History of learning to read: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:01, 19 November 2024

Latest revision as of 18:20, 23 July 2025

(5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 1:

The '''history of learning to read''' dates back to the [[History of writing|invention of writing]] during the 4th millennium BC.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bl.uk/history-of-writing/articles/where-did-writing-begin|title=British Library|website=www.bl.uk|access-date=2021-02-10|archive-date=2022-03-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220311085214/https://www.bl.uk/history-of-writing/articles/where-did-writing-begin}}</ref>

See also: [[History of writing]]

Concerning the English language in the United States, the [[phonics]] principle of teaching reading was first presented by [[John Hart (spelling reformer)|John Hart]] in 1570, who suggested the teaching of reading should focus on the relationship between what is now referred to as [[grapheme]]s (letters) and [[phoneme]]s (sounds).<ref>{{Cite book|last=Hart|first=John|date=1570|title=A method or comfortable beginning for all unlearned, whereby they may be taught to read English in a very short time, with pleasure: so profitable as strange, put in light, by I.H. Chester Heralt|url=https://lib.ugent.be/en/catalog/rug01:001517217}}</ref>

Line 21 ⟶ 23:

In the 1970s, the [[whole language]] method was introduced. This method de-emphasizes the teaching of phonics out of context (e.g. reading books), and is intended to help readers "guess" the right word.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=A psycholinguistic guessing game|journal=Journal of the Reading Specialist|volume=6|issue=4|pages=126–135|doi=10.1080/19388076709556976|year = 1967|last1 = Goodman|first1 = Kenneth S.}}</ref> It teaches that guessing individual words should involve three systems (letter clues, meaning clues from context, and the syntactical structure of the sentence). It became the primary method of reading instruction in the 1980s and 1990s. However, it is falling out of favor. The neuroscientist [[Mark Seidenberg]] refers to it as a "theoretical zombie" because it persists despite a lack of supporting evidence.<ref>{{cite book |author=Seidenberg, Mark |title=Language at the speed of sight|publisher=Basic Books|___location=New York|year=2017|isbn=978-1-5416-1715-5}}</ref> It is still widely practiced in related methods such as [[#Sight vocabulary vs. sight words|sight words]], the [[#Three cueing system (Searchlights model)|three-cueing system]] and [[balanced literacy]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2018/09/10/hard-words-why-american-kids-arent-being-taught-to-read|title=Why aren't kids being taught to read?|first=Emily|last=Hanford|website=www.apmreports.org}}</ref><ref name="Adams, Marilyn Jager 1994"/><ref name="LDOnline">{{Cite web |last1=Moats |first1=Louisa |title=Whole Language Lives On: The Illusion of Balanced Reading Instruction |url=http://www.ldonline.org/article/6394/ |website=LD Online |publisher=WETA Public Television |access-date=29 January 2019}}</ref>

In the 1980s, the [[#three-cueing system|three-cueing system]] (the searchlights model in England) emerged. According to a 2010 survey 75% of teachers in the United States teach the three-cueing system.<ref name="Sarah Schwartz, education week">{{cite webnews|url=https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/is-this-the-end-of-three-cueing/2020/12|title=Is this the end of three cueing|author=Sarah Schwartz, education week|newspaper=Education Week |date=December 16, 2020}}</ref> It teaches children to guess a word by using "meaning cues" (semantic, syntactic and graphophonic). While the system does help students to "make better guesses", it does not help when the words become more sophisticated; and it reduces the amount of practice time available to learn essential decoding skills. Consequently, present-day researchers such as cognitive neuroscientists [[Mark Seidenberg]] and professor [[Timothy Shanahan (educator)|Timothy Shanahan]] do not support the theory.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.readingrockets.org/blogs/shanahan-literacy/it-good-idea-teach-three-cueing-systems-reading|title=Is it a Good Idea to Teach the Three Cueing Systems in Reading?, Timothy Shanahan, Reading Rockets, 2019-04-01|date=April 2019}}</ref><ref name="Mark Seidenberg 2017 300–304">{{cite book |title=Language at the speed of light|date=2017|pages=300–304|author=Mark Seidenberg|publisher=Basic Books |isbn=978-0-465-08065-6}}</ref> name="Dr Kerry Hempenstall, Senior Industry Fellow, School of Education, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia"/> In England, [[synthetic phonics]] is intended to replace "the searchlights multi-cueing model".<ref name="Edu England-2006">{{Cite web|url=http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/pdfs/2006-primary-national-strategy.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130228062004/http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/pdfs/2006-primary-national-strategy.pdf|archive-date=February 28, 2013|page=18|title=Primary Framework for literacy and mathematics, Department for education and skills, England|year=2006}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url = https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/0201-2006PDF-EN-01.pdf | title = Independent review of the teaching of early reading | access-date = 2011-08-24 | last = Rose | first = Jim | year = 2006 | work = Department for Education and Skills | archive-date = 2013-03-21 | archive-url = http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130321055757/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/0201-2006PDF-EN-01.pdf }}</ref>

