Invest in libraries, not intensive phonics.

Sent to the Australian, July 3, 2014

Those supporting a "direct instruction" heavy phonics-based approach to teaching reading ("Pyne eyes national Direct Instruction rollout," July 2), might be interested in what the research says about this method: Direct instruction children do very well on tests of "decoding" (pronouncing words presented to them in a list) but do not do as well on tests in which they have to understand what they read.

Research also confirms that the only way to do well on tests of reading comprehension is to do a great deal of self-selected pleasure reading. Students who live in high poverty areas have little chance to do this, because of the lack of books in their homes, and often in their schools. These children don't need more intensive phonics: They need to have what middle-class children have: Access to books.  We can make sure all children have access to reading material by investing in libraries and librarians.

Stephen Krashen


Some sources:

Research on direct instruction
Krashen, S. 2009. Does intensive decoding instruction contribute to reading comprehension? Knowledge Quest 37 (4): 72-74.
Research on Pleasure reading:
Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Heinemann Publishing Company and Libraries Unlimited.
Sullivan, A. and Brown, M. 2013. Social inequalities in cognitive scores at age 16: The role of reading. London: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London   www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Research on Libraries:
Krashen, S., Lee, S.Y. and McQuillan, J. 2012. Is the library important? Multivariate studies at the national and international level. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1): 26-36.

Original article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pyne-eyes-national-direct-instruction-rollout/story-fn59niix-1226974451763

A bad way to evaluate teachers

Sent to the Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2014

Contrary to Eric Hanushek's statement ("How Teachers Unions Use 'Common Core' to Undermine Reform," June 30), there is no movement by anybody to "eliminate school accountability and teacher evaluations." There is a movement to eliminate the use of standardized test score gains to evaluate teachers, and there is good reason to do so.
A number of studies have shown that rating teachers using test score gains does not give consistent results. Different tests produce different ratings, and the same teacher’s ratings can vary from year to year, sometimes quite a bit.

In addition, using test score gains for evaluation encourages gaming the system, trying to produce increases in scores by teaching test-taking strategies, not by encouraging real learning. This is like putting a match under the thermometer and claiming you have raised the temperature of the room.

We are all interested in finding the best ways of evaluating teachers, but using student test-score gains is a very inaccurate way to do it.

Stephen Krashen

Original story: http://online.wsj.com/articles/eric-hanushek-how-teachers-unions-use-common-core-to-undermine-reform-1404170334

Some sources:
Different tests produce different ratings: Papay, J. 2010. Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal 47,2.
Vary from year to year: Sass, T. 2008. The stability of value-added measures of teacher quality and implications for teacher compensation policy. Washington DC: CALDER. (National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research.) Kane, T. and Staiger, D. 2009. Estimating Teacher Impacts on Student Achievement: An Experimental Evaluation. NBER Working Paper No. 14607 http://www.nber.org/papers/w14607;

How is language acquired?

Sent to The Japan News, June 29, 2014

I appreciate Helene Uchida's mentioning my work ("Teaching 'kid-friendly' grammar", June 29) but her description is not quite accurate: Language acquisition, we have concluded, does not require "meaningful interaction." It requires comprehension of messages, called "comprehensible input." 
This means that we acquire languages when we understand what we hear and read, not when we speak or write. The ability to speak and write is the result of language acquisition, not the cause. 
This is an important point: It means that the value of interaction is what the other person says to you, not what you say to them. It also means that we should not force students to speak before they are ready.
From her description, much of what Ms. Uchida does provides comprehensible input, especially hearing stories. I hope she will reconsider other aspect of her method.
Research supporting this approach is now available for free, at www.sdkrashen.com.  For studies done in Japan with EFL students, please see benikomason.net.

