Title: Sixty Years of Reading Research--But Who's Listening?.
Abstract: Sixty years of research and thousands of studies that resoundingly validate progressive approaches to literacy learning still haven't produced the strong consensus we might expect. The authors explain why that's the case. A REPORTER calls to get some background for an article about staff development in arts. Staff development? We are astonished and delighted that any media outlet -- even this modest local magazine -- actually wants to cover our neglected field. Since our work involves inservice workshops, classroom consulting, and whole-school renewal projects, we're thrilled to talk. We offer quotes, sources, and anecdotes about teacher development efforts around Chicago -- our own and others', modest and ambitious, successes and failures. Then, somewhere in the conversation, the term language comes Oh, says the young reporter, as if someone has made a rude noise. doesn't work. Her tone is flat and certain. What do you mean? we ask. You know, she replies impatiently. There are no scientific studies that show whole works. There's a brief pause while we silently bid farewell to cordiality. Well, actually, there are lots of scientific studies supporting whole As a matter of fact, there are a bunch of them sitting right here on the bookshelf. But there aren't any studies. It's just opinions. There's no research to back it up. Through gritted teeth: Are you saying that these shelves are actually empty? That these studies weren't published? We'd be glad to start faxing you some summaries. No, no, no. Now she's annoyed. can't be real research. People have done scientific research and proved that phonics works, not whole language. Within moments our conversation has foundered on the rocks of educational research. Both parties hang up, peeved and polarized. If research could actually settle the great debate over teaching reading -- and over the broader character of education in America -- the shouting would have died down long ago. In spite of what our reporter friend thinks, the research overwhelmingly favors holistic, literature-centered approaches to reading. Indeed, the proof is massive and overwhelming. For six decades, leading researchers and writers have steadily produced summaries and meta-analyses that reiterate the key findings of mainstream, long-term research. For example, Constance Weaver has published research summaries on many aspects of progressive, whole- teaching, in both book and electronic forms.1 Margaret Moustafa has pulled together the findings about the role of phonics in teaching reading.2 For more than 20 years, David Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Edythe Holubec have reviewed the hundreds of studies on the collaborative aspects of the progressive classroom.3 Michael Tunnell and James Jacobs surveyed the studies on literature-based reading instruction from 1968 to 1988.4 George Hillocks focused his massive meta-analysis on studies of the teaching of writing.5 And Richard Thompson looked at 40 studies dating back to 1937.6 The most recent volumes of the Annual Summary of Investigations Related to Reading include several studies showing statistically significant test score gains in whole-language classrooms and 15 additional studies validating particular strategies within whole language.7 In our own work, we have tried to connect the research base with the emerging national curriculum standards, as detailed in Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools; Methods that Matter: Six Structures for Best Practice Classrooms; and articles such as Whole Language Works: Sixty Years of Research.8 Just this past year, Jeff McQuillan's book The Literacy Crisis: False Claims, Real Solutions has offered yet another powerful review of the research on reading instruction, debunking faddish phonics claims and pointing to the strong evidence favoring holistic approaches. …
Publication Year: 1999
Publication Date: 1999-03-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 11
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot