[Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: ILA on phonics

[Judith Green]

Greetings,

The conversation is moving in important directions.  I wonder if it is time to provide a volume that addresses the issues raised for teachers, administrators and policymakers that draws on key statements that have been identified and international research.  It would be written in a language accessible to this group but also show an appendix of core research.  Just a thought. It would foreground the range of issues raised nationally and internationally and provide a more comprehensive picture that is emerging.

Judith

> On Jul 25, 2019, at 5:31 AM, David P. Reinking <David.Reinking at uga.edu> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Jim Hoffman.  There is a longer list of questions and concerns about the Blevins piece and the conflict of interest concerns are clearly troublesome.  But a close reading of his piece reveals a recommendation that mitigates the many questionable ones.  Here is the quoted recommendatiion:
>  
> “Students progress at a much faster rate in phonics when the bulk of instructional time is spent on applying the skills to authentic reading and writing experiences.”  And earlier in the piece he says that word meaning should be half of the time spent on phonics.
>  
> So, for example, let’s say that “bulk” of instructional time means 70% (authentic reading and writing).  Half of the remaining 30% would be word meaning (15%) and half explicit teaching/assessment of phonics and activities such as word sorts (15%).  Thus, on average, for every hour of reading instruction, approximately 9 minutes would be devoted to phonics (teaching, assessing, and activities like word sorts).  To me, that makes some of the other questionable recommendations somewhat less disconcerting and puts phonics instruction into a more reasonable instructional context.  And, a citation in favor of this piece is essentially a recommendation that phonics instruction receive proportionately little time in early reading instruction.   On the other hand, it takes a close reading to find that recommendation.
>  
> David Reinking
> Adjunct Professor of Education
> University of Georgia
> Dept. of Language and Literacy Education
> David.Reinking @uga.edu
> http://www.davidreinking.info <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.davidreinking.info-252F-26data-3D01-257C01-257Clg40-2540txstate.edu-257Cd43f2d8241584a0ca81608d50aa7b5c9-257Cb19c134a14c94d4caf65c420f94c8cbb-257C0-26sdata-3Dji-252FNnlYJBKtAbG0lEfttgJUZxsi6BinXvN1OaPMm5Uc-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFAg&c=Ngd-ta5yRYsqeUsEDgxhcqsYYY1Xs5ogLxWPA_2Wlc4&r=gUnMZ3Xw_juA4Q4q8MsCC_IKO_x_v_mImmv8TQcuKAs&m=UedHPeoTlZDAK_Y35nsdvaZ1tvfVsAXM3l43vQNlACI&s=5qWqgpYErOqlfng1rqjL41TgwAGTYZ6oMB15g45RwUc&e=>/
> orcid.org/0000-0001-8040-6673 <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8040-6673>
> UGA code:  810-23-2567-984-015
>  
> From: <reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <mailto:reading-hall-of-fame-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>> on behalf of "Hoffman, James V" <jhoffman at austin.utexas.edu <mailto:jhoffman at austin.utexas.edu>>
> Date: Monday, July 22, 2019 at 7:06 PM
> To: P Pearson <ppearson at berkeley.edu <mailto:ppearson at berkeley.edu>>
> Cc: Brian Cambourne <bcambrn at uow.edu.au <mailto:bcambrn at uow.edu.au>>, reading hall of fame <Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk <mailto:Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk>>, Shirley B Heath <sbheath at stanford.edu <mailto:sbheath at stanford.edu>>, Diane Lapp <lapp at sdsu.edu <mailto:lapp at sdsu.edu>>, Ken Goodman <kgoodman at u.arizona.edu <mailto:kgoodman at u.arizona.edu>>
> Subject: [Reading-hall-of-fame] Re: ILA on phonics
>  
> [External Sender]
>  
> I’m with Brian on the critical work of the child encoding in writingthat can turn into useful strategies for decoding words in reading. 
>  
> David, I think your list of questionable claims in the report is slim.   Exposure to explicit, systematic phonics instruction does no harm? What study has even asked this question? My fear in the “systematic” version of phonics is that it is scripted and removes the responsibility from teachers to make instructional decisions that are needed in all contexts. 
>  
> Also, you might wan to consider the ira position paper on phonics published in 1997.  https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/phonics-position-statement.pdf <https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/phonics-position-statement.pdf>
>  
> thanks jim
>  
>  
>  
> This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
> and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
> message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
> attachment. 
> 
> Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
> necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
> communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored 
> where permitted by law.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Reading-hall-of-fame mailing list
> Reading-hall-of-fame at lists.nottingham.ac.uk
> http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/reading-hall-of-fame

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nottingham.ac.uk/mailman/private/reading-hall-of-fame/attachments/20190725/3386a8a4/attachment-0001.html>