There are many different types of reading instruction. But if there are many ways to teach reading, it begs the question: Is there a best way to teach reading? This article examines how history and science answer that question.
Table of Contents
- One Way to Teach Reading: A Code-Based Approach
- Another Way to Teach Reading: A Meaning-Based Approach
- Which Way Is Better?
- How to Leverage Your Parent Advantage
- References
There are many different ways to teach reading. Most of these ways (called “methods” or “approaches”) can be sorted into two categories: code-based (or “code-emphasis”) and meaning-based (or “meaning-emphasis”) approaches. The terms “based” or “emphasis” reminds us that neither approach excludes the other completely, and there are elements of one within the other. This is important to remember. But if there are multiple ways to teach reading, it begs the question: Is there a best way?
Spoiler Alert: Yes, there is. Both history and science can speak to that question. This article will examine what they have to say!
One Way to Teach Reading: A Code-Based Approach
One way to teach reading is by emphasizing the code of reading. This refers to how letters and sounds work together to make words. In a code-based approach, a very intentional progression of phonics skills (teaching the sounds that letters and letter combinations make) is the foundation of teaching reading. A phonics concept is presented clearly and thoroughly by the teacher who models it, then guides students through practice activities, eventually releasing them to read words or stories on their own. The types of stories used are called “decodable texts” where nearly all words and spelling patterns in the text have already been taught (Moats & Tolman, 2019).
In this approach, a teacher will also teach phonemic awareness (identifying and manipulating sounds in a word), fluency, vocabulary, comprehension strategies and writing. The teacher will spend about half their time teaching foundational skills (phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency) and the other half of their time teaching language comprehension skills (vocabulary, comprehension and writing composition).
When a reader (or speller) gets stuck, a teacher will encourage them to focus on the code. They will encourage the student to “sound it out” using spelling patterns they know, then consider if the word makes sense.
Common methods that are code-based include:
- Structured Literacy
- Synthetic Phonics
- Developmentally Responsive Phonics
I won’t dive too deeply into the differences between these methods. You can familiarize yourself with them in case you run across them in your child’s school!
Another Way to Teach Reading: A Meaning-Based Approach
Another way to teach reading is to emphasize the meaning of texts. This focuses on using literary elements to figure out meaning and words in a text. In this approach a teacher organizes their instruction around themes or units of interest rather than a phonics progression. Texts that students read are “leveled” by how hard or easy they are. There is a strong emphasis on exposure to literature beyond what a student could read on their own. This happens through shared reading (reading aloud together) or guided reading (reading a text with a teacher’s help). It is highly encouraged in this approach to have students find books they are interested in to read independently.
In this approach, foundational skills (phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency) are taught intermittently, not following a specific progression. The majority of instruction focuses on talking about books and what they mean in order to develop language comprehension skills (vocabulary, comprehension and writing composition).
When a reader (or speller) gets stuck, the teacher will encourage them to guess what the word is based on what would make sense from the first letter, the picture, or based on its context in the sentence. Teachers teach these skills and have students practice them as a group.
Common methods that utilize meaning-based instruction include:
- Reader’s and writer’s workshop models
- Balanced Literacy
- Whole Word Methods
- Whole Language Methods
- Three-Cueing System
- Language Experience Approach
- Analytic Phonics (this one is sneaky because it sounds like it would be code-based!)
Again, the differences between the methods above aren’t necessary for you to know. Familiarize yourself so you can be on the look-out for these terms in your child’s school.
Which Way Is Better?
Before we answer this question, I want to acknowledge a few things. There are aspects of each approach that are beneficial and necessary. For example, research shows us that having a clear phonics progression is essential for struggling readers BUT allowing lots of time to independently read high interest books also helps develop a love of reading (as long as those books are able to be read independently by the student with high accuracy and little frustration).
Personally, I want to stay skeptical about all things claiming to be the “best” for my child until I peek behind the curtain a bit more. I also am not the type of person who wants to get trapped by false dichotomies, being forced to fully ascribe to one thing while rejecting the other. I like being able to acknowledge nuance, and my aim in developing this platform, A Parent’s Advantage, is to always critically examine and determine whatever works rather than to throw myself fully behind one thing that claims to have it all only to find out later that I have to defend something that isn’t actually true.
