Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T23:42:33.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Instructional psychology and teaching reading: Ending the reading wars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2020

Jonathan E. Solity
Jonathan E. Solity*
Affiliation:
Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK Optima Psychology, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Jonathan E. Solity, Email: jonathan.solity@optimapsychology.com
Get access

Abstract

This article explores the ‘reading wars’ from the perspective of instructional psychology, which focuses on the environmental and instructional factors that facilitate students’ progress in learning to read. It draws on research (computational analysis and classroom-based experimental studies) to inform a novel intervention that teaches reading through systematic synthetic phonics and real books, rather than the more traditional phonically decodable reading schemes. The article discusses: (1) the criteria that inform curriculum design, (2) the instructional principles that underpin effective teaching, (3) teaching methodology, (4) an instructional analysis that explains why students are perceived to have difficulties in learning to read, and (5) the implications of instructional psychology for educational psychologists.

Keywords

instructional psychologydirect instructionreal booksoptimal teachingsystematic synthetic phonics
Type
Articles
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , December 2020 , pp. 123 - 132
Copyright
© Australian Psychological Society Ltd, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelman, J.S., Brown, G.D.A. & Quesada, J.F. (2006). Contextual diversity not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17, 814–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adesope, O.O., Trevisan, D.A. & Sundararajan, J. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta- analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87, 659–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J.R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA Publishers.Google Scholar
Arciuli, J. (2018). Reading as statistical learning. Language, Speech and Hearing Difficulties in Schools, 49, 634–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (1997). Human memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorising sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 310, 419–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, G. (2003). Sound sense: The phonics element of the National Literacy Strategy. A report to the Department for Education and Skills. London, UK: DfES.Google Scholar
Brooks, G., Beard, R., & Ampaw-Farr, J. (2019). ‘English has 100+ phonemes’: Some errors and confusions in contemporary commercial phonics programmes. Research Papers in Education, 34, 208–238.Google Scholar
Brown, G.D.A. (1998). The endpoint of skilled word recognition: The ROAR model. In Metsala, J.L. & Ehri, L.C. (Eds), Word recognition in beginning literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, G.D.A., & Chater, N. (2004). Connectionist models of children’s reading. In Nunes, T. & Bryant, P.E. (Eds.), Handbook of Children’s Literacy (pp. 67–89), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Central Advisory Council for Education (CACE). (1967). Children and their primary schools (‘The Plowden Report’). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Carnine, D.W., & Becker, W. (1982). Theory of instruction: Generalisation issues. Educational Psychology, 2, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnine, D.W., Silbert, J., & Kame’enui, E.J. (1997). Direct instruction reading. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Castles, A, Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, J. (2020). The assessment has become the curriculum: Teachers’ views on the phonics screening check in England. British Journal of Education, 46, 593–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N. (2018). The mind is flat: The illusion of mental depth and the improvised mind. London, UK: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Chen, V., & Savage, R.S. (2014). Evidence for a simplicity principle: Teaching common complex grapheme-to-phonemes improves reading and motivation in at-risk readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 196–214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, C., & Poulton, L. (2011). Book ownership and its relation to reading enjoyment, attitudes behaviour and attainment. London: National Literacy Trust.Google Scholar
Clark, C., & Teravainen-Goff, A. (2020). Children and young people’s reading in 2019: Findings from our annual literacy survey. London: National Literacy Trust.Google Scholar
Colenbrander, D., Miles, K.P., & Ricketts, J. (2019). To see or not to see: How does seeing spellings support vocabulary learning? Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 50, 609–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colenbrander, D., Ricketts, J., & Breadmore, H.L. (2018). Early identification of dyslexia: Understanding the issues. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 49, 817–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Department for Education & Science (DES). (1975). A language for life (The Bullock Report). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department for Education & Science (DES). (1990). The teaching and learning of reading in London primary schools. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department for Education (DfE). (2012). Assessment framework for the development of the Year 1 Phonics Screening Check. London: STA.Google Scholar
Department for Education (DfE). (2013). The National Curriculum in England: Framework. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department for Education (DfE). (2013). English programmes of study: key stages 1 and 2 National Curriculum in England. London: HMSO Google Scholar
