Yup, I’m still studying for that reading endorsement.  I’ve been reading the Report of the National Reading Panel (2001).  Specifically, I’ve been reading about how systematic phonics instruction rocks more than non-phonics instruction.  Rather than rehashing everything, here’s my marked up version of the phonics section (Chapter II, Part 2):

Download (ch2-II1.pdf, PDF, 2.41MB)

Having read this article, I’m still confused about what constructivism is.  I don’t think I am a constructivist because it seems like the constructivist teachers just provide a nice fuzzy environment and then wait for something to happen, but maybe I just don’t understand. 

I think it’s important to let kids study the things that motivate them, but I’m not sure if that’s key to constructivism.   I think there must be some relationship between Whole Language and Constructivism.  I believe that Camborne (2002) is sometimes at odds with what I’m reading in Wikipedia. Here’s what I was able to gather from the Camborne article:

Constructivism

1. “What is learned cannot be separated from the context in which it is learned.”
   • Understanding and learning is not just a result of the learner’s effort and ability, but it is also the result of the context and the environmental variables.
   • Constructivism rejects “The ends justify the means.”  The means and the ends are inextricably tied together.
   • The types of methods chosen for reading instruction result in different types of readers.
2. “The purposes or goals that the learner brings to the learning situation are central to what is learned.”
   • Engagement is key to learning.
   • Demonstration is not enough.
   • Learners are unlikely to attend or learn if they don’t perceive a need to do so.
   • Learners need to be active participants.
   • Learners need to be free from stress or anxiety (Krashen’s Affective Filter).
   • Learners need to trust their teacher, coach, or exemplar.
   • Teachers need to set an environment that will encourage all to see the need to engage and learn.
3. “Knowledge and meaning are socially constructed through the processes of negotiation, evaluation, and transformation.”
   • There isn’t a single truth or piece of knowledge that exists out side of human social experience. 
   • Group interactions enrich learning.

Constructivist Advice for the Reading Classroom

1. “Create a classroom ethos/culture that supports and encourages deep engagement with multiple demonstrations of reading behavior.”
   • Through communicated expectations.
   • Creating opportunities to engage in reflective learning.
2. “Employ teaching activities and strategies that are a judicious mix of the four dimensions of teaching and learner.”
   • Explicit teaching (not implicit)
   • Systematically planned teaching
   • Mindful (not Mindless) teaching
   • Contextualized teaching
3. “Employ structures and processes that create continuous opportunities for the development of intellectual unrest.”
   • Transformation
   • Discussion
   • Reflection
   • Application
   • Evaluation
4. “Develop learners’ metatextual awareness of the processes and understandings implicit in effective reading behavior.”
   • Explicit Teaching Strategies
5. “Design and use tasks that will coerce authentic use of the processes and understandings implicit in effective reading behavior.”

The Controversy

1. Apparently constructivists and objectivists don’t like each other much.
2. Religious objections.
   • Belief in absolute truth conflicts with socially constructed reality.
   • Belief that children are born evil suggests that children need discipline more than they need the freedom to explore and reflect.
3. Instructivists and constructivists dispute with each other over philosophy.
   • Constructivists accuse Instructivists of using repressive tactics
   • What is the difference between scientific truth and constructed truth?
   • Government control of Education equals thought control?

What it is and isn’t

1. “Focus on learners as constructors of their own knowledge.”
2. Social negotiation of meaning.
3. Learners do creative and critical thinking.
4. Not Socratic Process.
5. Not Discovery Learning.
6. The teacher is a participant observer.
7. Teacher is not a director or facilitator.

Cambourne, B. (2002). Holistic, integrated approaches to reading and language arts instruction: The constructivist framework of an instructional theory. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels, What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 25-47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

1. Outline History of the Textbooks and Basal Readers in the United States:
   • No dates listed – New England Primer was the first widely distributed primer.
   • Prior to 1775 – Primers emphasized religious text.
   • 1778- Noah Webster publishes his American Spelling Book.
   • 1775 to 1825 – Primers emphasized religious text and secular text equally.
   • 1808 to 1810 – Samuel Wood produced first graded readers. Heavily religious and practical.
   • 1825 to 1875 – Primers emphasized moralistic and secular values.
   • 1836 & 1844 – McGuffey Eclectic Readers published. Emphasis on moralistic content and phonetic/alphabetic content. 122 million copies sold 1836 to 1920.
   • 1875 to 1915 – Primers emphasized literary values.
   • 1915 to present – Various emphases including the common “realistic experience.”
   • 1920’s – Start of reading reading readiness and pre-primers.
   • 1920’s – Scientific research “furthers the form of basal readers.”
   • 1920’s – Leveling of texts becomes a concern as more students with less-educated parents attend high schools. 
   • 1921 – Thorndike Teacher’s Word Book provides objective measurement tool for leveling texts.
   • 1939 – William S. Gray and Scott Foresman write the Elson-Gray Readers (Dick and Jane).  200 Million Americans learned to read with these.
   • 1940’s – Schools begin to promote by age rather than achievement, creating a leveling problem for textbook creators.
   • Mid 1960’s – 18 Publishers were producing K-8 Reading basal Readers, which were used by more than 85% of elementary teachers.
   • 1970’s – Calls for accountability resulted in increased emphasis on test preparation in Basel programs.
   • 1970’s and 1980’s – Increased direct instruction
   • 1970’s and 1980’s – Development of programs designed for low income children and for minorities.
   • 1970’s and 1980’s – Textbooks include more stories about minority characters.
   • 1980’s – There were 12 national publishers of basal reading programs.
   • 1980’s – The top five publishers sold 80% of basal reading programs.

2. Characteristics of the Textbook Market in the U.S. (1986 & 1987):
   • 40 Large Textbook Publishers
   • $2 billion in textbook sales (converts to $3.8 billion in 2008 dollars)
   • 11% of all textbooks were purchased in California
   • 7.3% of all textbooks were purchased in Texas
   • Highest per pupil textbook spender was Washington D.C. at $68 (converts to $127 in 2008 dollars) per student.
   • Lowest per pupil textbook spender was the Great State of Utah at $19 (converts to $35 in 2008 dollars) student.
   • 21 states were doing state wide textbook adoptions.
   • $436 million (converts to $820 million in 2008 dollars) spent on reading programs for elementary students.
   • $600 million (converts to $1.2 billion in 2008 dollars) spent on reading programs, spelling programs, and all other programs and textbooks used for literacy instruction.
   • I admit that 1986 and 1987 were a long time ago.  I’d like to see what the current statistics look like today.  I’d like to if spending trends compare with the rate of inflation?

I didn’t find the rest of the article to be very interesting as it cites a lot of very old studies on textbook features and how they related to student comprehension.  I’d rather spend my time reading more current research.

Chall, J.S., & Squire, J.R. (1996). The publishing industry and textbooks. In R.Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthan, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 46-67). (Original work published 1991)