I've seen a fair few people suggest recently that the 'science of reading' can essentially be boiled down to two messages:
1. Explicitly teach kids to decode (i.e. systematic phonics).
2. Build knowledge.
But in many schools, these two things alone will fail.
>>
In England, explicit phonics and the sequencing of knowledge have been prioritised for a decade.
Despite valuable national progress, I can say confidently that it's perfectly possible for a school to have these things in place and yet fail to secure strong reading outcomes.
>>
This isn't me naysaying the value of teaching phonics explicitly or building pupils' knowledge of the world.
On the contrary, both of these things are essential, and I spend plenty of my professional life explaining to teachers and school leaders exactly why I think this.
>>
However, schools can have these in place and lack a crucial piece of the puzzle.
The point of teaching phonics explicitly is to provide kids with the tools to *begin* decoding words for themselves.
>>
Crucially, explicit teaching of phonics can do this job, but kids must then apply this nascent capability to huge amounts of text to develop the word recognition automaticity required for fluency and, thus, comprehension.
>>
For plenty of kids, this can't just mean teaching phonics and then asking them to read independently or listen while teachers read texts aloud.
They need scaffolded reading practice.
>>
Scaffolded reading practice basically involves helping kids to use what they've learned from phonics to accurately recognise lots of unfamiliar words.
The easiest way to achieve this is through one-to-one reading practice with an adult who offers feedback and encouragement.
>>
Some kids will get this one-to-one practice at home, but some kids certainly won't for a variety of reasons.
And schools almost never have the number of adults available to provide enough one-to-one reading practice to every kid who needs it.
>>
This means that schools need to find whole-class structures for scaffolded reading practice as one part of their teaching of reading once kids have learned the basics of decoding via systematic phonics.
>>
There's no single correct way to do this.
Lots of schools I work with use a short text in a 30-minute structure with modelling (perhaps with some echo reading), brief vocabulary teaching, paired repeated practice, performance of the text and discussion of the text's meaning.
>>
Other schools undertake scaffolded reading practice every day for a short period.
Others embed scaffolded reading practice into subjects across the curriculum.
Again, there are lots of ways this can be done.
>>
But all too often it simply *isn't* done because schools believe that explicit phonics alone takes care of word recognition.
It doesn't.
What it *does* do is allow the journey to fluent reading through scaffolded reading practice to begin in a productive fashion.
>>
There are plenty of other things that schools can learn from what is often called the 'science of reading': how to support pupils who struggle to recognise words much more than others, flexible syllabification, effective vocabulary teaching, morphology, etc.
>>
But a *big* step in the right direction for schools who already teach phonics explicitly and build pupils' knowledge across the curriculum would be to provide plenty of scaffolded reading practice.
>>
Without this crucial piece of the puzzle, you might well find yourself a little underwhelmed by what explicit phonics and building knowledge have to offer.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I was just listening to a podcast where someone was talking about teaching kids 'inferencing skills'.
Every example they gave of an inference was one that would be automatic (or at least fairly obvious) with relevant knowledge, but impossible without that same knowledge.
>>
This isn't a coincidence.
Every inference is dependent on knowledge specific to the language involved.
What fascinated me was the teaching recommendations that were made in this podcast.
>>
One example related to something like the following sentence:
'Amy forgot her umbrella, so she was soaking wet when she arrived.'
The podcast guest recognised that a pupil who did not know what an umbrella was would not know why Amy was soaked.
Arguably, the most bizarre aspect of discourse about reading instruction is the people waiting for clear evidence that building pupils' understanding of the world contributes to their comprehension development.
What do these people even think reading comprehension *is*?
🧵
>>
You might argue that it is only sensible to require evidence for our positions.
But do we need evidence that teaching pupils mathematics is essential to their mathematical development?
Of course not because it is undeniably an essential component of the targeted capability.
>>
In the same way, we really don't need evidence that building pupils' knowledge of language and the world it describes is essential to reading development.
It amazes me just how common it is for primary schools to have countless reading for pleasure initiatives while at the same time teaching reading lessons that are little more than years and years of tedious SATs preparation.
🪡🧵
I promise you that those hours and hours of modelling and practising how to answer 'inference questions' and 'retrieval questions' are an inefficient way to achieve better SATs scores.
This way of teaching reading is bad news even on its own cynical terms.
Thankfully, beyond a few hours of SATs practice in year 6 to help children feel comfortable in the test, by far the most important thing you can do to achieve better outcomes - and support reading for pleasure - is to teach reading meaningfully.
"Students who read above average on ORF are likely reading too fast to make sense of what they are reading."
I worry that this quote is not an accurate or productive framing of what is known about the relationship between fluency and comprehension in developing readers.
I think we need to be wary of suggesting that pupils with above average WCPM are likely to have comprehension issues.
I can imagine teachers interpreting this quote by thinking they need to actively slow down the top quartile (or even the top half) of readers based on WCPM.
Yes, a small minority of pupils in the 75th-100th percentile for WCPM might be rushing in a way that leads to weaker comprehension than some pupils between the 50th-75th percentile.
I've spent the last few years working with hundreds of schools, enough to spot some patterns and (I hope) to write some useful threads over the coming months.
Here's the first one...
In my opinion, what do primary schools commonly get wrong with their reading lessons? 🪡
When I talk about reading lessons, in this case I'm not talking about phonics, story time, spelling, etc, despite the crucial contribution these make to reading development.
I'm talking about the (usually) daily reading lessons that have their own slot in the timetable.
What I see again and again are schools that are doing great things with one aspect of reading and ignoring other aspects that require attention.
A sensible way to avoid this mistake is to consider *three priorities* for reading lessons...
Yep. Kids need to feel prepared for KS2 SATs, but this should not dictate how children are taught for the preceding half of a decade.
Yep. Far too many 'reading activities' exist that are little more than holding activities. These are usually done when kids could be actually reading and discussing texts if only the reading lessons were organised with this in mind.