Pedagogical Constructivism in New Zealand Literacy Education: A Flawed Approach to Teaching Reading

  • William E. Tunmer
  • Keith T. Greaney
  • Jane E. Prochnow
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Excellence and Equity in Global Education book series (EXE)

Abstract

In this chapter, we argue that no progress has been made in reducing the literacy achievement gap in New Zealand because the constructivist, multiple cues model of reading adopted by the MoE is fundamentally flawed. The chapter is divided into three sections. The first section provides an overview of the development of pedagogical constructivism in New Zealand literacy education. The second section summarizes arguments and evidence against the constructivist, multiple cues model of learning to read. The third section argues that explicit instruction in word analysis skills and strategies is helpful for all children and crucial for some, most notably struggling readers and children with limited reading-related knowledge, skills, and experiences at school entry.

Keywords

Phonological Awareness Phonemic Awareness Sentence Context Unknown Word Unfamiliar Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, M. J. (1991). Why not phonics and whole language? In W. Ellis (Ed.), All Language and the Creation of Literacy (pp. 40–53). Baltimore, MD: Orton Society.Google Scholar
  2. Akamatsu, N. (2006). Literacy acquisition in Japanese-English bilinguals. In M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of Orthography and Literacy (pp. 481–496). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Brady, S. (2011). Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes: Indications from post-NRP research. In S. Brady, D. Braze, & C. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining Individual Differences in Reading: Theory and Evidence (pp. 69–96). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bryant, P. (2002). Children’s thoughts about reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapman, J. W., Tunmer, W. E., & Prochnow, J. E. (2001). Does success in the Reading Recovery program depend on developing proficiency in phonological processing skills? A longitudinal study in a whole language instructional context. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 141–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming Literate: The Construction of Inner Control. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  7. Clay, M. M. (1998). An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  8. Clay, M. M. (2000). Running Records for Classroom Teachers. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  9. Clay, M. M. (2005a). Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals. Part One: Why? When? And How? Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  10. Clay, M. M. (2005b). Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals. Part Two: Teaching Procedures. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  11. Connelly, V., Johnston, R., & Thompson, G. B. (2001). The effects of phonics instruction on the reading comprehension of beginning readers. Reading and Writing, 14, 423–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Connor, C. M., Morrison, R J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 305–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Department of Education. (2010). The New Conceptual Framework for Teaching Reading: The “simple view of reading”. Retrieved from http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/20162.Google Scholar
  14. Ehri, L.C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The Science of Reading: A Handbook (pp. 135–154). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foulin, J. N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read? Reading and Writing, 18, 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillon, G. T. (2004). Phonological Awareness: From Research to Practice. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gough, P. B. (1983). Context, form and interaction. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and Language Processes (pp. 203–211). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gough, P. B., & Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gough, P. B., Juel, C, & Griffith, P. L. (1992). Reading, spelling, and the orthographic cipher. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading Acquisition (pp. 35–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greaney, K. T. (2001). An investigation of teacher preferences for word identification strategies. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 24, 21–30.Google Scholar
  24. Greaney, K. T. (2011). The multiple cues or “searchlights” word reading theory: Implications for Reading Recovery. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 4, 15–19.Google Scholar
  25. Greaney, K. T., & Ryder, J. (2005). Evidence of phonological-based word identification deficits among children with reading difficulties. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 2–6.Google Scholar
  26. Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, & P. Mosenthal (Eds), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2, pp. 759–788). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  29. Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 458–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liberman, I. Y., & Liberman, A. M. (1992). Whole language versus code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading acquisition. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading Acquisition (pp. 343–366). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Ministry of Education. (1996). The Learner as a Reader. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. Ministry of Education. (1997). Reading and Beyond. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media Ltd.Google Scholar
  33. Ministry of Education. (2003a). Effective Literacy Practice in Years 1 to 4. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media Ltd.Google Scholar
  34. Ministry of Education. (2003b). Sound Sense: Phonics and Phonological Awareness. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media Ltd.Google Scholar
  35. Ministry of Education. (2009). Reading and Writing Standards for Years 1–8. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media Ltd.Google Scholar
  36. National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. (2005). Teaching Reading. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training.Google Scholar
  37. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Children to Read. An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute for Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
  38. New Zealand Department of Education. (1985). Reading in Junior Classes. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.Google Scholar
  39. Nicholson, T. (1991). Do children read words better in context or in lists? A classic study revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 444–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nicholson, T. (1999). Literacy in the family and society. In G. B. Thompson & T. Nicholson (Eds.), Learning to Read: Beyond Phonics and Whole Language (pp. 1–22). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper Perennial.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pressley, M. (2006). Reading Instruction that Works: The Case for Balanced Teaching. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rose, J. (2006). Independent Review of the Teaching of Early Reading: Pinal Report. London: Department of Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  44. Ryder, J. E, Tunmer, W. E., & Greaney, K. T. (2008). Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemically-based decoding skills as an intervention strategy for struggling readers in whole language classrooms. Reading and Writing, 21, 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scarborough, H. S., & Brady, S. A. (2002). Toward a common terminology for talking about speech and reading: A glossary of the “Phon” words and some related terms. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 299–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shankweiler, D., & Fowler, A. E. (2004). Questions people ask about the role of phonological processes in learning to read. Reading and Writing, 30, 483–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and sell-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, J. W. A., & Elley, W. B. (1994). Learning to Read in New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: Longman Paul.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, J. W. A., & Elley, W. B. (1997). How Children Learn to Read. Auckland, New Zealand: Longman.Google Scholar
  50. Snow, C. E., & Juel, C. (2005). Teaching children to read: What do we know about how to do it? In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The Science of Reading: A Handbook (pp. 501–520). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stanovich, K. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stanovich, K. (1984). The interactive-compensatory model or reading: A confluence of developmental, experimental and educational psychology. Remedial and Special Education. 5, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 340–406.Google Scholar
  54. Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on Reading: An Introduction to Theories and Models. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  55. Tunmer, W. E., & Arrow, A. W. (2013). Reading: Phonics instruction. In J. Hattie & E. Anderman (Eds.), International Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 316–319). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (1998). Language prediction skill, phonological recoding ability and beginning reading. In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and Spelling: Development and Disorder (pp. 33–67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2002). The relation of beginning readers’ reported word identification strategies to reading achievement, reading-related skills, and academic sell-perceptions. Reading and Writing, 15, 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012a). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 122–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012b). The Simple View of Reading redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tunmer, W. E., Chapman, J. W., & Prochnow, J. E. (2003). Preventing negative Matthew effects in at-risk readers: A retrospective study. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and Remediating Reading Difficulties: Bringing Science to Scale (pp. 121–163). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  61. Tunmer, W. E., & Greaney, K. T. (2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. (1993). Components of variance models of language-related lactors in reading disability: A conceptual overview. In M. Joshi & C. K. Leong (Eds.), Reading Disabilities: Diagnosis and Component Processes (pp. 135–173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tunmer, W. E., & Nicholson, T.(2011). The development and teaching of word recognition skill. In M. L.Kamil, P. D.Pearson, E. B.Moje, & P.Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 4, pp. 405–431). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Vellutino, R R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J., & Chen, S. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Venezky, R. L. (1999). The American Way of Spelling: The Structure and Origins of American English Orthography. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  66. Wilkinson, I. A. G., Freebody, P., & Elkins, J. (2000). Reading research in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 3–16). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© William E. Tunmer, Keith T. Greaney, and Jane E. Prochnow 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • William E. Tunmer
  • Keith T. Greaney
  • Jane E. Prochnow

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations