Very few of us were ever taught what we needed to know about reading or language when we completed our degree programs or were licensed to teach.
As teachers, the professional development we received often seemed irrelevant. Even after graduate school, what I had been taught left me helpless in the face of students who struggled to read. The knowledge I eventually applied to various instructional programs, I acquired haphazardly from my doctoral courses, from conferences, and from other teachers … too late to help me with my first students.
Was my experience unique? Not by a long shot. The National Council on Teacher Quality (www.NCTQ.org) recently published several surveys of how our colleges and universities prepare future teachers to teach reading to young students. They documented that the majority of courses on reading instruction fail to include even basic information about the process of learning to read or the major components of effective instruction identified by the National Reading Panel and the National Academy of Sciences. Licensure programs almost never require students to learn about language acquisition or language structure—even in special education, where the vast majority of eligible students are there because of language learning difficulties. In NCTQ’s review of courses and textbooks, false or incomplete information about language, reading development, or individual differences was the norm.
Why does the absence of training in language matter so much? Because reading and writing are dependent on and manifestations of language processes. Without such insight, teachers can be easily persuaded that reading is dependent on visual processes or that reading difficulties are caused by lack of motivation or “learning style” preferences. For the record, many people with visual impairments learn to read and write, and most students come to school eager to learn to read. It’s words that get in their way—both spoken and written.
So where does the lack of adequate formal training leave teachers? Usually, they are at the mercy of the professional development offered by the district, or they attend conferences on their own time and money. In the former case, the content of training may lack rigor, depth, or applicability, and in the latter case, teachers may come home to a school that does not reinforce or support good ideas that they may have learned at the conference.
How do we improve this situation? I and my colleagues in the LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) trainer community find that teachers crave substantive, detailed, research-based information about kids’ language learning processes and about research-based practices. They love to think hard and ponder complex questions. They want to be challenged. They see the value in knowing about language and how kids learn it—and get better results as soon as they apply the information. The most common reaction to LETRS training is, “Why didn’t anybody teach me this before?”
We ask a lot during the training. Even with whole days devoted to specific topics—phonology, structure of English orthography, vocabulary, fluency, text comprehension, and more—teachers need a lot of time to integrate new ideas into their practices. We have found that spacing out professional development on key topics allows teachers to absorb information and apply it more successfully than if it is all crammed into intensive workshops. Spacing out the information may mean extending the PD plan over three to five years.
When we begin training, teachers are grounded in basic theoretical models of language and literacy acquisition that are supported by science. We then refer to those models over and over again as the components of instruction are identified, explored, demonstrated, and role-played. Next, we focus on teaching the speech sounds of English. It is impossible to know what phoneme awareness is all about unless one knows the phonemes! Sounds are not the same as letters. Next, we study the organizational principles of English orthography so that a teacher can stand up in front of class and, with confidence, explain the spelling of any English word. Subsequently, with word recognition instruction under our belts, we move on to vocabulary, comprehension, and reading fluently for meaning.
All teachers of reading need this information. Even teachers who work with older students are much better able to anticipate and interpret student errors and give corrective feedback, and much more committed to the importance of teaching all components of a program cumulatively and systematically, if they can shed light on all aspects of language. Knowledge is power—for both teachers and students.
There is nothing more exciting to me than watching a skilled teacher who really knows his or her stuff helping a student take huge leaps forward in reading.
For instructional programs that support explicit teaching of language structure and language comprehension, check out Primary Spelling by Pattern; Spellography; and LANGUAGE! Live. For more about LETRS, go to www.letrslink.com.
Do you have a professional development tip to share? We'd love to hear from you! Please post any ideas or questions in the comment field below.