Department for Education & Employment (DfEE). (1996). The National Literacy Project: Framework for teaching. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department for Education & Employment (DfEE). (1998). The National Literacy Strategy: Framework for teaching. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department for Education & Employment (DfEE). (1999a). Progression in phonics. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department for Education & Employment (DfEE). (1999b). Additional literacy support. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department for Education & Skills (DfES). (2001). Early literacy support. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department for Education & Skills (DfES). (2004). Playing with sounds. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Department for Education & Skills (DfES). (2007). Letters and sounds: Principles and practice of high quality phonics. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Dyson, H., Best, W., Solity, J.E., & Hulme, C. (2017). Training mispronunciation correction and word meanings improves children’s ability to learn to read words. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 392–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO). (2011). The importance of phonics: A catalogue of systematic synthetic phonics products and training. Leicester, UK: Author.Google Scholar
Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation (ESPO). (2012). The importance of phonics: A supplementary catalogue of systematic synthetic phonics products and training. Leicester, UK: Author.Google Scholar
Education and Skills Committee. (2005). Teaching children to read. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S. (1980). Towards the design of faultless instruction: The theoretical basis of concept analysis. Educational Technology, 20, 28–36.Google Scholar
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and practice. New York, NY: Irvington.Google Scholar
Flack, Z., & Horst, J. (2017). Why do little kids ask to hear the same story over and over? Frontiers for Young Minds, 5, 30. doi: 10.3389/frym.2017.00030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2017). Critique of the national evaluation of response to intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children, 83, 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, N. (2017, December 5). Reading is the key to unlocking human potential. Paper presented at England’s Successful Progress in International Reading Literacy Study Results, British Library, London.Google Scholar
Gontijo, P.F.D., Gontijo, I., & Shillcock, R. (2003). Grapheme-phoneme probabilities in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35, 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. London: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Haring, N.G., & Eaton, M.D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An instructional hierarchy. In Haring, N.G. (Ed.), The Fourth R – Research in the Classroom. Marietta, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Hempenstall, K. (2019). Myths and evidence. In Murphy, J. & Bennett, T. (Eds.), Literacy: An evidence-informed guide for teachers. Woodbridge, UK: John Catt.Google Scholar
Hsiao, Y., & Nation, K. (2018). Semantic diversity, frequency and the development of lexical quality in children’s word Reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 103, 114–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2013). Learning to read: What we know and what we need to understand better. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, J.R., Peyton, J.A., Sanders, E.A., & Vadasy, P.F. (2004). Effects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 53–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R.S., & Watson, J.E. (2004). Accelerating the development of reading, spelling and phonemic awareness skills in initial readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 327–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching, Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. (1998). The 80/20 Principle: The secret to success by achieving more with less. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2009). Children’s perceptions of reading and the use of reading scheme texts. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39, 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Literacy Task Force. (1997). A reading revolution: How we can teach every child to read well. London, UK: Literacy Task Force.Google Scholar
Lloyd, S., & Wernham, S. (2013). The phonics handbook. Chigwell, UK: Jolly Learning Ltd.Google Scholar
Lundberg, I. (1994). Reading difficulties can be predicted and prevented: A Scandinavian perspective on phonological awareness and reading. In Hulme, C. & Snowling, M. (Eds.), Reading development and dyslexia (pp. 180–199). London: Whurr.Google Scholar
Masterson, M., Stuart, M., Dixon, M., & Lovejoy, J. (2010). Children’s printed word database: Continuities and changes over time in children’s early reading vocabulary. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 221–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miciak, J., & Fletcher, J.M. (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 602–621.Google Scholar
Miller, F. (2016, December 13). Forty years after the Ruskin speech, education needs another moment, The Guardian.Google Scholar
Miskin, R. (2016a). Read, Write Inc. Phonics Handbook 1. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miskin, R. (2016b). On the bus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzwXhrH4dH0).Google Scholar
Miskin, R. (2016c). Toad. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mol, S.E., & Bus, A.G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta- analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adult- hood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012). International results in reading 2011. Boston: TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Centre.Google Scholar
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). International results in reading 2016. Boston: TIMMS & PIRLS International Study Centre.Google Scholar
Nation, K. (2017). Nurturing a lexical legacy: Reading experience is critical for the development of word reading skill. Science of Learning, 2, 1–4.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Conner, K., & Solity, J.E. (2020). Assessing the impact of a well-founded intervention with lower achieving students in Key Stage 2. Educational Psychology in Practice, doi: 10.1080/02667363.2020.1763259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofsted. (1996). The teaching of reading in 45 inner London primary schools. London: Author.Google Scholar
