Timothy Shanahan, Distinguished Professor, recently wrote a blog entitled, “Should We Teach with Decodable Text,” which caused a Tweetstorm on Twitter and lots of discussion in the Dyslexia community. Why? What exactly is decodable text and why should it be controversial? According to Shanahan, “This is not a highly researched topic. There have been only a handful of studies into the effectiveness of decodable texts since the term was first used back in the 1980s. And, truth be told, they are kind of [a] mess; with little evident agreement about what decodable text is, what it should be compared with, and what outcomes we should expect to derive from it.”
So what is decodable text?
Decodable text offers beginning and/or struggling readers a chance to practice the phonics skills they have already been taught using connected text. Perhaps the definition of “decodable” could or should be tightened up, but its purpose is clear; decodable books focus on spelling patterns that the reader can decode given his or her existing knowledge of letter and sound correspondences. Decodable readers usually follow a specific sequence of skills and instructional procedures that cumulatively develop with each book. Quality decodable books will not only use simple short vowel words, they will reflect growth into advanced code knowledge and utilize vowel digraphs (vowel teams) and multisyllabic words. The better book series will introduce one or two new concepts at a time while offering lots of practice opportunities with simpler patterns. The structure will be apparent to anyone with or without a teaching degree, and it becomes easy to pinpoint skill deficits. Decodable text is only decodable if children have been taught that particular letter pattern. Decodable text would not (or should not) be handed to a child without the child having first been taught the letter and sound correspondences.
The goal should be to move children into authentic books they can handle independently. Phonics proponents feel that until beginner or struggling readers are ready to read authentic text, they should be given reading material that they can handle themselves without being forced into using ineffective strategies such as guessing, using pictures, or using cues based on context. Phonics instruction is more effective when children have immediate opportunities to apply what they learned to their reading, and decodable books facilitate this learning. Their easily observable progress will determine how long they remain in decodable text.
Contrary to Shanahan’s assertion, the use of decodable text was researched thoroughly. Perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that the term “decodable” was not around at the time. In the 1960s, the Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Development and Research (SWRL) was one of a number of educational laboratories charged with bringing research-based programs and procedures to schools. In 1972, SWRL partnered with Ginn and Company to publish the early decodable readers, the Beginning Reading Program (BRP), better known as the “I See Sam books.” The federally-funded research on these little “decodable” books has been in the public domain for years, and their positive results can be found quite easily in any search. This program became the focus of SWRL’s efforts for fifteen years! This would qualify as thoroughly researched by anyone’s standards. “The R&D effort required to design, develop, and field test the Program was, and still remains, unprecedented.” (Durkin, 1990). The studies clearly indicate that teaching kindergarten children using BRP was successful. Children from all backgrounds, including minorities and the disadvantaged, became proficient beginner readers with only 20 to 30 minutes of daily instructional time devoted to teaching reading. Although most children who entered kindergarten with reading skills typically came from advantaged backgrounds, virtually all children were reading by the end of the year. Students who learned to read in kindergarten were found to be superior in reading skills and retained their advantage through high school.
As far as decodable books being a “mess,” it is true that some books are poorly developed, but the aforementioned BRP readers were carefully researched and designed with specific content and sequencing of sounds and letters to help children “gain initial competence in reading.” (Adams, 1990). The BRP books illustrate a superior design structure compared to others that rush through the code or stay in short words for too long. In the BRP books, phonics was taught at the same time as the books were presented, so there was no mistaking the value of its content. Decodable books should be “compared with” what beginning and struggling readers usually receive today, either leveled books or controlled readers. For a typical reader, phonics instruction combined with leveled books for Guided Reading will not harm them, and many children will begin to generalize patterns to non-decodable books easily. The amount of phonics introduced would be sufficient for such children. For the struggling reader, however, decodable books can make a huge difference because they provide much more steady practice. The goal is to break bad habits while forming new habits. The point of the decodable books is for children to apply what they learn and see if the code is being retained.
According to Shanahan, we are robbing children of the opportunity to make “cognitive calculations” by keeping children in decodable text. In other words, he implies many children can begin to internalize the alphabetic principle without the decodable text, or, at least, with very little practice. For a typical reader this might be true, but can a dyslexic child or a struggling reader make these “cognitive calculations”? Practitioners in the trenches, who work with such children, KNOW THAT THIS WOULD BE UNUSUAL TO SAY THE LEAST. Transfer and generalizations of code knowledge are significant leaps that frequently take time and intensive practice to develop. We do not keep children in decodable text if they can easily move through the sequence of skills required. Nobody wants children to only receive phonics and controlled, stilted language instruction. This is the false argument Whole Language proponents use to undermine phonics advocates.
Children should be exposed to more than decodable text – no argument there. But how? Shared reading and reading aloud to children are both necessary for children to build language and vocabulary. Dr. Shanahan does point out that decodable text has a place, but it should be “severely limited,” without giving specific alternatives. We can only get a hint of what he must be thinking by looking at the basal reader series he has authored for McGraw-Hill. In the meantime, school districts will interpret his blog to suit their needs, and this can be unfortunate for all the children in need of decodable books.
