Admittedly, I’ve been somewhat surprised by the pushback expressed on various social media platforms about multilingual learners and what is currently called the science of reading (SOR). First, as I discussed previously, SOR refers to the body of multi-disciplinary research evidence about how individuals learn to read. Many of these empirical studies have been around for decades and have been supported by subsequent research. The term, science of reading, has more recently become popular since an APM podcast went viral prompting the topic to become a prominent discussion in educational circles and in the media.
It’s possible that the concerns expressed are rooted in past practices where the needs of multilingual learners were not met – or even addressed. Those of us who have been advocates for multilingual learners for decades have worked to raise teacher expectations, provide access to grade-level curricula, promote an asset orientation, and ensure that teachers make content comprehensible for multilingual learners.
However, some of the comments reflect misconceptions about what SOR is. The most common include:
Phonics. Explicitly teaching sound-symbol correspondence is essential for students to be able to decode words automatically and accurately. But it’s not the whole enchilada. The National Reading Panel Report and the subsequent National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth, as well as the What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guide promote the full complement of literacy skills, including development of oral language, academic vocabulary, and comprehension.
Perhaps it seems like there is an overemphasis on phonics but that may be because many teachers have not been adequately prepared to teach students how to unlock the code. In our work with multilingual learners, we focus on ways to increase English proficiency, to scaffold instruction and to help students access grade-level text. Teachers may have lots of good ideas for building vocabulary or engaging students in partner talk to develop oral language but teachers themselves report that they typically don’t explicitly teach phonics. In a 2019 Education Week Research Center survey:
86 percent of teachers who train teachers said they teach phonics. But surveyed elementary school teachers often use strategies that contradict a phonics-first approach: Seventy-five percent said they use a technique called three cuing. This method teaches children to guess words they don’t know by using context and picture clues, and has been criticized for getting in the way of learning to decode. More than half of the teachers said they thought students could understand written passages that contained unfamiliar words, even without a good grasp of phonics.
Phonics instruction is only one piece of the complex process of literacy development, but it is critical piece and apparently underemphasized in classrooms.
A curriculum. There seems to be a perception that SOR is a “thing.” One of my favorite stories in this regard came from a colleague who taught a language and literacy course. Toward the end of the semester a well-meaning student asked, “Do you know of an article that will help me learn what the science of reading is and how to do it?” The professor took a deep breath and tactfully explained that what they had studied all semester is the science of reading.
Certainly, reading instruction is most effective when teachers are provided with the necessary guidance and student materials to implement research-based literacy instruction well. The science of reading should be reflected in the materials and resources used, but a curriculum is not SOR, per se.
“Drill and kill” is a pejorative term referring to decontextualized, repetitive skill practice that takes the fun out of learning. Research confirms that explicit teaching followed by practice is effective for multilingual learners, but practicing a skill seems to have a negative connotation. I’m a tennis player and I continue to take lessons — explicit instruction on a specific skill with lots of practice. I would be a better player if I had more time to practice! Practice builds competence.
Literacy skill practice need not be drudgery. Practice can be made meaningful in a number of ways. For example, by talking about the skill (e.g., decoding short e), reading a text and pointing out words with the sound, asking students to repeat the words, and having students write a sentence with the words and read it to a partner. There is also a vast array of digital resources that offer fun, engaging practice of literacy skills.
One-size-fits-all. This idea is an artifact of the past. Differentiation has become part of the fabric of lesson planning. Teachers have become much more aware that multilingual learners are learning to read in a language they are simultaneously learning to speak and understand so literacy instruction is not the same for every student.
A “disservice” for multilingual learners. This misconception is unfortunate. In the past several years, I’ve observed in over 200 classrooms and have witnessed firsthand what I would consider a disservice. Too often multilingual learners are languishing as they sit for extended periods of time with a book they cannot read, and they only meet with the teacher for instruction once or twice a week. There has been lots of unproductive, lost instructional time which is a disservice to the very students who can least afford it.
These many, many students cannot comprehend stories because they cannot decode the words in the story. There is no joy or love of reading unless students are taught to read well.
Hopefully, with more knowledge and understanding – and with more students learning to read well by using resources that reflect the research — these misconceptions will fade away. After all, we all want the same thing: students who are confident, proficient readers and writers, preferably in more than one language.
An elaborated podcast on this topic can be found at Leading Literacy https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/leading-literacy/id1566671003?i=1000574657928