Ofsted. (2004). Reading for purpose and pleasure: An evaluation of the teaching of reading in primary schools. London: Author.Google Scholar
Ofsted. (2010). Reading by six: How the best schools do it. London: Author.Google Scholar
Ofsted. (2012). Moving English forward: Action to raise standards in English. London: Author.Google Scholar
Ofsted. (2019). School Inspection Handbook (Updated September 2019). London: Ofsted.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C.A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, R., & Shanks, D.R. (2012). Can Testing Immunize Memories Against Interference? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 38, 1789–1785.Google ScholarPubMed
Rack, J., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., & Wightman, J. (1994). The role of phonology in young children learning to read words: The direct-mapping hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57, 42–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rastle, K. (2019). EPS mid-career prize lecture: Writing systems, reading and language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 677–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raybould, E.C., & Solity, J.E. (1982). Teaching with precision. Special Education/Forward Trends, 9, 9–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Rhine, W.R. (Ed.). (1981). Making schools more effective: New directions from Follow Through. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading (The Rose Report). Nottingham: DfES.Google Scholar
Rosenshine, B. (2010). Principles of instruction. Brussels: International Academy of Education.Google Scholar
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, Spring, 12–39.Google Scholar
Sawi, O., & Rueckil, J. (2018). Reading and the neurocognitive basis of statistical learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23, 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seabrook, R., Brown, G.D.A., & Solity, J.E. (2005). Distributed and massed practice: From laboratory to classroom. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L., & Solity, J.E. (2008). Delivering phonological and phonics training within whole-class teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 597–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, L., & Solity, J.E. (2016). Differing effects of two synthetic phonics programmes on early reading development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 182–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherrington, T. (2019). Rosenshine’s principles in action. Woodbridge, UK: John Catt Educational.Google Scholar
Snowling, M.J., & Hulme, C. (2011). Evidence-based interventions for reading and language difficulties: Creating a Virtuous Circle. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solity, J.E. (1991). An overview of behavioural approaches to teaching children with learning Difficulties and the National Curriculum. Educational Psychology, 11, 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solity, J.E. (1995). Assessment-through-teaching and the code of practice. Educational and Child Psychology, 12, 29–35 Google Scholar
Solity, J.E. (1996). ‘Reframing psychological assessment.’ Educational and Child Psychology, 13, 94–102.Google Scholar
Solity, J.E. (2008). The learning revolution. London, UK: Hodder.Google Scholar
Solity, J.E. (2015). The rhetoric and reality of evidence-based practice and teaching reading: How to bridge the curriculum gap (Occasional Paper 141). Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Strategic Education.Google Scholar
Solity, J.E. (2017). Psychology for all: Everything you need to know about why it all went wrong and how to put it right. In Arnold, C. & Hardy, J. (Eds.), British educational psychology: The first hundred years. Leicester, UK: BPS Publications.Google Scholar
Solity, J.E. (2019, January 31) Assessment-through-teaching and response to intervention: Identifying effective reading interventions. Paper presented at Dyslexia Diagnosis, Scientific Understandings and Belief in a Flat Earth Conference, University College London.Google Scholar
Solity, J.E., & Bull, S.J. (1987). Special needs: Bridging the curriculum gap. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Solity, J.E., Deavers, R., Kerfoot, S., Crane, G., & Cannon, K. (2000). The early reading research: The impact of instructional psychology. Educational Psychology in Practice, 16, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solity, J.E., & Vousden, J. (2009). Real books vs reading schemes: A perspective from instructional psychology. Educational Psychology, 29, 4, 469–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stannard, J., & Huxford, L. (2007). The literacy game: The story of the National Literacy Strategy. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, M., Dixon, M., Masterson, J., & Gray, B. (2003). Children’s early reading vocabulary: Description and word frequency Lists. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 585–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tunmer, W.E., & Chapman, J.W. (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 122–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. (1990) Sponsored reading failure. Surrey, UK: IPSET Education Unit.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S., Capin, P., Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Cirino, P., & Fletcher, P.M. (2019). The critical role of word reading as a predictor of response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419891412 Google Scholar
Vousden, J. (2008). Units of English spelling-to-sound mapping: A rational approach to reading instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vousden, J.I., Ellefson, M.R., Solity, J.E., & Chater, N. (2011). Simplifying reading: Applying the simplicity principle to reading. Cognitive Science, 35, 34–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, J., Crawford, S., & Solity, J.E. (2017). Applying sssessment-through-teaching and instructional psychology: An alternative model of service delivery to raise attainments in primary schools. Educational and Child Psychology, 34, 94–109.Google Scholar
Zipf, G.K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar