Running Head: NEITHER SEPARATE NOR EQUAL 1

Neither Separate Nor Equal: Research Based Integration in Literacy Instruction

Amelia L. Jennings

Providence Christian College

NEITHER SEPARATE NOR EQUAL 2

Abstract:

This paper will review the book, A Balanced Approach to Beginning Reading Instruction: A

Synthesis of Six Major U. S. Research Studies, with the intention of drawing conclusions from

research about what a balanced approach to instruction should include and how effective it is. It

will demonstrate the need for teacher education, involvement, and training in various methods.

The book supplies several suggestions for individual and corporate professional development,

and sheds light on other areas of interest to educators to pursue in more depth. Teaching phonics,

phonemic awareness, and comprehension do not need to be separated in the classroom, and equal

proportions of each is not most effective to instruct students from the variety of socioeconomic

backgrounds represented in U.S. schools today.

Keywords: balanced, literacy, instruction, integration, phonics

NEITHER SEPARATE NOR EQUAL 3

A Balanced Approach to Beginning Reading Instruction: A Synthesis of Six Major U. S.

Research Studies compiles research from six studies between 1962 and 1998 that focused on

what kinds of literacy instruction is successful in US public schools. The goal of the book is to

provide the research so that teachers can develop their own definition of balanced instruction and

to convince teachers of the importance of understanding the process of learning to read in order

to aid teachers in how their instruction is formed. The conclusions of these studies inform what

methods and principles comprise balanced instruction for increased achievement in the

classroom. It also provides compelling evidence for a need for teacher training and offers insight

into some methods are effective for both struggling and non-struggling emergent readers. This

connects directly and indirectly with what we have been learning in our class.

Over the course of observing the studies, Cowen proves a general definition of balanced

instruction to be just that: more integrative, featuring all different effective approaches in

moderation, with all areas of understanding developed (Cowen, 2003 p.5). It is not a fixed

solution or pre-measured mix (p. xi). In one of the studies, the expert points out that, in order

answer the question of what works for literacy, it is imperative to understand the process of

learning literacy from a psychological standpoint (p. 43). Another report compared the reading

process to an orchestra with multiple different instruments playing their parts simultaneously (p.

35). Both get at what Cowen states at the outset: decoding, comprehending, spelling, vocabulary,

sight words, fluency, context/structure understanding, and motivation all play a part in the

reading process and instruction must address them all (p. 2). This is consistent with what we

defined in class, that reading is more than just decoding. A multifaceted issue demands a

multifaceted solution, so even before examining the research about what works, it seems logical

to approach reading instruction in a balanced manner. According to Spiegel, the foundations of a

NEITHER SEPARATE NOR EQUAL 4

balanced approach to instruction include being research based, having informed and flexible

teachers, and understanding literacy in a comprehensive way (p. 4). By looking to the research in

both class and in this book, I have begun to develop this view of learning literacy in a flexible

way.

Both the First-Grade Studies by Bond and Dykstra and Challs study on early reading set

out to address concern over how American literacy in public schools competed with the Russian

education system. Out of these politically prompted studies emerged evidence for not one

particular approach to reading, but a balanced approach to instruction. When the First-Grade

Studies examined the success of students entering with evidence of low literacy readiness, the

variation in levels of success pointed to no particular unifying factor (p. 18). The conclusion was

that no specific method is most effective (p. 19). What this highlights, is that children are not

blank slates to be filled with any specific method, the teacher must establish a foundation of

alphabetic knowledge, and phonemic awareness in order to help the students succeed in learning

to read (p. 19). This points to a more balanced view in a true sense of the word, because it

requires a more complex and comprehensive approach because children learn in a variety of

ways (p. 17).

When Chall conducted her investigation, she was dealing with the question of whether

decoding or meaning is most effective. She did not support a well balanced view, she supported

systematic phonics, however, she did not completely rule out the inclusion of instructing for

meaning (p. 23). She said that code recognition is the first step in reading, and once students

recognize codes, they can move to focusing on reading (p. 26). This appears to be more

balanced, but it projects a false dichotomy between code and meaning approaches (p. 28). With

Challs method, a teacher would have students read text that they did not understand solely
NEITHER SEPARATE NOR EQUAL 5

looking to decode, but, as we learned in class, while this seems like fluent reading, a portion of

fluency must involve comprehension.

What both the First Grade Studies and Challs research highlight is the success of

systematic phonics for all students, regardless of factors such as socioeconomic status (pp. 20,

23). Chall even pointed out that, as long as teachers avoid dull drills, students are just as excited

to learn the rules of reading as they are to hear stories catered to their interests (p. 29). Both the

results and the student motivation speak for themselves. Anderson builds on this by calling for

phonics only in the early grades, but intensive and straightforward (p. 31). Within phonics

instruction there would even be balance, as instruction should include a blend of isolated skills,

blending and pattern recognition, and contextual skills (p. 32). Though reading must include

more than decoding in order to establish meaning, it certainly plays a part in the process.