Stephen Krashen
Professor Emeritus
University of Southern California

original article: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001354828

PRIMARY ADVICE / Teaching ‘kid-friendly’ grammar
June 29, 2014; The Japan News
By Helene Uchida / Special to The Japan News Q: I understand that grammar can be dull for children, but I believe it is still essential in language learning. Am I wrong? Could you give me some advice on how to incorporate grammar into a child’s lesson and still keep it “kid-friendly”?
D.B., teacher
Vancouver, Canada A: I notice that you are teaching in Canada, so your situation is most likely different from ours in Japan. Middle and high school English teachers here tend to focus on grammar and translation methods; primary school English programs are still in the infancy stage.
Granted, grammar is the structure all languages hinge on.
The question is, “Should we teach grammar to prescribe language or describe it?” Clearly, the current Japanese system of prescribing English grammar rules does not contribute to communication.
Stephen Krashen, a pioneer in second language acquisition, states: “Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language—natural communication—in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances but with the messages they are conveying and understanding.”
I think the key point here is “messages.” Youngsters worldwide could not care less about grammar; most do not even know what grammar is. Because their attention span is short, young learners enjoy discovering and using words or phrases that easily work for them in sending and receiving messages. This can be coordinated in the classroom by the teacher orchestrating “message” activities, such as naming flash cards, recognizing words or images on posters, imagining the meaning of content as picture books are being read to them, understanding the teacher’s requests, commands and praises, and making statements or asking questions for clarification with peers.
Primary school students can easily understand the following sentences with visuals: Taro is a boy. Sumi is a girl. Bo is a dog.
They can understand and in some instances construct similar sentences without knowing what a subject, verb, complement or article is. Later on, after sentence structures like these become natural to them, the teacher can tell them subjects are what the sentence is about. The teacher can hand them a print with simple sentences, such as the ones above, and ask them to circle the subjects. After completing that exercise, the teacher can ask them where the subject usually occurs. They will notice it is usually at the beginning of a sentence.
Such exercises help students describe the language that they have been using to communicate with others. I think this is better than prescribing rules, which makes them hesitate because fear of making a mistake takes priority over communication. Understanding and appreciating grammar at this point in the learning process is akin to “fine tuning.” Language structure has already been established via experiences.
* * * * *
Readers are encouraged to send questions on any theme related to teaching English to younger learners, particularly those at the primary school level, to Helene J. Uchida by e-mail at jn-edu@yomiuri.com or fax at (03) 3217-9820. Questions should preferably be written in English, accompanied by your name, occupation and the area in which you live.
Uchida is the director of Little America, a Fukuoka-based company for training teachers of English.

Missing from the debate: Pleasure reading in English

Sent to the South Chine Morning Post, June 28, 2014.
I have participated in the Great Native Speaker Teacher debate in the South China Morning Post (letters by Vaughen Rapatahana, June 11, Michael Shaw, June 17, my letter, June 23, Regina Ip, June 27).
Missing from all of these letters, including mine, is any mention of the biggest factor in helping students develop to high levels of English proficiency: self-selected pleasure reading. Those who read more develop higher levels of reading ability, writing ability, grammar, vocabulary and spelling, and studies consistently show that the amount of pleasure reading done in English is the best predictor of advanced English proficiency (eg. TEOFL).
What every English teacher should do, whether native or not, is help students develop a pleasure reading habit in English. This can be done by allowing students some time for reading in school, beginning with easy readers and moving on to comprehensible authentic reading, and by introducing students to genuinely interesting reading material.
What Hong Kong needs to do is make sure that interesting reading material is easily available in school and public libraries. This will not only make English classes more effective but will also ensure that growth in English will continue after students finish school.

Stephen Krashen

Some Sources:
Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Heinemann Publishing Company and Libraries Unlimited.
Krashen, S. 2011. Free Voluntary Reading. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.

Strengthening school libraries boosts students’ performance

Published in the Chicago Sun-Tunes, June 30.

