Thanks Terry for breaking down this issue and "bringing the receipts" in the embedded audio.
Reading levels and decodable readers are both constructs that we've created, yes? I ask as a) they don't apply to every reader, and b) who do they seem to benefit more?
Reading levels as the term is used in the phrase leveled books isn’t so much an arbitrary creation as it is a practical discovery. Teachers need to match the difficulty of texts they use instructionally with the reading ability of students. A mismatch means that a particular text is either too easy or too difficult for a given group of students. Traditional approaches to readability have been ridiculed because they oversimplify a wicked problem, but I’ve always been intrigued by their quick and dirty utility. I like the cloze procedure as an empirical tool better, but cloze isn’t quick. My secondary credential students in my content-area reading classes usually completed a cloze assessment assignment.
Classifying a text according to linguistic difficulty has traditionally been accomplished by analyzing linguistic complexity through combining average word length and average sentence length using a formula. Short words in short sentences are characteristic of lower level text; complexity increases as words and sentences become longer. A text rated at the fourth grade level, for example, uses longer words in longer sentences than a text rated at the second grade level.
Because these formulas do not account for differences in factors related to individual readers, perfect matches are probably more the exception than the rule. For example, a reader with strong prior knowledge and intense interest in the substance of a text can perform better with a text of a given level of linguistic complexity than would be the case if the reader had little to no prior knowledge and even less interest in a text of the same level of complexity.
I’m not sure decodable books can be assigned a ‘readability level,’ and I’d like to know what the phonics folks think on this point. The assumption underlying linguistic analysis of difficulty is that a writer has prepared a text to communicate meaning, that is, the writer uses language appropriate for the target audience. Decodable books are not prepared to communicate meaning to a target audience. The concern is with the sounds and spellings of words. These books would rarely, if ever, show up in any setting except for lessons in word identification. Is it “reading” to pronounce words without regard for sense? Is this work “guided reading?”
Re: the question of benefit—as I say, I’ve used decodables clinically with students who needed experiences holding books, turning pages, performing left-to-right sweeps and return sweeps, tracking, etc,—simulated reading. It’s hard for me to see decodables as real world reading because the object of language processing (words in sentences) isn’t relevant to the learner’s activity. In my opinion, the benefit of decodables inclines toward the teacher. The instructional goal is simplified (teaching students to say something is simpler than teaching them to make sense of something) and choice of instructional materials is also simplified.
I hope this response gets at your question, Matt. What do you think?
Thanks Terry for the reply, especially when you note that "a reader with strong prior knowledge and intense interest in the substance of a text can perform better with a text of a given level of linguistic complexity than would be the case if the reader had little to no prior knowledge and even less interest in a text of the same level of complexity."
This is where I get hung up with levels, and leveled readers in particular. If they are used to scaffold a student's reading experience, great. But too often they *become* the reading curriculum at early ages. Other experiences - classroom libraries, read aloud, independent reading - can get crowded out.
"I learned that when interest and motivation are high enough, with guidance and practice students can often read in context what tests and levels indicate they cannot."
I don't doubt there are some benefits of levels for teaching reading (especially in comparison to decodables as you smartly note). Maybe more of an issue with the carpenter and not the tool.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Matt. And I also agree with Regie. My dissertation research on portfolio assessment in middle school uncovered the power of self-selected complexity. When we ask a young person to tackle a task beyond their reach and pressure them to do it this way or that way, they don’t work as intently and purposefully as they do when they pick their poison—damn, my kid tells me I need a filter. During portfolio pedagogy I saw kids reading during SSR from books I knew they couldn’t comprehend. I asked a kid one day who was reading Huckleberry Finn how he liked the book. He said it was hard and he didn’t understand some parts but he liked talking to his grandmother about it, who had read it a long time ago. I prefer the term “Guided Decision-Making” to “Guided Instruction,” and Guided Instruction is more dependent on the carpenter, not the tool. Leveled readers are at least defensible in the hands of an experienced and knowledgeable teacher. That said, I, too, have worked with teachers who do better with a common toolkit, especially in this factory we call school. Madman, Architect, Carpenter, Judge—that’s what we used to call the writing process, but it occurs to me it fits teaching as well. Problem with mass teacher prep (700+ candidates in a pipeline) is they see so little opportunity in clinical experience to think like mad and then create their own instruction.
"guided decision-making" - love it! And excellent reminder on lack of time for teachers. I need to write "Teachers need more time" on a sticky note and put it on my computer monitor so I see it every morning and don't forget it.
Thanks Terry for breaking down this issue and "bringing the receipts" in the embedded audio.