Chall was the first to show from research and advocate for higher volume and difficulty

of reading as part of literacy instruction (p. 24). This is a point that but the Response to

Intervention studies and other class material and discussion has stressed. Two factors support this

call for more and harder reading. In order to improve, it is imperative to practice any new skill,

including the various skills at work in reading. It is also important to scaffold beyond basic skills

to increase learning. Adams also advocates for more in-class reading, though his focus is on

reading aloud in order to simultaneously teach word recognition, concepts of print, story

structure, and vocabulary (p. 43). His point was that phonics is not enough, rather, students need

to learn how to read for meaning, which cannot happen without text (p. 44). His studies on

emergent and beginning readers highlights and spells out the issue that the First Grade Studies

failed to take into account; early experiences of text have an impact on the literacy learning

process, and different family or community situations affect those experiences. Because of this,
NEITHER SEPARATE NOR EQUAL 6

the literacy gap starts well before schooling, and students in lower socioeconomic status families

tend to have less exposure to text (p. 46). They should have been exposed to plenty of reading

aloud, but without it they must catch up on concepts of print, speech, phonemic concepts of onset

and rime, and meaning. For the sake of students who need to develop those skills, Adams calls

for more of an emphasis on phonemic principles in early instruction over phonics. They need it,

those who know the rules will only benefit from the scaffolding, and the consistency of

phonemes is far less likely to frustrate than phonics rules with exceptions (p. 45). Adams is not

the only one to note the need for working phonemic knowledge, vocabulary, and motivation or at

least interest in reading, as the Preventing Reading Difficulties studies mention this as well (p.

53). The National Reading Panel also calls for phonemic awareness instruction, as well as

instruction in alphabetics (p. 64).

Challs point in raising the volume and difficulty of classroom reading, aloud or

independent, was directed to some degree to reforming basal readers (p. 25). She found that

decoding based on phonics rules was more successful than the basal readers at the time (p. 24).

The findings of the National Reading Panel support her call for reading, as, in addition to calling

for integrated phonics, it raises the issue of fluency. We defined fluency as reading quickly with

expression and understanding of meaning. The National Reading Panel connected fluency with

comprehension as well, and identified fluency with speed in either recognizing to read silently or

reading aloud (p. 67). It also supported high teacher involvement in student reading, including

instruction and feedback, repeated (choral) reading, guided reading, student self assessment, and

student-teacher conferencing, along with assessments (pp. 67-68). This is consistent and

supported today by the Qualitative Reading Inventory assessments we discussed and practiced in

class. It seems that teachers could also include close reading in this bundle of interactive reading.
NEITHER SEPARATE NOR EQUAL 7

Not only does interactive reading creative motivation for students, but it helps them gain and

practice comprehension strategies with teacher guidance. For this reason, it is fair to say with

Bond and Dykstra, as well as the Response to Intervention, that the teachers make the difference

and need training and understanding more than they need new materials (p. 13).

Adams proposes a more balanced view on the discussion than Chall did, as he responded

to Californias swing to whole language curriculum and a coincidentally low NAEP score that

resulted in a move back to basal readers (p. 40). His stance on phonics and whole reading

involves more focus on setting principles and for teachers on instruction for both code and

meaning, especially since the purpose of reading is gain comprehension (pp 40-41). He

examined how brain processors handle literacy, from letter sequencing to phonological mapping,

to meaning and contest (p. 47). From that, he too determined a balanced instruction best helps

struggling readers, which he defines as an integration of principles in a coherent plan, including

explicit phonemic instruction and early inventive spelling (p. 54). Both inventive spelling and an

increased amount of writing times and opportunities are elements that Adams calls for which we

have discussed in class. They work because they test and practice student knowledge of

phonemic principles.

Overall, the findings of the studies in A Balanced Approach to Beginning Reading

Instruction arm Cowen to develop an argument for a balanced approach to instruction, including

a comprehensive set of skills, starting with alphabetic, phonemic, and phonics awareness, and

rich with reading and writing. This is consistent with our discussions in class. Several of the

issues the studies raised or failed to deal with present opportunities for further study and

professional development. To begin with, Cowens 2001 study presents compelling evidence for

teacher education in this topic (pp. 14-15). Cowen also suggests a few activities to measure
NEITHER SEPARATE NOR EQUAL 8

balance in existing systems, proposing assessment of a basal reading system or another

instructional series, and suggesting an exercise of coming up with an analogy for the reading

process to recall how the process works (p. 83). Cowen points out that the studies focus more on

the broad concepts of balanced instruction without dealing with particular methods or strategies,

which he explains with the fact that is no best way to teach children to read. The corollary to this

is that we need to continue to study the individual effectiveness of different strategies under the

principles of balance, and should be sure to incorporate many different strategies. Some

additional things which the book could have addressed include the importance of including

informational text specifically in the reading materials for instruction. Not only does this build

reading motivation in male students, but it builds vocabulary and understanding of text structure

as well. Within the discussion of phonics instruction, Cowen shows good support for balance in

that area specifically, but he only starts discussing the motivational aspects of phonics

instruction. From the National Reading Panel, he pulls the evidence for having fun with phonics

games (p. 73), but I think he misses the social aspect of learning. This not only affects what

methods teachers should employ in the classroom, but it also affects many motivational factors

of student grouping.

One aspect of balanced instruction that Cowen began to investigate was the use of

multiple mediums. As he discussed the findings of the National Reading Panel, he claimed that

there is not enough use of technology in the classroom yet to study its efficacy (p. 71). While

there certainly are remnants of teacher resistance in schools today, funding and modernity of

technology has pushed for more use. It is possible that new studies have emerged to discuss this

aspect of instruction. Either way, my own observations of technology for reading in the
NEITHER SEPARATE NOR EQUAL 9

classroom lead me to conclude that teachers can use this resource, like all the others, with

discretion as part of a comprehensive literacy program.

The overall takeaway of this research resonates with my philosophy of students and

curriculum: each student bears Gods image, which means they can each learn to read, but in

unique ways. As children reflect the unity and diversity of the triune God, teachers must offer

instruction in an integrated approach to reach and challenge each child. This requires constant

assessment, teacher training, a full set of literacy tools, and patient care and concern for students

at every level of beginning literacy.

NEITHER SEPARATE NOR EQUAL 10

Bibliography:

Cowen, John Edwin. (2003) A balanced approach to beginning reading instruction: a synthesis

of six major U.S. research studies. Newark: International Reading Association.