Critical issues: Reading and the new literacy studies: Reframing the National Academy of Sciences report on reading

Journal of Literacy Research, Sep 1999 by Gee, James Paul

Of course, the members of the Academy panel might well say that this is simply not a matter relevant to the field of "reading." The New Literacy Studies would say it is. Students do not master any school practice without being motivated to enter into and identify with that practice and without believing that they will be able to function within it and use it fruitfully now or in later life. For students who live in a social world far more complex than the Academy report would indicate, questions of identity, motivation, and ability to function are central for learning and literacy (Davidson, 1996; Gee & Crawford,1998; Mahiri,1998). In the end, too, by placing into the background these social, institutional, and political realities - by decontextualizing reading from them - the report cannot tell the truth about the world in which it seeks to intervene.

Phonemic Awareness and the "Fourth-Grade Slump"

Although the Academy report covers a lot of ground, it centers around and constantly returns to one basic research finding, that is, the strong correlation between early phonological awareness and later success in learning to read: "even prior to formal reading instruction, the performance of kindergartners on tests of phonological awareness is a strong predictor of their future reading achievement" (p. 54). This correlation, together with studies that demonstrate that direct and systematic instruction in phonics is superior to less direct and less systematic phonics instruction, leads the writers of the report to concentrate heavily (along with many other recent reports and volumes on reading) on phonological awareness, phonics instruction, decoding, and word recognition in the early grades. Such matters (and closely related ones) take up the lions share of references in the index to the report.

Such a focus might not, initially, give surprise in a report on reading, and, indeed this aspect of the report has received wide applause. However, I want to argue that such a focus is indeed odd and ultimately unproductive - though not because I have any brief to offer for "whole language," nor because I have anything against learning the phonological-graphemic code of English writing (Gee, 1994; in press-b). Ironically, the reasons why such a narrow focus is unproductive lay buried deep in the report itself.

Despite the many claims in the media and in myriad newsletters from educational organizations that the Academy report is heavily"pro-phonics" - and despite the heavy emphasis on phonological and phonics-based issues - the report contains significant, though backgrounded and publicly ignored, tensions in these respects. For example, consider the following remarks from the report, none of which are foregrounded in the report and all of which ought to make one pause before reveling in the efficacy of early, direct, and systematic training in phonological awareness and phonics:

Taken together, these studies indicate that training in phonological awareness, particularly in association with instruction in letters and letter-sound relationships, make a contribution to assisting at-risk children in learning to read. The effects of training, although quite consistent, are only moderate in strength, and have so far not been shown to extend to comprehension. Typically a majority of the trained children narrow the gap between themselves and initially more advanced students in phonological awareness and word reading skills, but few are brought completely up to speed through training, and a few fail to show any gains at all. (p. 251)