9/18/2024

Myths of Secondary Literacy

By Jeanne Schopf

As secondary educators, we are increasingly aware of the significance of the science of reading and the nationwide implementation of K–3 legislation. However, we must consider how reading research applies to older students. 

Secondary educators have been trained to primarily focus on teaching literature as content-area educators, with less emphasis on teaching reading during our undergraduate or professional learning. Despite our focus on standards and summative assessments, many students need help reading grade-level content and demonstrating proficiency in performance tasks. This raises the question: Why are so many of our adolescent students facing challenges in reading? 

Numerous misconceptions exist regarding the reading process and its impact on reading proficiency in secondary classrooms. To improve reading outcomes, it is imperative we understand how the brain learns to read and acknowledge that our belief systems and myths about reading could hinder our efforts to improve literacy outcomes for all students. Let's thoroughly explore the beliefs we hold onto.

Belief No. 1: Good Readers Rely Heavily on Context Clues

In 1964, Dr. Kenneth Goodman, professor emeritus of Language, Reading, and Culture at the University of Arizona, conducted a study titled "A Linguistic Study of Cues and Miscues in Reading," which examined the reading abilities of 100 first, second, and third grade children. The study evaluated their ability to read a decontextualized word list and retell a passage using contextual cues. Dr. Goodman concluded that students could read more words in a contextualized text than in a word list, demonstrating their reliance on syntax and semantics cues. This led to the formulation of the three-cueing theory. Despite four decades of reading research, many educators still believe children rely heavily on using context clues in reading.

To comprehend how a child learns to read, insights from the research on eye-tracking by the late Dr. Keith Rayner, a distinguished cognitive psychologist at the University of Massachusetts, are beneficial. Dr. Rayner's 1998 article in the American Psychological Association Journal, "Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research," elucidates specific characteristics of eye movements, information integration, and individual variances during reading. His focus on cognitive processes in reading involved the study of eye movements, with direct recordings indicating the eyes fixate on each word and exhibit prolonged fixation on complex words. 

His work demonstrated that the complexity of phoneme-grapheme correspondences influences the duration of fixation on each word. According to eye-tracking research, the reading brain does not excessively rely on context clues, as theorized by Dr. Goodman. Educators must recognize that fluent reading depends on the brain's capacity to decode words on the page. When a child encounters too many unfamiliar words, they may resort to context clues as their only available strategy. It is conceivable that Dr. Goodman observed what less-skilled readers do when confronted with an unfamiliar word—they guess or utilize strong oral language skills to bridge the gaps. As educators in secondary education, our priority should be to ensure students possess strong decoding skills, enabling them to derive meaning from the text in front of them.

The research conducted by Stanislas Dehaene, a cognitive neuroscientist, has revealed that the reading process occurs in the brain's left hemisphere. There are two primary regions where neural networks must be developed to enable the decoding of words on a page. The brain contains a visual word form area in the occipital lobe dedicated to processing words, and at the base of the frontal lobe, there exists a language processing system tailored for language comprehension. For a child to read written words, it is necessary to establish neural pathways that bridge the brain's language and visual word form areas.

The Reading Brain
FRONTAL Pronunciation Articulation TEMPORAL Language Comprehension PARIETAL Phoneme Analysis Phoneme-Grapheme Association OCCIPITAL Visual Word Form Area

To improve outcomes for secondary school students, prioritizing decoding is essential. In 1998, Philip Gough and William Tunmer formulated a framework known as the Simple View of Reading, which shows the reading process. The Simple View of Reading posits that reading comprehension results from decoding, word recognition, and language comprehension. If a student cannot decode the words in a text, it will impede their comprehension. As stated by David Kilpatrick in "Equipped for Reading Success," "The most direct route to good reading comprehension is to make the word recognition process automatic so the student can focus all his or her mental energy on reading."

Belief No. 2: If Students Haven’t Learned To Read Before They Reach Secondary School, It’s Too Late

As students transition to fourth grade, reading instruction typically shifts from learning to read to reading to learn. The Common Core State Standards' scope and sequence of foundational skills further reinforce this instructional shift. According to the standards, by second grade, students are expected to master long and short vowels in one- and two-syllable words. Third grade focuses on reading multisyllabic words with morphology as part of the foundational skills. The foundational skills progression culminates in fourth grade with a focus on knowing and applying grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words. 