Hopefully you can appreciate this sentiment and agree to look skeptically with me to determine what works for all children in reading instruction.
While I am not a scientist or historian, I do consider myself an expert in literacy, and I have done an extensive amount of research (on my own, through professional development and through coursework) into the topic of what works for all types of students in reading instruction. So, I will give you my determination. Let’s start with some evidence from history:
Historical Evidence
- Phonics (code) was used in both public schools and at home prior to the 1920s (Berstein, 2022; Parker, 2021).
- Literacy rates in America before the 1920s were surprisingly high – 92% amongst 14 year-olds in 1910 for both boys and girls across all races (IES, 2005).
- Literacy rates that same year for specifically 14 year-olds of color was a shocking 69.5% (IES, 2005).
- In the 1920s, schools began switching to “look-say” instruction, part of the Whole Word method (a meaning-based approach) (Parker, 2021).
- Since then, national literacy assessments show a dire situation. In 1992, a whopping 71% of 8th graders (13 and 14 year-olds) read at “basic” or “below basic” reading levels (NCES, 2020).
Let’s pause and acknowledge a commonly voiced argument – the rise of immigration over the last century leading to a large number of children who enter the school system knowing little or no English. Could this be a cause for the dropping literacy rate? It could be a factor. It is undoubtedly harder to teach large classes with diverse populations, as opposed to teaching your own children at home where you could give more individual attention. But before we conclude that this is the only reason for the drop in literacy rates (and not a different instructional method), consider these points:
- The immigration rate from 1840 to 1920 was significantly higher than it was from 1920 to the end of the 20th century (Passel, 2024).
- When phonics was prominent, children only needed 3-4 years of instruction (or less) to become literate (Parker, 2021), but after the whole-word method entered schools many students (after attending school for 13 years) still graduate without being literate (NCES, 2020).
For even more evidence from history, read this article. And if you still aren’t convinced, let’s take a look at scientific evidence.
Scientific Evidence
- Research on reading rates have proven over and over (and over) again that teaching phonics skills in an intentional progression produces higher reading rates than other methods (NICHD, 2000).
- Brain research shows us that phonics instruction can actually change the anatomy of the brain and connect together parts of the brain required for reading that are not naturally connected when we are born (Dehaene, 2010; Moats & Tolman, 2019; Seidenberg, 2017).
- The National Reading Report in 2000 reviewed essentially ALL the existing research on reading and determined that the necessary skills in fluent reading are phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension. Sound familiar?
All history and science considered, a code-based approach seems to be what works best in producing a good reader.
But let’s strong-man our argument and again consider a valid opposing point: there is real value in exposing students to a variety of literature, encouraging them to have conversations about books, and helping them choose books that interest them as long as they can read most of the words on their own, as is emphasized in a meaning-based approach. But, in order for those things to occur, a child has to actually know how to read. A code-based approach tackles that dilemma.
Conclusions Based on the Evidence
The science of reading (a phrase referring to the ever-growing body of research and history studying reading instruction) suggests that the reading code should be emphasized early on, alongside language comprehension (NICHD, 2000). Then, once a child’s brain becomes “self-teaching” (when they can learn new words on their own), the emphasis can switch to the content and meaning of literature (Moats & Tolman, 2019). The problem is that grasping the reading code happens at different times for every child, but ideally it is between Kindergarten and second grade. For some, it isn’t until sixth or seventh grade. Switching over too early in the lower grades puts readers who aren’t there yet at risk of never getting there (Moats & Tolman, 2019).
That being said, a code-based approach is best (because code-based instruction still includes an equal amount of time dedicated to language comprehension!), but neither should we shy away from exposing children to a variety of literature and encouraging them to read books that interest them.
How to Leverage Your Parent Advantage
Unfortunately, there are many reasons why a school may not have yet aligned themselves to the science of reading or a code-based approach. One may simply be a lack of knowledge. Another may be tradition or an unwillingness to try something “new.” (Meaning-based approaches have captivated schools since the 1920s.) Whatever the reason, both approaches still exist in schools today.
One reason your child may be struggling is because they aren’t getting clear phonics instruction (or at least not enough of it). As their parent, you are charged with the task of figuring out if this is the cause. And if your child is receiving what the science of reading now deems “poor instruction” (instruction that does not have a clear phonics and phonemic awareness progression), then you will need to speak up and take action to help remedy that issue.