Strengthening school libraries is an easy and inexpensive way to improve school performance ("CPS board warned of drought of librarians," June 26.)
There is enormous evidence that self-selected pleasure reading is the source of much of our literacy development: Those who read more read better, write better, spell better, have larger vocabularies, and better grammar.
Most students in CPS live in poverty. Students who live in poverty are "behind" in reading because they have few books in their homes, live in neighborhoods with few bookstores and few good public libraries. Their only sure source of books is the school library.
The importance of the school has been confirmed in study after study: Better school libraries with credentialed libraries mean higher reading scores. In our recent study, based on data from 40 countries, we found that access to a good school library was positively related to reading scores, and nearly offset the negative effect of poverty. In other words, school libraries and school librarians can help close the achievement gap.
Stephen Krashen


original article: http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/cps-board-warned-drought-librarians/wed-06252014-433pm
Source:
Krashen, S., Lee, S.Y. and McQuillan, J. 2012. Is the library important? Multivariate studies at the national and international level. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1): 26-36.

Summer Reading: Bring back the pleasure

Sent to the Wall Street Journal, June 25

Summer Reading for Parents (June 25) shows how the common core is pushing publishers and parents in the wrong direction. None of these fads, all featured in the WSJ article, is supported by research, experience, or common sense: reward stickers,  restricting children to reading at “their level," and a de-emphasis of fiction.
Rewarding reading can send the message that reading is so unpleasant that bribes are necessary. The rewards also focus children more on what they need to remember to do to get prizes than the pleasure of reading. 
Restricting children to reading at a certain level makes the incorrect assumption that readers must know nearly every word to understand and enjoy texts. John Holt tells this story:
"… One day, in one of our many free periods, (one of my students) was reading at her desk. From a glimpse of the illustrations I thought I knew what the book was. I said to myself, "It can't be," and went to take a closer look. Sure enough, she was reading Moby Dick. When I came close to her desk she looked up. I said, " Are you really reading that?" She said she was!  I said, "Do you like it?" She said, "Oh, yes, it's neat!" I said, "Don't you find parts of it rather heavy going?" She answered, "Oh, sure, but I just skip over those parts and go on to the next good part."
Holt continues: "This is exactly what reading should be and in school so seldom is- an exciting, joyous adventure. Find something, dive into it, take the good parts, skip the bad parts, get what you can out of it, go on to something else. How different is our mean-spirited, picky insistence that every child get every last little scrap of understanding that can be dug out of a book."
Nonfiction and other kinds of "light reading" form the bridge between "conversational" and "academic" language: nearly all those who have mastered academic language have read a great deal of lighter material that they found to be highly interesting, and that did not involve any struggle, only intensive interest. All this fiction and light reading did not result in full academic competence, but provided them with the linguistic competence and knowledge that helped make more demanding texts comprehensible.
Children's book publishers should continue their excellent job of providing wonderful children's literature, concentrating on great stories and fascinating nonfiction texts that excite children and motivate them to read more.

Stephen Krashen


SOME SOURCES:

Rewards:
Kohn, A.  (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin (second edition)
Krashen, S. (2003). The (lack of) experimental evidence supporting the use of accelerated reader. Journal of Children’s Literature, 29 (2): 9,16-30.
Leveled books:
Holt, J. 1967. How teachers make children hate reading,
http://www.hawaii.edu/eli/online/eli82/john_holt.htm
Value of fiction:
Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Heinemann Publishing Company and Libraries Unlimited.
The common core:
Krashen, S. 2013. Access to books and time to read versus the common core standards and tests.  English Journal 103(2): 21-39.

Intensive Systematic Phonics, Tests of Reading Comprehension, and the Garan Effect

An article in the Guardian announced that a new study confirmed the positive effect of intensive systematic phonics. In my letter  to the Guardian(see below) I said that the study only confirmed what we already know: "Intensive phonics instruction helps children do better on tests in which they are asked to pronounce words out loud, and on tests of spelling. Not mentioned is the consistent finding that intensive phonics instruction makes no significant contribution to performance on tests in which children have to understand what they read."

