Research Conclusions
Crucial to the Teaching of Reading

1. Proficient and experienced readers typically read many words automatically and easily, which facilitates the processing of text for meaning.

2. Proficient readers also use context and their prior knowledge and experience to think ahead, as they read; to identify words by just sampling parts of the letters; to monitor comprehension; to notice when there is a need for correction; and to aid in correction.

3. Thus, learning to read involves developing strategies for making sense of text, and this in turn means developing letter/sound knowledge and the ability to use it along with context and prior knowledge, in order to think ahead and to use "fix it" strategies, as needed.

4. Children as well as adults tend to read unfamiliar print words in pronounceable chunks, not letter-by-letter. We read unfamiliar print words by analogy with the parts of familiar words.

5. Decoding skills alone are often not adequate to get the pronunciation of unfamiliar print words; most of the time, context alone is even less adequate for getting the exact word; and therefore, the most proficient readers use everything they know to get words and meaning from texts.

6. Phonemic awareness and learning to read facilitate one another.

7. "Decodable texts" are more difficult for children to read than texts with natural language patterns and a wider range of vocabulary.

8. Many children develop and use phonics skills--decoding skills--without very much explicit instruction, but other children need more help.

9. Many children develop and use effective reading strategies without very much explicit instruction, but others need more help.

10. Children learning to read benefit from what's often called "scaffolding." That is, they benefit from temporary support in their reading of texts and words.

11. Studying or even demonstrating a reading skill in isolation does not guarantee its use in practice.

12. On the other hand, it is not necessary to demonstrate a skill in isolation in order to use it in practice.

13. Children who spend a lot of time doing skills work typically read less well than children who spend their time reading instead. Extensive phonics becomes a gatekeeper, preventing children from reading.

14. Children who are consigned to lower reading groups seldom move out of them.

15. Of course students need to develop reading strategies and skills, but these can be taught effectively--and for many children, certainly most efficiently--in the context of reading and writing whole texts and in the process of becoming literate individuals who not only can read and write, but who want to.

16. With individual tutoring help, as in Reading Recovery or a modification that gives more attention to phonological processing, virtually all children can learn to decode words adequately in context.

17. The more time children spend reading, the better readers they become. Indeed, one can become a highly competent reader through extensive reading, even while continuing to have problems with word recognition and decoding--when, that is, reading is defined as getting meaning.

REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 548-599.

Allington, R. L. (1991). The legacy of "slow it down and make it more concrete." In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction (pp. 19-29). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Allington, R. L., & Walmsley, S. A. (Eds.). (1995). No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in American elementary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.

Ayres, L. R. (1993). The efficacy of three training conditions on phonological awareness of kindergarten children and the longitudinal effect of each on later reading acquisition. Rochester, MI: Oakland University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66

Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read--a causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.

Brown, J., Marek, A., & Goodman, K. S. (1996). Studies in miscue analysis: An annotated bibliography. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Campbell, J. R., Donahue, P. L., Reese, C. M., & Phillips, G. W. (1996). NAEP 1994 Reading report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education.

Clay, M. M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22, 155-173.

Dahl , K., & Freppon, P. (1995). A comparison of inner-city children's interpretations of reading and writing instruction in the early grades in skills-based and whole language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 50-74.

Fink, R. (1995/96). Successful dyslexics: A constructionist study of passionate interest reading. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, 268-280.

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Beeler, T., Winikates, D., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997). Early interventions for children with reading problems: Study designs and preliminary findings. Learning disabilities: A multi-disciplinary journal, 8, 63-71.

Goodman, K. S. (1973). Theoretically based studies of patterns of miscues in oral reading performance. Detroit: Wayne State University. (ERIC: ED 079 708).

Goodman, K. S. (In press.). California, whole language, and (NAEP) the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In Weaver, in press.

Goodman, Y. M., & Marek, A. M. (Eds.) (1996). Retrospective miscue analysis: Revaluing readers and reading. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.

Goswami, U. (1988). Orthographic analogies and reading development. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40, 239-268.

Griffith, P. L., & Olson, M. W. (1992). Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers break the code. The Reading Teacher, 45, 516-525.

Gunning, T. (1995). Word building: A strategic approach to the teaching of phonics. The Reading Teacher, 48, 484-488.

Haskell, D. W., et al. (1992). Effects of three orthographic/phonological units on first-grade reading. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 40-49.

Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Iverson, S., & Tunmer, W. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the reading recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112-126.

Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255.

