Curtin University academics Dr Sonja Kuzich, Dr Paul Gardner, and Dr Carly Steele discuss current approaches to home reading in Australia.
Some parents may be puzzled by the storyline of some of the ‘texts’ their child brings from school for home reading. The push for decodable texts has parents and children alike struggling to make sense of the story.
The emphasis on phonically regular ‘decodable’ texts appears to arise from national reports and research studies that have recommended the teaching of phonics in early reading. Aside from the UKs Rose Report, published in 2006, which advocated systematic synthetic phonics as the exclusive method to teach early reading, no report has supported a single type of phonics instruction.
Most reports suggest phonics should be taught alongside other strategies. For example, the US Government’s National Reading Panel Report (NRPR), published in 2000, identified five strategies. One panel member, Joanne Yatvin, warned policy makers that the report’s summary was inconclusive. However, Australian policy makers have mandated the strategies, popularised as the ‘Big Five’, in the AITSL Standards for Initial Teacher Education.
Although Australia has not mandated synthetic phonics per se, the proliferation of commercially produced phonics programs and decodable readers means that practice is trumping policy.
The following example of reading homework aligns with a synthetic phonics only approach:
A pit. Min is in the pit. Nat is in the pit. Min and Nat fit. Min and Nat sit in the pit. Sap is in the pit. Min and Nat sat in sap! (University of Florida Literacy Institute, 2022).
The passage is printed on a single piece of paper. After reading this passage, the child is asked to illustrate the text. Parents are instructed to read the passage with their child every night until the child is fluent.
We make the following points:
- A piece of paper does not provide children with opportunities to enjoy the tactile and multisensory experience of books and flicking through the pages. Home reading programs should involve real books.
- There are no illustrations to engage the child and to support their construction of meaning. Context and meaning-making are crucial to reading, even with phonics-based approaches.
- The ‘story’ makes little sense. After this passage was read to a child, they asked “Who was Min?”, which demonstrates its lack of context. Context is crucial to meaning-making and comprehension. Reading is not decoding alone. It is so much more. Phonics-dominant approaches, as they are being implemented, lose sight of this. Few children would enjoy reading this text at home with their parents.
- The synthetic phonics approach at this stage of reading only includes regular sounds (s, a, t, p, i, n, f) yet the passage includes ‘s’ as a /z/ sound (e.g. ‘is’).
- The repetitive sentence structures do not conform to good models of spoken or written language. In some cases, they are not even sentences. For example, there is no verb in the first ‘sentence’. Limited exposure to other forms of language results in children using stilted, arid and monotonous language in their writing.
Current media representations of literacy instruction in Australian schools tend to frame the teaching of reading as a simple case of ‘whole language’ versus ‘phonics’.
But this is not true, and it does not speak to the complex realities of literacy education in Australian classrooms. A more nuanced understanding is required to improve literacy education in Australia.
Additionally, a critical perspective is required to debunk simplistic dichotomies like ‘whole language’ versus ‘phonics’ and the rhetoric about ‘science’ and ‘evidence-based practice’ that surrounds these debates. Teachers know that classrooms do not function like laboratories. We need to remember that ‘scientific evidence’ without consideration of how it is applied in the real world of classrooms only offers a distorted, and often partial view.
The research questions asked, the methods used, research contexts, theoretical perspectives, sample populations and research paradigms can all influence findings. The answer then is not to look for a single source of ‘evidence’ believing it to be the ultimate ‘regime of truth’ (Foucault), but to weigh up ‘evidence’ from different sources and different scientific paradigms. Rather than a single ‘panacea’ promoted by those with vested interests, we should adopt an approach that synthesises insights from multiple sources.
Applying this to the context of learning to read, it is not a case of one approach or another. Instead, we advocate for comprehensive approaches to literacy education. This includes teaching phonics, but making sure that learning to read is not just about ‘cracking’ the code of the written word, it is also about developing an appreciation of the ‘music’ of language, the eloquence of meaning, the delight of the imaginary and the sociability of sharing books. If we fail to make reading a rich, inspiring experience for children, the media, policy makers and schools risk throwing a generation of ‘kids’ in a ‘pit’ from which they will have no desire to climb.
About the authors
Dr Sonja Kuzich is a Director of Learning and Teaching at the School of Education, Curtin University. She is a qualified teacher and teaches in the first-year literacy unit in the Bachelor of Education Primary. Alongside her work in sustainability education, a key research interest is the development of student teachers as writers.
Dr Paul Gardner teaches English at Curtin University. He is Vice-President of the Primary English Teachers Association of Australia (PETAA) and is the United Kingdom Literacy Association’s (UKLA) Ambassador for Australia. His latest book, Teaching Primary English in Australia, was published this year (2024) by Routledge.
Dr Carly Steele is an educational linguist and qualified teacher. She holds the positions of lecturer and Master of Education course coordinator in the School of Education at Curtin University. Her research focuses on culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and assessment practices.