I like to refer to this as the Garan Effect: The National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) concluded that the experimental research supports intensive systematic phonics.  Garan (2002), in an examination of this report, noted that the impact of intensive phonics is strong on tests in which children read lists of words in isolation, but it is miniscule on tests in which children have to understand what they read. Thus, intensive phonics instruction only helps children develop the ability to pronounce words in isolation, an ability that will emerge anyway with more reading. Garan's results agree with the results of many other studies that show that intensive phonics instruction has a positive impact on tests of decoding but not on tests of comprehension (Krashen, 2009).

Two responses of my claims have been posted on twitter. Both deserve a more detailed response than twitter allows.

In one tweet, it was maintained that the unpublished report that was the basis for the Guardian article (Grant,  2014) did in fact contain data on tests in which children had to understand what they read and that intensive phonics-trained students did better: Students who had studied of intensive systamatic phonics appeared to do well on the English SAT Stage 2 test at age 11, with 94% scoring at the 4+ level, (where 4 = "expected" and 6 = is the highest level), compared with 79% for the entire country (England), and 82% for "similar schools." 

Before we rush to reject the Garan Effect, however, it needs to be pointed out that (1) Grant (2014) asserts that the differences are statistically significant, but provides us only with percentages, no means, no standard deviations, no sample size, and no details about the tests of statistical significance.

(2) The data is based on the 2004 English SAT. That test included sections on writing and spelling in addition to reading comprehension, and I have been unable to find scores for the individual components.

(3) True experiments demand a comparison group that differs from the experimental group in only one way.  Did the intensive phonics graduates' educational experience differ in other important ways from comparisons? For example, a number of studies show that performance on reading and writing components is related to the amount of reading students do, especially free voluntary reading (Krashen, 2004).  Did the intensive phonics students have more access to books and more encouragement and time to read (e.g. sustained silent reading)?

The "Grant challenge" deserves examination, but it is not nearly enough to reject the impressive body of evidence supporting the Garan Effect.

A second challenge, also delivered by twitter, is data from Connelly, Johnston, and Thompson (2001), who  showed that intensive phonics-trained six year olds did better on the Comprehension portion of the Neale Analysis of Reading Test than children with much less phonics instruction. On the Neale, however, students read passages aloud, and are then asked comprehension questions.  While reading, their errors are tallied, and only those who make less than a certain number of errors are asked comprehension questions. This is not a situation that encourages a focus on meaning.

Connelly, V.,  Johnston,  R., and Thompson, B. 2001. The effects of phonics instruction on the reading comprehension of beginning readers. Reading and Writing 14: 423-457.

Garan, E. (2001). Beyond the smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan 82, no. 7 (March), 500-506.

Grant, M. 2014. Longitudinal Study from Reception to Year 2 (2010-2013) and Summary of an earlier Longitudinal Study from Reception to Year 6 (1997-2004). Unpublished paper.

Krashen, S. 2004. The Power of Reading. Second edition. Portsmouth: Heinemann and Westport: Libraries Unlimited


Krashen, S. 2009. Does intensive decoding instruction contribute to reading comprehension? Knowledge Quest 37 (4): 72-74.

Thanks to Debbie Hepplewhite and Maggie Downie for their comments.

My letter to the Guardian, published June 23, 2014

The limits of phonics

The Guardian's enthusiastic report about the efficacy of phonics is an example of "cold fusion" journalistic practice: Presenting research reports to the public before the scientific community has reviewed them. I provide one brief "peer review" here. Neither the study (thanks to the Guardian for providing a link to the preliminary report) nor the Guardian's article point out that the study only confirms what we already know: intensive phonics instruction helps children do better on tests in which they are asked to pronounce words out loud, and on tests of spelling.
Not mentioned is the consistent finding that intensive phonics instruction makes no significant contribution to performance on tests in which children have to understand what they read. Real reading ability is the result of actual reading, especially of books that readers find interesting. Good readers eventually acquire nearly all the rules of phonics and spelling, as a result of reading.
Stephen Krashen  Professor emeritus, University of Southern California
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/23/gove-love-move-limits-of-phonics