Juel, C., & Roper/Schneider, D. (1985). The influence of basal readers on first grade reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 134-152.

Kasten, W. C., & Clarke, B. K. (1989). Reading/writing readiness for preschool and kindergarten children: A whole language approach. Sanibel: Florida Educational Research and Development Council. (ERIC: ED 312 041)

Knapp, M. S., and associates. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Krashen, S. D. (1996). Every person a reader: An alternative to the California task force report on reading. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. In Weaver, in press.

Kucer, S. B. (1985). Predictability and readability: The same rose with different names? In M. Douglass (Ed.), Claremont Reading Conference 49th yearbook (pp. 229-246). Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate School.

Lyon, G. R. (1995a). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 120-128.

Lyon, G. R. (1995b). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 3-27.

Lyon, G. R. (1996). The state of research. In S. Cramer & W. Ellis (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Lifelong issues (pp. 3-61). Paul Brookes Publishing.

Mann, V. (1986). Phonological awareness: The role of reading experience. Cognition, 24, 65-92.

Marek, A. M.. (1996). An accomplished professional: A reader in trouble. In Y. M. Goodman & A. M. Marek (Eds.), Retrospective miscue analysis: Revaluing readers and reading (pp. 51-70). Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.

McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. (1991). The gridlock of low reading achievement: Perspectives on practice and policy. Remedial and Special Education, 12 (3), 20-30.

McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P. A. (1994). A comparison of children's development of alphabetic knowledge in a skills-based and a whole language classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 391-417.

Morais, J., Bertelson, P., Carey, L., & Alegria, J. (1986). Literacy training and speech segmentation. Cognition, 24, 45-64.

Moustafa, M. (1995). Children's productive phonological recoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 464 476.

Moustafa, M. (In press). Reconceptualizing phonics instruction. In Weaver, in press.

Nicholson, T. (1991). Do children read words better in context or in lists? A classic study revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 444-450.

Pearson, P. D., & Stephens, D. (1994). Learning about literacy: A 30-year journey. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 22-42). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. In Weaver, in press.

Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L. C., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283-319.

Ribowsky, H. (1985). The effects of a code emphasis approach and a whole language approach upon emergent literacy of kindergarten children. Alexandria, VA: ERIC (ED 269 720).

Simonds, H. D., & Ammon, P. (1989). Child knowledge and primerese text: Mismatches and miscues. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 380-398.

Smith, F. (1997). Reading without nonsense (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Smith, J. W. A., & Elley, W. B. (1995). Learning to read in New Zealand. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.

Stahl, S. A., McKenna, M. C., & Pagnucco, J. R. (1994). The effects of whole-language instruction: An update and a reappraisal. Educational Psychologist, 29, 175-185.

Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Word recognition: Changing perspectives. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 418-452). New York: Longman.

Stephens, D. (1991). Research on whole language: Support for a new curriculum. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.

Stice, C. F., & Bertrand, N. P. (1990). Whole language and the emergent literacy of at-risk children: A two-year comparative study. Nashville: Center for Excellence, Basic Skills, Tennessee State University. (ERIC: ED 324 636)

Torgeson, J. K., & Hecht, S. A. (1996). Preventing and remediating reading disabilities: Instructional variables that make a difference for special students. In M. F. Graves, P. Van Den Broek, & B. M. Taylor (Eds.), The first R: Every child's right to read (pp. 133-159). New York: Teachers College Press.

Traw, R. (1996). Large-scale assessment of skills in a whole language curriculum: Two districts' experiences. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 323-339.

Tunmer, W. E., & Nesdale, A. R. (1985). Phonemic segmentation skill and beginning reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 417-427.

Tunnell, M. O., & Jacobs, J. S. (1989). Using "real" books: Research findings on literature based reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 42, 470-477.

Turner, R. L. (1989). The "great" debate: Can both Carbo and Chall be right? Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 276-283.

Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321-363.

Vellutino, F. R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.

Weaver, C. (1994a). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole language (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Weaver, C. (1994b). Reconceptualizing reading and dyslexia. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 16 (1), 23-35.

Weaver, C. (In press). Reconsidering a balanced approach to reading. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Wimmer, H., Landerl, K., Linortner, R., & Hummer, P. (1991). The relationship of phonemic awareness to reading acquisition: More consequence than precondition but still important. Cognition, 40, 219-249.

Prepared for Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo and © 1997 by Constance Weaver. In C. Weaver, L. Gillmeister-Krause, & G. Vento-Zogby, Creating Support for Effective Literacy Education (Heinemann, 1996). May be copied.