Reading & Literacy Explainer

Reading

By Lisa Staresina — September 21, 2004 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Editor’s Note: This version was published in 2004. For more recent information on teaching reading, please read our 2019 series, Getting Reading Right.

For much of the past two decades, the proper method for teaching children to read and write was under the divergent influences of two powerful schools of thought, the phonics and the whole language approaches, embroiling educators in the so-called “reading wars.” Determining the best means of teaching children to read is of particular concern in light of dismal national reading proficiency scores. On the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 38 percent of 4th graders and 28 percent of 8th graders could not demonstrate basic reading skills for their grade-level. (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2003)

In the 21st century, however, this debate has evolved. Instead of focusing on the “either/or” of the phonics versus whole-language approaches to reading instruction, the debate now centers on the essential components of a comprehensive reading program.

Phonics, or skills-based instruction, is a bottom-up approach, that starts with the basic parts of words and moves towards reading as a whole. First, lessons begin with sounding out first letters followed by combinations of letters. Sight vocabulary, or easily recognizable words, is emphasized, and students are encouraged to hone their skills on short “basal” (or basic) reading passages and through numerous skills exercises, each with only one correct answer. Proponents of skills-based or phonics instruction maintain that children are better able to decode words on their own only after learning how to decode letters, sounds, and letter groupings (Arbruster, Lehr, and Osborn, 2001).

The meaning-based, or whole-language, approach is a top-down method that emphasizes reading comprehension, or deciphering meanings of words based on context. Supporters of whole-language instruction assert that children learn to read similar to the way they learn to speak and the whole-language approach complements this learning process. Just as their desire to communicate orally prompted them to master vocabulary and learn to piece whole sentences together, children will be so motivated to learn to communicate in written form (Coles, 2000). The whole language approach incorporates oral and silent reading, and reading authentic literature as opposed to the basal readers used in most phonics programs.

Today, the reading debate no longer centers on which approach is better, but rather the proper mix of each in a comprehensive reading program. Some feel that more emphasis should be placed on the skills-based instruction within a reading curriculum, while others feel that more emphasis should be placed on authentic reading tasks. The combination of the two approaches, known as Balanced Literacy, has continued to evolve over the last few years as new research has revealed the benefits of both phonics and authentic reading (Pearson, 2004).

A Houston-based study concluded that at-risk students performed better when explicit, systematic phonics instruction was taught first in their reading curriculum (Foorman et al., 1998). Since the publication of that report, federal and state policies have shifted to require that explicit skills instruction be a part of the reading curriculum (Moustafa, 2001). In 1997 the National Reading Panel was convened by the Director of the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, at the request of Congress. In 2000, the NRP released an extensive review of reading research.

Five of the six elements of reading instruction researched by the panel yielded positive results in reading achievement. These elements included:

  • phonics,
  • phonemic awareness,
  • fluency,
  • vocabulary, and
  • comprehension.

The panel also emphasized the importance of high-quality teacher education and professional development.

The panel’s report helped to shape the requirements of the Reading First initiative authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Reading First requires that states spend federal money under the act to promote only those instructional methods and materials backed by sound evidence of their success. State initiatives funded by Reading First must include the five components of effective instruction outlined under the law. In their applications to the U.S. Department of Education, each state must demonstrate how it will ensure that its districts will identify instructional materials, programs, professional development, strategies, and approaches based on scientifically based research. Reading First will provide $5 billion in reading grants over the next several years to those states whose grants are approved. This year alone, federal officials authorized 1.14 billion dollars to the states for the program (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).

Reading First is not without its critics, however. Some argue that the requirements force states to implement reading programs that are heavily weighted toward skills-based instruction, thus narrowing their choices to those commercial reading programs that emphasize skills-based instruction (Allington, 2002). Many of these programs have fulfilled the research requirement only through self-conducted studies, and many have not shown significant outside research to back their methods. (Manzo, 2004). The NRP report, on which the Reading First legislation is based, has also been criticized for ignoring research on other instructional methods and excluding qualitative studies from its research base (Pressley, 2001; Coles, 2003).

But, proponents of the federal program say that dramatic change is necessary to turn around the nation’s inadequate reading performance, which has remained relatively unchanged for more than a decade.

Related Tags:

Allington, R.L., “Why We Don’t Need a National Reading Methodology,” in R.L. Allington’s (Ed), Big Brother and the National Reading Curriculum: How Ideology Trumped Evidence, Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann, 2002.
Arbruster, B.B., Lehr, F. and Osborn, J.M., “Putting Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read,” National Institute for Literacy, 2001.
Coles, G., Reading the Naked Truth: Literacy, Legislation and Lies, pp.41, Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann, 2003.
Coles, G., Misreading Reading: The Bad Science That Hurts Children, pp. xi, Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann, 2000.
Foorman, B.R., Francis D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P., “The Role of Instruction in Learning to Read: Preventing Reading Failure in At-Risk Children,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, pp. 37-55, 1998.
Manzo, K., “Leading Commercial Series Don’t Satisfy ‘Gold Standard,’” Education Week, 24 (3), pp. 16 and 17, Sept. 15, 2004.
Moustafa, M., “Contemporary Reading Instruction,” In Tom Loveless (Ed.), The Great Curriculum Debate, pp. 247-267, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2003 Reading Results.
National Central Regional Educational Laboratory, “Balanced Reading Instruction: Review of Literature,” 1999.
National Reading Panel, “Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read,” 2000.
Pearson, D. “The Reading Wars,” Education Policy, 18 (1), pp. 216-252, 2004.
Pressley, M., “Effective Beginning Reading Instruction,” Executive Summary and Paper Commissioned by the National Reading Conference, 2001.
U.S. Department of Education, “Department of Education Fiscal Year 2005 Congressional Action,” 2005. Requires Adobe Acrobat Reader

How to Cite This Article
Staresina, L. (2004, September 21). Reading. Education Week. Retrieved Month Day, Year from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/reading/2004/09

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
A Whole Child Approach to Supporting Positive Student Behavior 
To improve student behavior, it’s important to look at the root causes. Social-emotional learning may play a preventative role.

A whole child approach can proactively support positive student behaviors.

Join this webinar to learn how.
Content provided by Panorama
Recruitment & Retention Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table: Why Retaining Education Leaders of Color Is Key for Student Success
Today, in the United States roughly 53 percent of our public school students are young people of color, while approximately 80 percent of the educators who lead their classrooms, schools, and districts are white. Racial
Jobs January 2022 Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and other jobs in K-12 education at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Reading & Literacy Spotlight Spotlight on K-3 Literacy
This Spotlight will help take a closer look at the ‘Wonders’ curriculum and updated state policies on literacy plus more.
Reading & Literacy What Teachers Can Do to Help Struggling Readers Who Feel Ashamed
Students who are ashamed of not being able to read on grade level tend to withdraw from class or act out, experts say.
8 min read
17 literacy sr 01 05 22 shafer 3
Stephanie Shafer for Education Week
Reading & Literacy The Benefits of Intensive Tutoring for Older Readers
Research backs high-impact tutoring for older readers. But schools face barriers including cost and staffing.
6 min read
17 literacy sr 01 05 22 shafer 2
Stephanie Shafer for Education Week
Reading & Literacy How Schools Can Support Older Students Who Lag in Reading
Many older students have gaps in their foundational reading skills, limiting their ability to access grade-level work.
11 min read
17 literacy sr 01 05 22 1251066720
Getty / Igor Alecsander