In 2023, Science of Reading (SoR) supporters were offended by The Science of Reading and the Rejection of Picture Books. At that time, I included reports and observations showing an overfocus on phonics instead of reading for enjoyment in SoR classrooms.

If you’re a teacher who combines phonics with reading picture books for enjoyment and encourages children to find and look at books and reading material freely, I applaud you! However, much in the media indicates that phonics-dominated classrooms crowd out reading for pleasure.

The emphasis on problems with 3-cueing, having children rely on meaning, structure, and visual information (like pictures) to read, may also create confusion.

The dislike of balanced literacy could be another factor.

Here are some of those reports.

1. In Science Of Reading Has Sucked The Joy Out Of Learning To Read, Experts Say, changed to Rigid Approach Has Sucked The Joy Out Of Learning To Read, Experts Say, Morrison describes the work of Wyse and Hacking, saying focusing on synthetic phonics at the expense of understanding and enjoying real whole texts means children miss out on the joy of reading (2024, Forbes). 

SoR advocates challenged this title, saying SoR covers Scarborough’s Rope. However, Wyse and Hacking’s recent study shows schools in England have been overly reliant on phonics and decoding for over a decade, and children there aren’t reading well in the long run.

They describe children learning to decode formulaic texts containing a limited number of simple words, designed to encourage familiarization with certain sounds. 

In The Balancing Act, Wyse and Hacking promote phonics and quality books for meaning.

2. Scholars Robert J. Tierney and P. David Pearson, in their book Fact-Checking the Science of Reading, describe 3-cueing favorably pointing to the SoR supporting phonics as the overriding instructional plan, saying:

Their consistent message is that phonics, first and fast, is settled science—and it is high time to get on with the policies and legislative action needed to ensure that every child in the U.S. (as well as Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and any other English speaking country) is provided direct access to the code as the first step in the process of becoming a reader (p.X).

3. In Make Time for the Read-Aloud. Here’s How (2024); Education Week’s Heubeck states:

Despite the benefits of read-alouds, it’s unclear how frequently teachers use them in the classroom. Further, research suggests that even when teachers do engage in read-alouds, there’s a tendency not to prepare adequately, thereby limiting the activity’s potential for positive outcomes.

A reporter continues to tell teachers how they should use read alouds implying that they don’t do it and do not understand how important this is to children.

4. Mark Seidenberg, whose book Language and the Speed of Light is often cited by SoR supporters, raised concerns about overemphasizing phonics in 2023.

He said:

A guest speaker gave a rambling talk about “science of reading” (SoR) issues. Then an experienced educator whose work includes teaching other teachers, asked: “if a student is a good reader, do we need to continue with phonemic awareness [PA] instruction?” 

My heart sank. Why would a person need to ask this? 

Time spent jumping through PA hoops could instead be spent on activities that expand the knowledge that supports comprehending texts of increasing complexity and variety.

He added:

I’m going to lay my cards on the table here: The treatment of PA in the “science of reading”–the idea that a certain level of PA is prerequisite for reading, and that PA training should continue until the student becomes highly proficient at PA tasks regardless of how well they are reading–is emblematic of problems that have arisen within the SoR approach. It is an overprescription that reflects a shallow understanding of reading development, yet has become a major tenet of the “science of reading”. The PA situation and other developments suggest to me that the SoR is at risk of turning into a new pedagogical dogma, consisting of a small set of tenets loosely tied to some classic but dated research, supplemented by additional assumptions that are ad hoc and ill-advised.

5. Newkirk’s The Broken Logic of “Sold a Story”: A Personal Response to “The Science of Reading rebuts reporter Emily Hanford’s Sold a Story.

About pictures he says:

…it would seem to follow from “Sold a Story:, that reading should be taught without the support of pictures—or at the very least it is unclear on that point. Yet it is barely conceivable to imagine children learning to read without picture books, without illustrations, without The Wild Things without Viola Swamp, without The Very Hungry Caterpillar or the illustrations of Goodnight Moon. Beyond the obvious visual and narrative appeal, there are sound reasons for the support to pictures in early reading.

Pictures obviously provide contextual support as does memory. Early readers often read (and reread) books that have been read to them (often many times), and that memory of the reading is a support for their own reading. It is the same principle as scaffolding: learners begin learning a task with some special supports, which are gradually removed (p.9-10).   

6. Emily replies, citing her work saying: To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with pictures. They’re great to look at and talk about, and they can help a child comprehend the meaning of a story. 

Context – including a picture if there is one – helps us understand what we’re reading all the time. But if a child is being taught to use context to identify words, she’s being taught to read like a poor reader.

Saying there’s nothing wrong with pictures, isn’t exactly endorsing the joy these books bring and all children can learn from them.

To be fair, 3-cueing critics have provided examples of poor teaching in this regard, but if children have 3-cueing difficulties teachers should notice by continually observing, assessing, and monitoring how a child is learning to read, recognize difficulties and providing support.

7. In 2022, the Shanahan on Literacy blog post What do you think of “phonics first” or “phonics only” in the primary grades? starts out with this question from a teacher:

At my school, the district inservice has made a big deal out of Scarborough’s rope. Nevertheless, when it comes to daily instruction, we (the primary grade teachers) have been told that decoding is the most important thing and that we are to emphasize that. They’ve sent us to LETRS training, purchased instructional programs on phonics, and require testing students’ “nonsense word fluency” frequently. At what grade levels is it appropriate to teach the “language comprehension” portions of the rope?

8. In What’s Happening to Shared Picture Book Reading in an Era of Phonics First (2021, Australia), mentioned previously, Campbell found …shared reading of quality children’s literature is being squeezed out of the early-years classroom teaching day, possibly because of explicit learning objectives, such as emphasis on phonics.

9. Hornsby and Wilson (2014) also stated: They [politicians, education bureaucrats and others] recommend phonics be taught first, in tight sequential programs, unrelated to the diversity of knowledge young children bring to school. 

The authors recommended picture storybooks can be valuable tools in teaching children any number of graphophonic relationships.

___

The problem shows phonics often the focus until children learn sounds. But phonics and quality picture books (not only decodables) are not mutually exclusive. And some children need less phonics instruction.

While many teachers may understand this, it sounds like others don’t, or school administrators don’t. SoR supporters who like and use picture books for enjoyment don’t usually talk about this.

Creating language rich classrooms for children that include phonics and a variety of other instructional methods for children based on what they require to learn to read is essential, and it should always be as enjoyable as possible so they not only learn to read but like it!

References 

Morrison, N. (2024, May 19) Rigid Approach Has Sucked The Joy Out Of Learning To Read, Experts Say. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2024/05/19/science-of-reading…

Heubeck, E. (2024, April 24). Make Time for the Read-Aloud. Here’s How, Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/make-time-for-the-read-aloud-h…

Campbell, S. (2021, April 27). What’s Happening to Shared Picture Book Reading in an Era of Phonics First? The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2004

Hornsby, D., & Wilson, L. (2014). Early Literacy is More Than Phonics. Practically Primary. 19(3), 12-15. https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316/informit.624941039634635?do…