Reading levels and decodable readers are both constructs that we've created, yes? I ask as a) they don't apply to every reader, and b) who do they seem to benefit more?
Reading levels as the term is used in the phrase leveled books isn’t so much an arbitrary creation as it is a practical discovery. Teachers need to match the difficulty of texts they use instructionally with the reading ability of students. A mismatch means that a particular text is either too easy or too difficult for a given group of students. Traditional approaches to readability have been ridiculed because they oversimplify a wicked problem, but I’ve always been intrigued by their quick and dirty utility. I like the cloze procedure as an empirical tool better, but cloze isn’t quick. My secondary credential students in my content-area reading classes usually completed a cloze assessment assignment.
Classifying a text according to linguistic difficulty has traditionally been accomplished by analyzing linguistic complexity through combining average word length and average sentence length using a formula. Short words in short sentences are characteristic of lower level text; complexity increases as words and sentences become longer. A text rated at the fourth grade level, for example, uses longer words in longer sentences than a text rated at the second grade level.
Because these formulas do not account for differences in factors related to individual readers, perfect matches are probably more the exception than the rule. For example, a reader with strong prior knowledge and intense interest in the substance of a text can perform better with a text of a given level of linguistic complexity than would be the case if the reader had little to no prior knowledge and even less interest in a text of the same level of complexity.
I’m not sure decodable books can be assigned a ‘readability level,’ and I’d like to know what the phonics folks think on this point. The assumption underlying linguistic analysis of difficulty is that a writer has prepared a text to communicate meaning, that is, the writer uses language appropriate for the target audience. Decodable books are not prepared to communicate meaning to a target audience. The concern is with the sounds and spellings of words. These books would rarely, if ever, show up in any setting except for lessons in word identification. Is it “reading” to pronounce words without regard for sense? Is this work “guided reading?”
Re: the question of benefit—as I say, I’ve used decodables clinically with students who needed experiences holding books, turning pages, performing left-to-right sweeps and return sweeps, tracking, etc,—simulated reading. It’s hard for me to see decodables as real world reading because the object of language processing (words in sentences) isn’t relevant to the learner’s activity. In my opinion, the benefit of decodables inclines toward the teacher. The instructional goal is simplified (teaching students to say something is simpler than teaching them to make sense of something) and choice of instructional materials is also simplified.
I hope this response gets at your question, Matt. What do you think?
Thanks Terry for the reply, especially when you note that "a reader with strong prior knowledge and intense interest in the substance of a text can perform better with a text of a given level of linguistic complexity than would be the case if the reader had little to no prior knowledge and even less interest in a text of the same level of complexity."
This is where I get hung up with levels, and leveled readers in particular. If they are used to scaffold a student's reading experience, great. But too often they *become* the reading curriculum at early ages. Other experiences - classroom libraries, read aloud, independent reading - can get crowded out.
Regie R says it so well in her MiddleWeb post (https://www.middleweb.com/37973/regie-routman-on-the-level-with-leveled-books/):
"I learned that when interest and motivation are high enough, with guidance and practice students can often read in context what tests and levels indicate they cannot."
I don't doubt there are some benefits of levels for teaching reading (especially in comparison to decodables as you smartly note). Maybe more of an issue with the carpenter and not the tool.
A good topic to continue to revisit and discuss.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, Matt. And I also agree with Regie. My dissertation research on portfolio assessment in middle school uncovered the power of self-selected complexity. When we ask a young person to tackle a task beyond their reach and pressure them to do it this way or that way, they don’t work as intently and purposefully as they do when they pick their poison—damn, my kid tells me I need a filter. During portfolio pedagogy I saw kids reading during SSR from books I knew they couldn’t comprehend. I asked a kid one day who was reading Huckleberry Finn how he liked the book. He said it was hard and he didn’t understand some parts but he liked talking to his grandmother about it, who had read it a long time ago. I prefer the term “Guided Decision-Making” to “Guided Instruction,” and Guided Instruction is more dependent on the carpenter, not the tool. Leveled readers are at least defensible in the hands of an experienced and knowledgeable teacher. That said, I, too, have worked with teachers who do better with a common toolkit, especially in this factory we call school. Madman, Architect, Carpenter, Judge—that’s what we used to call the writing process, but it occurs to me it fits teaching as well. Problem with mass teacher prep (700+ candidates in a pipeline) is they see so little opportunity in clinical experience to think like mad and then create their own instruction.
"guided decision-making" - love it! And excellent reminder on lack of time for teachers. I need to write "Teachers need more time" on a sticky note and put it on my computer monitor so I see it every morning and don't forget it.