Connections Essay #2
March 22, 1999
Recently in one of my classes we were presented with different techniques for remediating reading disorders. This sparked a discussion of how children are usually taught to read using either phonics or sight vocabulary training, two completely different methods. These two methods of reading instruction have been the subjects of many debates and have taken turns being the favored method through many fickled cycles in education. As it turned out, about half of our class had been taught to read using one method, and half had been taught using the other, and all of us had become successful readers. This discussion led me to ponder how knowledge gained by learning individual words by sight, without learning phonics, could transfer to learning new, unfamiliar words.
Pressley and McCormick point out that if one doesn’t have the knowledge base necessary to solve a problem (i.e. not knowing the words in a given text), one needs strategies to decode the new information (or the ability to break down the new words phonetically). It doesn’t seem that learning to read by increasing sight vocabulary would naturally translate (or transfer) to increasing decoding strategies. Van Lehn notes that individuals may be easily misled by surface similarities. It seems that a child learning to read by increasing sight vocabulary would make many mistakes when encountering new words, especially words that appear similar in size and shape when viewing their surface similarities. If the suggestion that successful transfer depends on the amount of similar information shared by the training and the transfer task indeed has merit, the learning of sight vocabulary would probably not transfer well to learning strategies for phonetic decoding.
These thoughts came to life when I started tutoring a first grade child who is behind with basic reading skills. Her teacher reported that her reading has improved greatly since joining the Reading Recovery program. When the child read to me from one of her assigned books, her performance was practically flawless. When I showed her some of the same words she had just read on flashcards, she was unable to recognize them out of context. She also lacked any strategies for decoding new or even familiar words phonetically. My impression of her reading skills was that she was able to memorize simple words in a familiar book, and could recognize some words by shape and size when they were in a familiar context. Van Lehn suggests that using memory retrieval instead of mental calculations can decrease transfer. It stands to reason that if the student were relying on her memory rather than decoding strategies, her ability to transfer reading skills to new material would be diminished. As Perkins and Solomon point out, transfer doesn’t occur if knowledge is too context specific. It would appear that the basic knowledge she has acquired for reading thus far is too local to be generalized.
While I was thinking critically about how this child had been taught to read, and how she seemed to be struggling more than necessary because she had not been given strategies to decode words phonetically, I realized that this type of training had provided something valuable: motivation. This particular child missed many days of school last year and comes from a difficult home situation where she may receive little or no encouragement with her schoolwork. She had gone from reading absolutely nothing to reading short picture books in a matter of months, and she was delighted with herself. She read to me proudly and volunteered to read other books to me. Pressley and McCormick note that a feeling of self-efficacy encourages students that it is possible to learn a task, and motivates them to attempt new tasks in the same domain. This was evident with this child, as she was willing to attempt many new word games I presented and was not easily discouraged by her failures.
With this result in mind, one might consider the element of motivation to be more important in learning a task than its immediate transferability. This reminded me of a relevant experience I had had when first taking guitar lessons. In the first few months, my instructor drew diagrams of how to make a few chords, and taught me simple songs I could play with those chords. In fact, I left the very first lesson being able to play a short song. Training on the details of music theory and location of notes on the neck of the guitar came later. Now when I look back on the experience, I realize that this technique was probably used to spark some motivation in me, as learning a new instrument is a daunting task (especially for adults). As a result of this positive experience, I continued with my lessons, even when it was time to learn the difficult technical information. I had experienced a taste of what it is like to make music, and I was motivated to go on.
This idea of focusing on instilling motivation is directly related to the discussion in our own class about short-term vs. long-term effects of instruction. Druckman & Bjork suggest that tasks that are less complex and lacking in contextual variety will be easier to learn in the short-term. However tasks that do possess these qualities may depress short-term learning effects, but will enhance generalization, long-term retention and transfer. So by teaching a student a simple task which is easy to master, motivation may be enhanced for that student. But by not teaching a more complex form of the task and not offering training in a variety of contexts, the student may not be as successful at retaining and transferring that skill. Apparently there is a trade-off.
Most current instructional theories indicate that teaching strategies should be structured to accommodate the goals of the learning experience. It stands to reason that some instructional situations, such as the tutoring example above, require an emphasis on immediate motivation over effective learning strategies for the long term. If the child I am tutoring had not been provided with an immediate opportunity to be successful with her reading, she may have not developed levels of self-esteem and motivation necessary for her to attempt new challenges.
It seems that there must be a compromise between enhancing effective short-term and long-term learning effects, while still preserving an adequate level of motivation. Shuell suggests that learning depends on an emphasis on understanding rather than just task performance. Retention and transfer of a skill are enhanced when the student possesses an understanding of the strategy being taught. A student who has a limited knowledge base of recognizable words does not necessarily understand the process of reading that is generalizable. Pintrich et al note that teaching general strategies as well as specific procedures could facilitate transfer. The elaboration theory model proposed by Reigeluth presents as a possible compromise. This approach, sometimes compared to a zoom lens, integrates a general view of learning content with specific details, moving back and forth between these two perspectives, allowing for practice in both areas.
It seems that the best method for teaching reading skills would be to combine the teaching of phonetic strategies with the teaching of individual words that children can easily recognize without decoding. With this approach the child would gain motivation from being able to read a few words in a short period of time, while also learning a generalizable, transferable strategy to use with new words. One should also consider that teachers might find they have different goals for different students, whether they are immediate or long-term, and this might affect the amount of emphasis put upon one teaching method over another. Additionally, as Pintrich et al state, not all strategies work for all children and individual differences with respect to the efficacy of certain strategies should also be considered. Keeping all of these things in mind, it should be possible to create a reading program that effectively combines these two popular methods of reading instruction, rather than debating about which one is superior to the other.