In the 1990s, [[Balancedbalanced literacy]] arose. It is a theory of teaching reading and writing that is not clearly defined. It may include elements such as word study and phonics mini-lessons, differentiated learning, cueing, leveled reading, shared reading, guided reading, independent reading and sight words.<ref name="Zammit-2019">{{Cite web|url=http://theconversation.com/reading-is-more-than-sounding-out-words-and-decoding-thats-why-we-use-the-whole-language-approach-to-teaching-it-126606|title=Reading is more than sounding out words and decoding. That's why we use the whole language approach to teaching it|first=Katina|last=Zammit|website=The Conversation|date=11 November 2019 }}</ref><ref name="4 reasons to use balanced literacy">{{Cite web|url=https://medium.com/inspired-ideas-prek-12/4-reasons-to-use-the-balanced-literacy-approach-4e6556ccb19a|title=4 reasons to use balanced literacy|work=Medium |date=27 May 2021 |last1=Hill |first1=Mcgraw }}</ref> For some, balanced literacy strikes a balance between [[whole language]] and [[phonics]]. Others say balanced literacy in practice usually means the ''whole language'' approach to reading.<ref>''Reading at the Speed of Light: How we Read, why so many can't, and what can be done about it'', 2017, p. 248, Mark Seidenberg {{ISBN|978-1-5416-1715-5}}</ref> According to a survey in 2010, 68% of K–2 teachers in the United States practice balanced literacy. Furthermore, only 52% of teachers included ''phonics'' in their definition of ''balanced literacy''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/is-this-the-end-of-three-cueing/2020/12|title=Is this the end of three cueing|authorname="Sarah Schwartz, education week|date=December 16, 2020}}<"/ref>

In 1996, the [[California]] Department of Education took an increased interest in using phonics in schools.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/22/us/california-leads-revival-of-teaching-by-phonics.html|title= California Leads Revival Of Teaching by Phonics|newspaper= The New York Times|date= 22 May 1996}}</ref> And in 1997 the department called for grade one teaching in concepts about print, phonemic awareness, decoding and word recognition, and vocabulary and concept development.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/elacontentstnds.pdf|title=English–Language Arts Content Standards for California Public Schools}}</ref>

By 1998, in the U.K. whole language instruction and the searchlights model were still the norm; however, there was some attention to teaching phonics in the early grades, as seen in the National Literacy Strategies.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://rrf.org.uk/2018/07/30/phonics-developments-in-england-from-1998-to-2018-by-jenny-chew/|title=Phonics Developments in England from 1998 to 2018 by Jenny Chew, Reading reform foundation UK|year=2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175408/DFE-00032-2011.pdf|title=The National Strategies 1997–2011, Department for Education, England|year=2011}}</ref>

===21st century===

[[File:Anonymous - Die Andacht ("The Devotion") - 1937.376.1 - Reading Public Museum.jpg|thumb|upright|In 2000 the [[National Reading Panel]] in the U.S. identified five ingredients of effective reading instruction: ''phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension''.]]

Line 96 ⟶ 98:

On April 23, 2022, the Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the [[University of Delaware]] presented the results of a study of the long-term effects of [[Reading Recovery]]. The conclusion was that the "long-term impact estimates were significant and negative". The study found that children who received Reading Recovery had scores on state reading tests in third and fourth grade that were below the test scores of similar children who did not receive Reading Recovery. It suggests three possible hypotheses for this outcome: 1) while Reading Recovery produces large impacts on early literacy measures, it does not give students the required skills for success in later grades; or, 2) the gains are lost because students do not receive sufficient intervention in later grades; or, 3) the impacts of the early intervention was washed out by subsequent experiences.<ref>{{cite report|url=https://www.cresp.udel.edu/research-project/efficacy-follow-study-long-term-effects-reading-recovery-i3-scale/|title=Reading Recovery – Long-Term Effects and Cost-Effectiveness|publisher=Center for Research in Education and Social Policy at the University of Delaware|date=23 April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.apmreports.org/story/2022/04/23/reading-recovery-negative-impact-on-children|title=New research shows controversial Reading Recovery program eventually had a negative impact on children |author1=Emily Hanford |author2=Christopher Peak |journal=APM Reports|date=23 April 2022}}</ref>

Between 2013 and 2024, 40 States have passed laws or implemented new policies related to evidence-based reading instruction.<ref>{{cite webnews|url=https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07|title=Which States Have Passed ‘Science'Science of Reading’Reading' Laws? What’sWhat's in Them, Education Week|author=Sarah Schwartz|newspaper=Education Week |date=October 11, 2024}}</ref>

==See also==

Line 105 ⟶ 107:

==References==

{{Reflist|35em}}{{More categories|date=November 2024}}

[[Category:Learning to read]]