well-served by
current policy guidance on reading?
3.1 The initial 'good teaching' supplied under
the NLS clearly doesn't 'work' for everybody - if it did there
would be no need for Additional Literacy Support (ALS), Early
Literacy Support (ELS) and Further Literacy Support (FLS), or
for Wave 3 individual attention for approximately 5% of children.
Once this Three Wave version of implementation of the NLS has
been in place throughout their school career for children at the
end of Key Stage 2, if there are then still schools that do not
meet the criterion of 65% of pupils achieving Level 4 at the end
of KS2, we might need to consider whether this fuller version
of the NLS works for all children.
3.2 Matters that would then need to be considered
include teacher training, the
appropriateness of the targets set for 11-year-olds,
and the appropriateness of the KS2 assessment procedures.
I would be happy to answer questions relating to
the above matters.
4. Introduction of early literacy strategies
- Teaching children to read from a very
early age and
6. The relative value of pre-literacy experience
- by comparison to those countries
with later age start to education.
4.1 In the UK, we already start teaching children
to read at least a year earlier than is the norm in most other
countries. Now that most children appear to enter the Reception
class at the start of the school year during which they will reach
their 5th birthday, some children in Year R are only
just four years old. This is not too young for children to be
learning about reading, but in my opinion it is too young for
all children to be formally taught to read and expected to be
successful.
4.2 This is not to say that activities known to
facilitate successful reading development should not be included
in the Year R curriculum, or indeed into the Foundation Stage
curriculum that covers 3- to 5-year olds. These activities should
be fun. They should be presented as play. They should include
language development activities as well as more traditional pre-reading
activities. Some children (e.g. those for whom English is not
the language spoken at home, those from socially deprived backgrounds)
particularly need language development activities.
6.1 I am happy to answer questions about the kinds
of activities that can be particularly beneficial to pre-school
children.
5. The success or otherwise of current policies
compared to those being pursued in
other countries - paying due attention to differences
dictated by different languages.
5.1 In this section, I am relying on the recent
report from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
(PIRLS, Mullis et al, 2003), which compared reading achievements
of 4th grade (9- to 10-year-old) children in 35 countries
in 2001. The English cohort in this study was therefore the cohort
against whom the success of the NLS was to be judged in 2002.
I am indebted to Dr Rhona Stainthorp for the detailed analyses
of relevant PIRLS data cited below.
5.2 One of the major impulses for the introduction
of the NLS was a desire to reduce the
perceived tail of underachievement in reading, that
is, to increase the number of 11-year- old children who reached
the standard of reading deemed appropriate for an 11 year old.
5.3 Dr Stainthorp's detailed analysis of the
PIRLS data suggests that this desired outcome
has not been achieved. Figure 3 (following page)
shows the extent to which children at different levels of reading
ability in six economically advanced European countries differ
from the standard deviation from the average computed from data
for all 35 countries. Children in these European countries do
relatively well at all levels of reading ability when compared
to the global averages: the standard deviations are all in a positive
direction. However, the direction of slope is different for English
children. In England, we do much better by our good readers and
much worse by our poor readers. To some extent, this can be explained
by the fact that English orthography is the most opaque alphabetic
orthography of all, and therefore might present relatively more
difficulty particularly for the least able children. However,
French is also a relatively opaque alphabetic orthography, yet
the French do relatively better by their least able children.
Figure 3
5.4 Thus, data in Figure 3 to some extent might
result from language differences.
In Figure 4, only data from three economically advanced
English speaking countries are presented.
5.5 Here we see similar descending profiles
for England and New Zealand, with English
children doing relatively better at all ability levels
than New Zealand children - somewhat ironic, given the New Zealand
origins of Reading Recovery (Clay, 1972), where this programme
has been in use for 30 years. However, Canada does well by children
at all ability levels - may be there is something to be learned
from teaching methods used in Canada.
6. Final thoughts.
6.1 If I have been highly critical here of certain
aspects of the National Literacy Strategy, this is because I am
worried by the possibility, raised also in the OISE report, that
what I see as the beneficial effects of the NLS on the teaching
of reading are likely to be lost unless the serious concerns raised
in my criticisms are addressed.
6.2 These worries are exacerbated by recent decisions
to hand over responsibility for assessing reading at the end of
Key Stage 1 to schools and teachers. I do not consider that the
SATs administered at the end of Key Stage 1 provide reliable and
valid estimates of children's reading ability, but I do believe
that some form of standardised assessment of reading is essential
during Key Stage 1.
6.3 I also think there are better ways of assessing
reading at the end of Key Stage 2 than the KS2 SATs provide.
6.4 I would welcome discussion of the policy implications
of the issues I have raised.
6.5 I am attaching as an appendix a copy of part
of my previous critique of the NLS, presented to the Phonics Seminar,
March 2003. The section reproduced in this appendix raises questions
about the teaching of reading comprehension in the NLS.
References
Beard, R. (undated). National Literacy Strategy:
review of Research and other Related Evidence. London: Department
for Education and Skills, Standards and Effectiveness Unit.
Clay, M.M. (1972). Reading: The Patterning of
Complex Behaviour. Auckland: Heinemann Educational.
Goodman, K.S. (1976). Reading: A psycholinguistic
guessing game. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.). Theoretical
Models and Processes of Reading. Newark, Del.: International
Reading Association.
Goodman, K.S. (1986). What's the whole in whole
language? Scholastic Press.
Goswami, U. & Bryant, P.E. (1990). Phonological
Skills and Learning to Read. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gough, P.B. & Hillinger, M.L. (1980). Learning
to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30,
179-196.
Hoover, W.A. & Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple
view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127 - 160.
Earl. L., Watson, N., Levin, B., Leithwood, K., Fullan,
M., Torrance, N. (2003). Watching and Learning 3: Final Report
of the external Evaluation of England'. Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.
National Literacy Strategy Framework for Teaching
(1998). London: Department for Education and Skills.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E.J. &
Kennedy, A.M. (2003). PIRLS 2001 International Report: IEA's
Study of Reading Literacy Achievement in Primary Schools. Chestnut
Hill, MA: Boston College.
Smith, F. (1971). Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic
Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read. Mahwah, N.J.; London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, F. (1978). Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic
Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read 2nd edition.
New York; London: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
Smith, F. (1982). Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic
Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read 3rd edition.
New York; London: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
Smith, F. (1988). Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic
Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read 4th edition.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, F. (1994). Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic
Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read 5th edition.
Hillsdale, N.J.; Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, F. (2004). Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic
Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read 6th edition.
Mahwah, N.J.; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Willows, D. (2002). The Balanced Literacy Diet.
http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_01/willows.htm
1 commissioned by the Standards and Effectiveness Unit
at the DfES, and implemented by a team from the Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education (OISE). Back
| 