However, the limited emphasis on phonics beyond the fourth grade and the greater focus on reading and understanding complex informative and narrative texts in the upper grades may lead secondary teachers to assume that students have already mastered foundational skills from lower grades. Contrary to this belief, it is essential to acknowledge there is always time to teach foundational skills, even in middle or high school.

In their article "Identifying and Teaching Students with Significant Reading Problems," Sharon Vaughn and Jack Fletcher highlight ample evidence to suggest educational systems can be developed so that nearly 95% of students can become reasonably successful readers. The remaining 5% who do not make adequate progress are likely to be truly reading disabled due to persistent reading difficulties. This underscores the responsibility of educators to provide explicit, systematic phonics instruction with a focus on building neural networks to teach all children to read.

In transitioning to this approach, leaders and educators must recognize that despite the shift in focus toward reading comprehension, students must possess the ability to decode text for effective language comprehension. The Simple View of Reading framework, developed by Philip Gough and William Tunmer in 1986, outlines the reading process, establishing that reading comprehension is a product of decoding, word recognition, and language comprehension. 

It is important to note that older children who struggle in reading often face challenges in decoding vocabulary or both. Their deficits may not be apparent when reading one-syllable words, but they do struggle with multisyllabic words. While the Common Core State Standards emphasize the language component, educators should understand students can only derive meaning from text if they can read the words on the written page.

To ensure the vast majority of students attain basic literacy skills before graduating from high school, a shift in beliefs about content and approach to Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) is imperative. The National Center for Improving Literacy provides valuable guidance to school leaders about building a robust MTSS system, emphasizing establishing a leadership team as the initial step. The leadership team should be formed based on shared values and a strong focus on the literacy vision and mission. 

This team should include members from different areas of literacy, such as school principals, reading coaches, reading specialists, and content-area teachers. Regularly scheduled meetings should focus on Response to Instruction (RtI) using progress-monitoring data, as well as formative and summative assessments. These meetings should take place at various levels of leadership, including grade level, content level, and building level. It is crucial to ensure the roles and responsibilities of each member are clear so the group can work together toward the shared vision and mission of improving literacy outcomes.

If secondary schools are committed to ensuring all students graduate with basic literacy skills, it is fundamental to invest in a strong leadership team dedicated to improving literacy rates. This team should evaluate district literacy performance data to comprehensively understand the existing reality. 

Subsequently, the leadership team can prioritize areas that require the most attention to support instructional efforts. There should be a concerted focus on addressing decoding skills as an intervention and within content-area classes. The What Works Clearinghouse practice guide, "Providing Reading Intervention for Grades 4–9," offers evidence-based instructional techniques to support the development of all learners' reading skills. Following the prioritization, the leadership team should devise an action plan to be implemented during the year, supported by coaches and leaders.

If research indicates students must possess decoding skills to comprehend text and that the vast majority of students can learn to read at any age, it is incumbent upon school leaders to realign their focus and enhance their approach to teaching reading.

Belief No. 3: If a Student Is Taught in Their Preferred Learning Style, They Will Learn Better.

Educators' first exposure to learning styles typically occurs as students in the classroom and later in their undergraduate studies. At the school level, many secondary teachers strive to address students' challenges in grasping grade-level texts by tailoring their lessons to accommodate various learning styles. They often kick off the academic year with student surveys and meticulously design their curriculum around their students' individual ways of comprehending and processing information. Although learning styles gained popularity in the 1970s and continue to be discussed in educational circles today, there is no substantial evidence to support their existence. 

According to Adam Grant in his book, "Hidden Potential," around 89% of teachers worldwide believe in matching their instruction to students' learning styles. While it's widely acknowledged that interest and motivation vary among students, leading to the assumption children have distinct learning styles, there is no credible evidence to support this idea.

In their 2012 article "Learning Styles: Where is the Evidence," Doug Rohrer and Harold Pashler found the results from 20 studies were mostly negative. Although three studies showed positive results, they were not particularly convincing. Therefore, there is limited empirical support for tailoring instruction to students' supposedly different learning styles. As educators, it's important to acknowledge that while students may have preferences, there is insufficient evidence to support customizing instruction to accommodate individual learning styles. 

