US Reading Curriculum

Key Questions

Do you believe that some children just can't read? This provocative question sets the stage for evaluating assumptions about children's reading capabilities.

Podcast Series Introduction

This transcript originates from a podcast series that discusses how the US reading curriculum has been fundamentally incorrect for over two decades.

Research on Reading Behaviors

Good vs. Poor Readers

The research focuses on self-correcting behaviors observed in 5-year-old beginner readers. The evidence suggests that when a child recognizes an issue in comprehension—indicated by the notion that “something was wrong”—they tend to revisit the malfunctioning part of their reading.

Study Parameters

Participants: 100 children, observed weekly during their first year of school.
Methodology: Each child read pages from their school reading book, and responses were categorized into the following:
- Correct responses
- Errors
- Repetitions
- Self-corrections

Analytical Framework

Using a standardized reading test, children were classified into four groups based on their reading progress:

High (H)
High Middle (HM)
Low Middle (LM)
Low (L)
Each group consisted of 25 children.

Results Summary

Total words read: 2,599 by H group; 1,605 by HM; 861 by LM; 114 by L.
Error Rate: 37.29% for H; 15.20% for HM; 7.86% for LM; 2.58% for L.
Self-Correction Rate: 2.75 for H; 3.81 for HM; 8.35 for LM; 19.72 for L.
Duration in Book-Reading Stage: Weeks spent reading ranged from 3 to 19.

Median Error and Self-Correction Rates

The report notes that the median error and self-correction rates among quartiles of children were plotted. The children in the High group (H) exhibited low error rates and high self-correction, which suggests an efficient processing of cues that aids reading comprehension.

Observations by Marie M. Clay

Good vs. Poor Readers

Observations indicated that proficient readers read more words, commit fewer errors, and often engage in self-correcting behavior. Clay noted instances of cognitive dissonance (e.g., “This doesn’t make sense”) and perceptual dissonance (e.g., a short word that doesn’t seem to fit).
Clay further posited that children who can integrate cues from actions, visual inputs, and language, while understanding that identity lies in consistency across these cues, develop an effective learning approach.

Development of Reading Curriculum

Marie M. Clay utilized her findings about good readers to design a program aimed at teaching reading effectively, thus providing a framework for future educational strategies.

Obligatory Discussion on Data Validation

Questions Raised

Does Clay possess sufficient data to substantiate the reliance on cues?

Syntactic Analysis of Errors

Data Set Analysis

Utilizing the same participant cohort (N = 100; 5-year-olds), Clay examined 10,525 error instances to analyze linguistic substitutions during reading.
Findings suggest that children were more inclined to substitute a word with a linguistically equivalent counterpart over one that shares visual similarities.

Results by Quartile Groups

Quartile Group	Total Errors	Self-Correction Rate
L	1208	26%
LM	2345	11%
HM	3551	14%
H	3421	28%

Grammatical Substitution Rates: 72% of total substitutions were grammatically acceptable across groups.
- Single-word substitution rate: 41% to 56% depending on the group, suggesting higher proficiency among better readers.

Notable Observations

The dominance of syntactic control in error guesses implies that more proficient readers have a better grasp of grammar, leading to deeper engagements when they encounter dissonance in reading.

Industry Comparisons and Implications

Relevance to Visual Screening

Reflexively comparing reading and vision screening processes raises questions about detection efficacy for struggling readers, enhancing discussions about cue usage in identifying reading difficulties.

Research Implementation

Cueing Method Description

The cueing method, as described, categorizes reading into different contextual observations such as:
- Context: Evaluating whether the meaning of the sentence is coherent.
- Syntax: Consideration of nouns fitting in syntactical structures.
- Visual Information: Assessing clues from the initial letters of words.

Conclusion

Next Steps

It is essential to translate these findings into actionable teaching methodologies and practice, enhancing literacy education over decades of cumulative research and experience.

Author Information

Dr. Andrew P. Johnson is a recognized authority in literacy instruction, actively contributing to methods aimed at improving literacy through his research, teaching, and development initiatives in reading education.