There is no settled Science. Pearson
Science of anything is not simple. Me.
Braided rivers are geological formations where water seeks it's path to it's lowest point. Water's path back to the origin is often invisible - one environmental cycle over another. The mind's acquisition and use of literacy are no different.
The Science of Reading movement often focuses on five pillars of the thing - phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension - each supported (and not supported) by a wide range of research that often doesn't say what we are told it says. Sigh.
There is no doubt in my mind that Scarborough's Reading Rope represents key concepts for literacy pedagogy. But it's not simple. But it's not a panacea for reading woes represented/misrepresented by NAEP and other tests. And the rope and pillars are not the end-all-be-all of scientifically based literacy instruction. And some of the interpretations and implementation in school is flat out nonsense - as the data show us. That simple view just doesn't play out equally in educating the masses or the individual humans we serve.
Reality is more like the braided rivers analogy - when a path of literacy is blocked - even if it is one of the five pillars, water goes around the obstacle. And the mind -the source of the flow - has multiple streams. All are valid.
As we've worked with the learners in Unity Learning Communities - the kids have told us these truths through their behaviors and explanations of their learning processes for literate life.
Here's their trajectory -
Decoding - encoding - word knowledge - fluency - comprehension = "failure" They've had THE science. They've had the kitchen sink as well. For some, they've encountered the Hoover Dam. Pinched off from the flow of thought - as with electricity - controlled by arbitrary needs for accountability and control over educational curriculum and philosophy.
Life has presented obstacles that made elements of this path insurmountable for some learners. And some of the problem is that other rivers are not allowed. Shameful.
What we are seeing is that poverty, trauma, and educational-theoretical malapropisms - and none of it is funny - have become obstacles to literacy acquisition.
There's other rivers out there, y'all. And our kids can travel them to destinations unknown. It's time to recognize the braided rivers - and complex - view of literacy.
These are some of the rivers that we have found in our explorations with learners:
Thinking and Reasoning: The decoding-encoding flow: learners hear and represent sounds. Where there are gaps in alphabetic principles and print concepts - what is the learner's response and bank of choices at the point of difficulty? When there are gaps in the principles and concepts - is the learner aware of the gap? When there are gaps - does the learner have resources for information search and discovery?
Thinking and Reasoning: Word knowledge: learners use semantics with breadth-depth, precision, links to schema, and contextual reasoning. The point here is derivational constancy in decision making about words. Inextricably woven through meaning and desire to communicate, create, curate, and critique, learners use synonyms, antonyms, word origin, context, emotional vocabulary, discipline specific terms and norms of language, registers, and tools synchronously and collectively. Words are never just sounds or terms hanging loose in a universe of nonsense. Yet - that's not how we've been taught to develop word knowledge.
Thinking and Reasoning: The approach to struggle. Our learners often believe that text doesn't make sense. They try to follow the rules, but know that in the end - they just don't get it. They believe something is wrong with them. They tell us that they try to do what they are told - but it never works or makes sense. As Nottingham tells us, learning is about Eureka! I found it. I found it. I found it. Learners have to make the path in their brain. No one can really make that road for them. No one can tell them about it. Learners are the ones doing the finding. And often, they don't find what we thought they should. And what they find for themselves is brilliant. Learners decide what it is. It is the learner that knows and can find the way around the struggle. Yet - that's not how we teach.
Thinking and Reasoning: Working memory and holding an idea for inspection. Blame whatever you'd like - but the reality is: learning requires a certain capacity to carry ideas, rotate them with cognitive manipulation and test theories about meaning, purpose, and use. But are we shortening or lengthening working memory with our approach? Are we showing learners how to hold ideas, store and retrieve them, or how to connect them to beauty and power? Are we showing learners how to manage emotions and complex situations that help mediate cognitive struggles? Do we show them how to activate background and schematic families of thoughts that overlap with ideas, concepts and facts like a prizmed Venn diagram (taxon vs locale)?
Thinking and Reasoning: Expanding definitions, types, and uses of fluency. Rasinski and fluency. I can't say any of that better than him. Other than to remind folks that we are using fluency as tool. We adjust fluency based on our purposes and needs in concert with that of the author's grammatical artifacts of prosody.
Note: In the program, we have learned that rate, accuracy, and prosody are just a part of the picture. When learners understand syntax (clauses, punctuation), tone, style, emotional vocabulary, and motivation of authors, speakers, and characters...everything changes. Even the decoding.
We also experience fluency with typing - automaticity in typing so that we can keep up with our ideas as we compose. We become fluent in handwriting to track the flow and rhythm of our ideas and the pace of life. Fluency also means facility - think of the coloratura soprano - moving quickly into arpeggios and through different registers of the voice, throat, head, and chest. Agility with thinking - fluent in finding ways through and toward our goals and interactions with texts and each other.
Thinking and Reasoning: The digital approach. We explicitly teach kids how to touch and hold books for the reading stance. We explicitly teach how to read static print. Digital texts are tremendously complex. Yet- where is the explicit instruction for the approach to reading pixels?
There's more to say...but I need to think about some other stuff for a bit...