Faith Borkowsky, Founder of High Five Literacy and Academic Coaching, is a Certified Wilson Dyslexia Practitioner, is Orton-Gillingham trained, and has extensive training and experience in a number of other research-based, peer-reviewed programs that have produced positive gains for students with dyslexia, auditory processing disorder, ADD/ADHD, and a host of learning difficulties. Her book, Failing Students or Failing Schools? A Parent’s Guide to Reading Instruction and Intervention, is available on Barnes and Noble https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/failing-students-or-failing-schools-faith-borkowsky/1128896546 and Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/1937615456/
9 Comments. Leave new
Excellent. Thank you for this well-written piece. You’ve have done a great job explaining decodable text and why it is important for beginning readers and those who struggle. I am a teacher in the trenches who has tried very hard for many years to make sure I am following best evidence with regard to teaching my struggling students to read. Every book or article I have read on the topic, every training or lecture I have attended regarding helping struggling and beginning readers, recommends the use of decodable text in the way you describe above. After all of the study I have done to make sure I am giving my students the kind of expert, evidence-based instruction they need, it was very confusing and disconcerting to read Dr. Shanahan’s blog post saying to “severely limit” decodable text. When following best practice from evidence, it is difficult to get through conflicting advice from the “experts.” I appreciate your post very much because it explains in much better detail than Dr. Shanahan, what decodable text are, why they are important and also how they should be used appropriately when teaching students to read. No, we don’t leave students in decodable text if they are able to develop the ability to infer phonics patterns quickly, the goal is always to move them to authentic text. But, many many children need much more practice with these patterns and decodable text are exactly what they need for that practice. That is not to say that decodables are the only text our students are exposed to, as you point out. I also appreciate how you explain why some programs can be better than others; I have seen decodable programs that go to slow and to fast in their scope and sequence, as you describe. Thank you for taking the time to address this important issue. I can now move on knowing that when I teach my beginning and struggling students with quality decodable text, I am following best practice, which is the goal of any dedicated, passionate teacher of reading.
Thanks for clarifying this. And for providing further evidence that the 70s were a Golden Age
We have found our Concepts About Print scores at the beginning of 1st grade to be lower this year than ever before. However, we are delighted that many of them have intact PA skills! We attribute that to our Kinders from last year receiving heavier PA and phonics instruction, but less real books in their hands. Where shared reading and reading aloud are essential, they are simply not enough for children to learn other important concepts (page turning, 1-1 match, etc.) that need practice with little hands on little books. As far as good decodables go, I have found the decodable texts from Fly Leaf Publishing to be excellent!
Thanks for pointing me towards the studies about the I See Sam series. I didn’t know about that…I want to check that out.
Please clarify this confusion for me! I am an early ed. teacher. I am a huge supporter of phonics instruction… I believe beginning readers should be reading decodable text and focusing heavily on word work during small guided reading groups… I don’t believe honestly in the Fountas and Pinnell leveled reading system. I feel it relies too heavily on the 3 cueing system, teaching kids to rely on guess work to read. On that note, when is it appropriate to be having kids read independently those high interest books, those tell-tale classics, such as Piggie and Gerald, Fly Guy, etc. I always believed in allowing kids to enjoy high interest texts, however I don’t want to encourage unpredictable reading strategy usage to tend to these texts… I always believed that young readers would get their exposure to higher level comprehension thinking through read alouds as mentioned and shared readings. But What about those book boxes? Should there be a mix of high interest texts that the students clearly cant read on their own as well as decodable text, or should it really be just decodable text until the students have a firmer grasp on the phonetic system? Thank you for the clarificiation!
From my experience, struggling readers need lots of practice with decodable books before making the transition. If high interest books are used, just watch that children are not making errors without corrective feedback.
No scientist would accept that evidence as proof of the effectiveness of decodable text. The effects of that part of the intervention was not isolated. You’re doing the same thing that Reading Recovery does … pretending that an overall result indicates that all of the components of the intervention were active ingredients. Silly.
Decodables should be trademarked and their use should specified with a phonics curriculum they are meant to support. When they are libraries you need a very informed adult to pick out the right one. Let’s use them correctly.
Let’s clarify both the definition, purpose, and system before we all run to the stores to purchase anything that is labeled “decodable reader”. Remember when publishers started labeling their books by reading level? “Emergent Reader” “Preschool Reader” “Beginning Reader” “Primary Book” “Pre-K Reader” and the list goes on. What defines each label? Very confusing for parents and uninformed educators. This is what is happening with the “decodable reader” label. AGAIN, teachers need to be smarter than the programs. I am in FULL SUPPORT of explicit and SYSTEMATIC phonics instruction – using decodable readers as a bridge from controlled reading to authentic readers is necessary for children who are struggling. Time and time again I see my students stepping out of decodable readers on their own and taking risks…they grab nondecodable readers off the shelf and give them a try. The motivation and confidence comes from within the child. They know there is a code and they can make that leap. When they get to an unknown word they realize that there is an explanation for the spelling. Most likely there is a new phonogram or spelling rule that will help them decode the word…mini-lesson time!