Page 1 of 1

Serious responses to Lucy Calkins' 'NO ONE GETS TO OWN THE TERM "THE SCIENCE OF READING"'

Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:10 pm
by Debbie_Hepplewhite
I've already started a thread via the 'General Forum' featuring responses to author Lucy Calkins' essay, The Science of Reading:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1327&p=2705#p2705

Lucy has really kicked up a storm in defence of her own literacy programme and multi-cueing word-guessing guidance!

Re: Serious responses to Lucy Calkins' 'NO ONE GETS TO OWN THE TERM "THE SCIENCE OF READING"'

Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:23 pm
by Debbie_Hepplewhite
Here is a piece in APM Reports continuing to feature the battle between proponents of different reading instruction methods:

New salvos in the battles over reading instruction

Several powerful people and organizations have weighed in on the national conversation prompted by APM Reports' podcast episodes.

December 20, 2019


https://www.apmreports.org/story/2019/1 ... nstruction

Podcast episodes by APM Reports have raised questions about materials for teaching reading that are widely used in American schools. An author of those materials, Lucy Calkins, recently fired back at "phonics-centric people." Calkins was one of several powerful people and organizations to weigh in on the debate about how to teach reading in the past few weeks.

Senior education correspondent Emily Hanford's work on the science of reading has helped spark a national conversation. There's been lively discussion on social media and at education conferences. And many teachers and education officials say they are changing their approach to reading instruction.

However not everyone is happy with the direction things are going.

Re: Serious responses to Lucy Calkins' 'NO ONE GETS TO OWN THE TERM "THE SCIENCE OF READING"'

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 10:40 pm
by Debbie_Hepplewhite
Thank you to Stephen Parker for flagging up this interesting video about multi-cueing as promoted via Lucy Calkins' reading approach:

Is My Kid Learning How to Read?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxx7hs0 ... e=emb_logo

Re: Serious responses to Lucy Calkins' 'NO ONE GETS TO OWN THE TERM "THE SCIENCE OF READING"'

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:17 pm
by Debbie_Hepplewhite
READING IS NOT A GUESSING GAME: PUTTING RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE SO KIDS CAN READ


https://sterncenter.org/reading-is-not- ... -can-read/

Too many teachers are trained that reading is a contextual and semantic guessing game that requires making predictions, skipping words, looking at the pictures, guessing based on the first letter, or going back to the beginning of a sentence to see if reading faster will help. From my experience, these techniques confuse many children and do not help a child “decode” the word in front of them.


Did you know that children who are poor readers rely on the very types of strategies that are being taught in our classrooms with the mistaken belief it is good practice?


Good readers can decode words quickly and accurately. Research has proven that children who cannot read well are missing the basic fundamentals of how to navigate print. I feel that it’s important to address this need.


Unfortunately, programs such as “Readers Workshop” developed by Lucy Calkins emphasize teaching strategies that may be easy for teachers to implement into their classroom, but this method alone is woefully insufficient for children needing explicit instruction, especially those in kindergarten through third grade.

Re: Serious responses to Lucy Calkins' 'NO ONE GETS TO OWN THE TERM "THE SCIENCE OF READING"'

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:17 am
by Debbie_Hepplewhite
Journalist Emily Hanford reports that Lucy Calkins and associates are changing their views on beginning reading to be more closely aligned with the science.

You can read about this potentially important development here:

Influential literacy expert Lucy Calkins is changing her views

In a major shift, the controversial figure in the fight over how to teach reading now says that beginning readers should focus on sounding out words, according to a document obtained by APM Reports.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1384&p=2880#p2880