The concept of learning styles is centered around the idea that individuals learn best through visual, auditory, or kinesthetic means. However, in reality, learning styles are more about preferences than inherent abilities. As Daniel Willingham highlights in his article, "The Myths of Learning Styles," a preferred mode of presentation often reflects a preference for tasks in which one excels and feels successful. If a student demonstrates proficiency when information is presented visually, it may be the result of their preference rather than a specific learning style. Educators noticing the student's success may be inclined to believe that continuing to present information in the same way will lead to continued success. In reality, this pattern is more a result of confirmation bias than a validation of learning styles. 

We have a tendency to seek out information that supports our beliefs, so when we witness student success, we are more likely to attribute it to learning style than to critically consider alternative explanations. We know children do have differences; they are all unique individuals. However, when we consider how one child is proficient in a standard, we must consider the task they are asked to complete. We know reading comprehension is a product of decoding and language comprehension. Then, if a student needs to meet grade-level expectations, we must understand the lack of success is not due to a learning style but a learning difference in the reading brain. 

Dr. Hollis Scarbrough, a leading researcher at Haskins Lab, and creator of the Reading Rope, shows that skilled reading is a fluent execution of word recognition and comprehension. She created the visual metaphor for reading in 1992 based on the studies of reading and reading disabilities in the 1970s–1980s. The main purpose of the Reading Rope was to support parents and educators in understanding the subskills of reading and to encourage discussions about the complexity of reading. So, if a child needs help attaining a grade-level proficiency mark, we must consider the individual subskills of reading, not a preferred learning style. 

Scarborough’s “Rope” Model 
from Handbook of Early Literacy Research, © 2001 by Guilford Press

We also know many other factors play into reading achievement, such as attention, working memory, self-monitoring, social-emotional competencies, processing, and other executive functioning skills. So, as educators, yes, we want to look at the “whole” child, but we also need to understand that matching a learning outcome with a learning style will reap little reward. Instead, we need to support our students in creating a classroom culture that values all children and recognizes the intrinsic factors that affect learning, as well as teaching all areas of literacy with an evidence-based, research-backed curriculum and using principles of instruction that support explicit teaching that will support all students.

“Education isn't truly successful until all children, regardless of their background and resources, have the opportunity to reach their potential. Creating schools where students achieve greater things isn't about focusing on a select few and pushing them to excel. It's about fostering a culture that allows all students to grow intellectually and thrive emotionally.”
Adam Grant, Hidden Potential  

Educators often operate within long-held beliefs dating back to the beginnings of public education. By understanding and letting go of these belief systems surrounding literacy in secondary schools, we can open ourselves up to learning and growth as educators. This will allow us to create a classroom environment where all students can reach their hidden potential. 

It's important to challenge beliefs such as the reliance on context clues for good readers, the idea that it's too late to teach a child to read if foundational skills weren't learned in elementary school, and the notion that learning styles support learning. These beliefs hinder our progress toward better literacy outcomes. According to Grant in his book "Think Again," educators should think like scientists. Instead of immediately sticking to an opinion, we should treat our emerging view as a hunch or a hypothesis and test it using data. 

Reading is a complex process involving many cognitive and linguistic processes that are influenced by instruction and practice opportunities. As educators, we must be committed to understanding the sciences of reading, learning, and teaching to improve literacy outcomes for all.

About the Author

For more than three decades, Jeanne Schopf, M.Ed., NBCT, C-SLDI, has devoted herself to enriching the lives of children as an educator and a prominent figure in state and national literacy. With a wealth of experience as a K–9 teacher, literacy coach, reading specialist, and certified dyslexia interventionist, she has made a tangible difference in both primary and secondary education. Schopf wholeheartedly dedicates herself to education and literacy leadership. Her extensive expertise and understanding of literacy, leadership, and systemic change bring immense value to the teachers she mentors and the school leaders she guides as they work toward transforming their schools. As a certified John Maxwell speaker, trainer, and coach, Schopf is committed to empowering individuals by recognizing their potential, forging connections, and igniting lasting change. Her mission is to assist all educators and leaders in establishing Pathways Towards Literacy in their schools. Schopf is an independent contractor for the Transformative Reading Teacher Group, CORE Learning, and 95 Percent Group.