Determine How Your School Teaches Reading
First, find out if your child’s teacher has a phonics “scope-and-sequence.” This is the document that outlines the progression of phonics skills they teach. Use your best judgement to determine if the progression of skills seems logical to you. Good phonics progressions should start with the alphabet and two or three letter words, move to digraphs (like “th” or “ph”), “bossy e” (in words like cake and mole), vowel teams (like “ea” or “ie”) and on to more complex/long spelling patterns (like “ough”). If your child is in 3rd grade or below, half the amount of reading instruction time (or more) should be spent here (NICHD, 2000).
Next, ask about phonemic awareness instruction. This is instruction that helps students identify, blend together, or break apart sounds in spoken words. Phonemic awareness should also follow a logical progression, so ask to see that scope-and-sequence as well (NICHD, 2000). Determine if the skills seem to move from easiest to hardest. If your child is in 3rd grade or below, at least 5 minutes of phonemic awareness instruction should happen every day (NICHD, 2000).
Another thing that your child should be getting is reading fluency practice (NICHD, 2000). This is practice reading out loud sentences or texts smoothly and accurately. Children should get at least 15 minutes of fluency practice a day (Renaissance, 2023).
Finally, does your child’s instructor teach vocabulary words and background knowledge? Vocabulary instruction and background knowledge should be taught using a multisensory approach, meaning that students’ senses are engaged in more than one way. For example, they may look at a picture of something and act it out with their body. To be effective, vocabulary and background knowledge instruction should be related to the unit of study or topic that will be read about that day (McKeown, 2019).
Advocate for a Better Approach
If any of these things are not happening or you feel they aren’t happening well, I would encourage you to have a polite conversation with your child’s teacher about what you learned here and ask them how they would be willing to change parts of their instruction to better align to the science of reading. This type of conversation is an example of how you can leverage your Parent Advantage (a concept we like to talk about a lot around here). You do indeed have the power to influence your child’s education even if you aren’t there in the classroom with them!
If you are struggling with determining whether your child is receiving poor or high-quality reading instruction, you can also check out this article or you can dive deeper into our course, “A Parent’s Advantage for Struggling Readers,” or book an affordable consultation with us. In a consultation, we can tailor our advice to your specific situation to get your child the help they need!
Are there more specific questions you have about code-based or meaning-based approaches and how they align with the science of reading? What type of instruction do you think your child is receiving?
References
Bernstein, A. (2022). Why Johnny still can’t read or write or understand math: And what we can do about it. Bombardier Books, an imprint of Post Hill Press.
Census Office, & Blodgett, J. H. (1893). Report on education in the United States at the Eleventh Census, 1890. Washington, D.C; Government Printing Office. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1890/education-report/1890-education.pdf
Dehaene, S. (2010). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. Penguin Books.
Moats, L. C., & Tolman, C. A. (2019). The Challenge of Learning to Read. In LETRS: Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling. (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp.). Voyager Sopris Learning.
McKeown, M. G. (2019, October 10). Effective vocabulary instruction fosters knowing words, using words, and understanding how words work. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8753997/#sec11
National Center for Education Sciences. (2020). Reading Performance. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cnb.pdf
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: Reports of the Subgroups. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/documents/report.pdf
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, & Snyder, T. D. (1993). 120 years of American Education: A statistical portrait. Washington, D.C; U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf
Parker, S. (2021, December 24). A brief history of reading instruction. ParkerPhonics. https://www.parkerphonics.com/post/a-brief-history-of-reading-instruction
Passel, J. S. (2024, July 22). How the origins of America’s immigrants have changed since 1850. Pew Research Center.
Renaissance. (2023, January 31). Reading growth and the benefits of reading 15 minutes. https://www.renaissance.com/2018/01/23/blog-magic-15-minutes-reading-practice-reading-growth/#:~:text=Reading%20gains%20fall%20well%20below,see%20in%20student%20test%20data.
Seidenberg, M. S. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. Basic Books.
The Institute of Education Sciences (2005). National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL): A Nationally Representative and continuing assessment of English language literacy skills of American adults. Washington, DC; National Center for Education Statistics.