A collection of thoughts and responses having to do with the teaching of reading and writing.
一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一
January 2, 2021
This post is in response to an article in Nautilus, "Reading: That Strange and Uniquely Human Thing," by Lydia Wilson. (http://nautil.us/issue/94/evolving/reading-that-strange-and-uniquely-human-thing)
Something that is missing from this article and discussion is the theory of orthographic mapping, originated by researcher Dr. Linnea Ehri, which has been repeatedly refined and affirmed by decades of research, so that it has reached something close to scientific consensus. Orthographic mapping describes the process whereby words that at first must be sounded out become words that are automatically recognized without the need for sounding out. Orthographic mapping explains how the dual routes from text to word recognition are connected. The two routes of text-to-word recognition are decoding, which we all do when we encounter an unfamiliar word, and automatic recognition, which makes fluent reading possible. These research-based definitions of the two routes differ from the author's description of the two "tributaries" as being correlated with sound and vision.
The process of orthographic mapping involves connecting the spelling of a printed word with the individual sounds within the spoken word, and vice versa. For typical students of reading in English, once they have understood the alphabetic principal (that letters are essentially symbols for sounds -- and also morphemes, which is a separate layer of complexity) and developed the skill of blending sounds in sequence, only as few as 3 to 5 readings/spellings of a word are sufficient for the word to be permanently mapped into the word-form area of the brain. Interestingly, once words are orthographically mapped, automatic recognition cannot be suppressed. The brain of a proficient reader comprehends a printed word faster than a picture depicting the word. A proficient reader does make use of both routes -- instant recognition of words that have been mapped, and decoding of unfamiliar words. We have to understand that, on a fundamental level, both routes of reading are tied to phonology. The phonological processor is engaged whether the reader is decoding a word or recognizing it automatically. All reading involves both visual and sound processing, but it is a mistake to think that proficient reading is primarily visual. The visual input is mapped onto the phonological character of spoken words, spoken words being the fundamental elements of language.
But if a student lacks phonemic proficiency to an advanced level (the ability to detect and manipulate individual sounds -- phonemes -- within spoken words), or lacks an understanding of how phonemes are represented by letters or how to blend phonemes into spoken words (in other words, if they can't sound out), they will be unable to develop a store of instantly recognized words. They will be unable to use the second route, because they lack the skills that underlie orthographic mapping. Any student who cannot yet decode or encode words will be unable to develop a store of automatically recognized words. All words, to be learned, have to be orthographically mapped, not memorized visually.
Parenthetically, these underlying skills of phonemic and phonics proficiency can be taught, but they are often NOT taught in schools in the U.S., as schools here are still under the sway of whole language/balanced literacy programs created by folks like Marie Clay, Fountas and Pinnell, and Lucy Calkins. Those programs are not supported by the last two or three decades of reading research, but, as has become clear, a strong anti-science wind continues to blows through the U.S., even in the field of education. On the other hand, in the U.K., more and more schools are teaching phonics in the early grades, which, along with instruction in other areas of literacy, such as phonology, fluency, syntax, vocabulary, and comprehension, should lead to improved academic skills. Perhaps then the U.S. will take note.
Now to address Dr. Twomy’s proposal. He is quoted:
"[W]e could be taught to use more of the tributaries involved, as dyslexic readers seem to be doing to compensate for their difficulties. If non-dyslexic readers of phonetic scripts, which are usually taught initially through sound-based learning, were also encouraged to learn the word shapes from the start; if those learning pictographic characters chanted them out loud as well as copying them out to memorize them; who knows what new creativity would be unleashed?"
Dr.
Twomy seems to have forgotten that the English writing system does not encode
spoken words via shape. For the majority of students, it is ineffective to
teach reading by focusing on word shape rather than letters. Decades of
research have shown that phonics instruction is more effective than "whole
word" instruction, where students are encouraged to focus on the shapes of
words rather than the spellings. Whole word instruction relies on visual memory
to learn words. The trouble is that visual memory is limited. It can hold only
a fraction of the words in the English lexicon. In addition, English words are
not consistent in their shape. Both <help> and <HELP> represent the
same word, as does
H
e
L
p.
As well, words in English often share shapes without sharing meaning: consider
<bald>, <bold>, <hold>, and <held>. Readers must attend
to each letter in order to recognize the word correctly. Learning words by
writing their shapes and chanting them is extremely inefficient and will limit
the number of words a student can learn.
The disproven theory of whole word instruction is supported again in this article by Dr. Thomas Hope, who is referenced with the idea that "[r]eaders in an alphabetic system have to learn the equivalent of characters: Learning the shape of a word is basically the same job as extracting the meaning from a pictographic character." Dr. Hope expresses a common misunderstanding that arises when adults watch children learn to read. Adults can't remember what it was like to not instantly recognize most words we encounter, and the process by which words become automatic is not readily apparent or intuitive. It *seems* that words are recognized visually, but in fact, in the brain, printed words are recognized as mapping sound-wise onto spoken words. Thus learning the shape of an alphabetic word is NOT the same as extracting meaning from a pictograph. The English writing system is a morpho-phonological system, not a pictographic system.
It is fascinating to consider how much the process of learning Chinese can inform us about the process of learning English -- and vice versa. Much research is still required to understand what is different and similar between learning alphabetic and pictographic print systems. But it is unhelpful to cling to scientifically unsupported theories about learning to read in English such as Dr. Twomy and Dr. Hope espouse.
The ideas expressed above are drawn from the following researchers' work:Linnea Ehri
Louisa Moats
David Kilpatrick
Mark Seidenberg
Lyn Stone
and many others!
Lauren Thompson
Brooklyn, NY
CERI Certified Structured Literacy Dyslexia Practitioner
CAS Literacy and Language, MGH IHP
