View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Where Is the Evidence? Looking Back to Jeanne Chall and Enduring Debates about the Science of Reading

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Where Is the Evidence? Looking Back to Jeanne Chall and Enduring Debates about the Science of Reading
Language: English
Authors: Semingson, Peggy, Kerns, William
Source: Reading Research Quarterly. May 2021 56:S157-S169.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Reading Research, Phonics, Literacy, Beginning Reading, Decoding (Reading), Whole Language Approach, Criticism, Developmental Stages, Reading Instruction
DOI: 10.1002/rrq.405
ISSN: 0034-0553
Abstract: In this historical analysis, we examine the context of debates over the role of phonics in literacy and current debates about the science of reading, with a focus on the work and impact of the late literacy scholar Jeanne Chall. We open by briefly tracing the roots of the enduring debates from the 19th and 20th centuries, focusing on beginning reading, decoding, and phonics. Next, we explore insights drawn from the whole language movement as understood by Kenneth Goodman and Yetta Goodman, as well as a synthesis of key ideas from Chall's critique of the whole language approach. We then analyze the shifts across the three editions of Chall's "Learning to Read: The Great Debate" and summarize major ideas from her body of work, such as the stage model of reading development. We suggest that reading instruction should be informed by a broader historical lens in looking at the "science of reading" debates and should draw on a developmental stage model to teaching reading, such as the six-stage model provided by Chall. We describe implications for educators, textbook publishers, researchers, and policymakers that address the current reading debates, and provide considerations of what Chall might say about learning to read in a digital era given the pressures on teacher educators and teachers to align their practice with what is deemed to be the science of reading.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1298082
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFBhGySQzT2jbPcH2LNXiSvAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFhVHrCk4eHnyfbE5wIBEICBmziVTEUf1A1YAGMzrKPvVrVSPwenk7SFg1nZ9ZqT4Rf2yvgk143yCRPSlnQTByzs2Krc1xLn-ZLdkZohXTO-RV6-VhqyTnoXvTGP0W3aMFdlgTHWhev2g7-un-L7IteyzsC2aXcRiMyyZb5H_rlUgBycf5-Rx4ARKUlqaijVl6HsEL2d7Ws5OjvH2M4Q-SMdrtJsDU9Q3YiJxxuU
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0150674349;[nrnu]02may.21;2025Apr04.08:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0150674349-1">Where Is the Evidence? Looking Back to Jeanne Chall and Enduring Debates About the Science of Reading </title> <p>In this historical analysis, we examine the context of debates over the role of phonics in literacy and current debates about the science of reading, with a focus on the work and impact of the late literacy scholar Jeanne Chall. We open by briefly tracing the roots of the enduring debates from the 19th and 20th centuries, focusing on beginning reading, decoding, and phonics. Next, we explore insights drawn from the whole language movement as understood by Kenneth Goodman and Yetta Goodman, as well as a synthesis of key ideas from Chall's critique of the whole language approach. We then analyze the shifts across the three editions of Chall's Learning to Read: The Great Debate and summarize major ideas from her body of work, such as the stage model of reading development. We suggest that reading instruction should be informed by a broader historical lens in looking at the "science of reading" debates and should draw on a developmental stage model to teaching reading, such as the six‐stage model provided by Chall. We describe implications for educators, textbook publishers, researchers, and policymakers that address the current reading debates, and provide considerations of what Chall might say about learning to read in a digital era given the pressures on teacher educators and teachers to align their practice with what is deemed to be the science of reading.</p> <p>Keywords: Decoding; Phonics; phonemic awareness; phonological awareness; Theoretical perspectives; Struggling learners; Instructional strategies; methods and materials; Historical; Achievement Gap; At‐Risk Factors; Digital Literacies; Distance Education / distance learning; Historical Analysis; 1‐Early childhood; 2‐Childhood; 3‐Early adolescence; 4‐Adolescence</p> <p>In this article, we provide historical context and insight into the ongoing debates over the current discussions of the science of reading. The work of Harvard Graduate School of Education literacy scholar Jeanne Chall provides a lens by which we focus on contested spaces around beginning reading, decoding, phonics, policy, and curricular mandates. Drawing on the literature of those who have sought a more comprehensive approach to literacy learning (e.g., Adams, 1994; Pearson, 2004), we problematize the binary of a debate between those who prioritize explicit phonics instruction and those who prioritize whole language (see, e.g., Reinking, Risko, & Hruby, 2021). We argue in favor of a broad, comprehensive, historical, and sociocultural focus for furthering discursive spaces where the debate is discussed, whether in academic scholarship, social media, or both. Much of our analysis draws on seminal historical texts and research, but the debate about the term <emph>science of reading</emph> is also taking place in highly visible digital platforms, including Twitter with the hashtag #scienceofreading (Evans, 2020), podcasts such as Science of Reading: The Podcast (https://ampli​fy.com/scien​ce-of-readi​ng-the-podca​st/), high‐profile blogs such as Timothy Shanahan's (https://shana​hanon​liter​acy.com/blog/what-is-the-scien​ce-of-reading), professional organizations, and journals, such as the two special issues of <emph>Reading Research Quarterly</emph>.</p> <p>The term <emph>science of reading</emph> needs to be further unpacked and defined. This article reflects current debates in the field in which the term can be defined as consisting of two parts: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) instruction that prioritizes phonics as central to the development of literacy skills and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) research that supports the prioritization of phonics in the development of literacy skills. Such a definition is consistent with what Shanahan (2020) identified as early pedagogical use of the term <emph>science of reading</emph> in the 1830s that referred to sounding out words. Shanahan traced varied ways that the term has been used, finding that it often referred to decoding. He raised concerns about limitations of the basic research often cited in the "science of reading" discourse to adequately address claims being made that shape initiatives in classroom instruction. We agree with Shanahan that the term <emph>science of reading</emph> should not be confined to referencing a single approach to reading instruction. We similarly propose that the science of reading encompasses a wide range of research into evolving understandings of reading processes, the nature of reading, contextual factors, and the history of the study of literacy, with this research producing evidence‐based implications that inform educational practices.</p> <p>Policy, dialogue, and instruction are being strongly shaped by discourse over the term <emph>science of reading</emph>, with some proponents advocating stricter teacher preparation programs that explicitly teach phonics, for instance. As a result, many U.S. states are implementing new tests and teacher preparation mandates along with inservice training for current teachers. The "science of reading" trend, however, is not new or recent; it is situated in cycles in the history of literacy. Gurley (2011) suggested that the era of the (original) science of reading took place and flourished between 1910 and 1935:</p> <p>Scientific inquiry reflected a Modernist philosophy seeking a rational, objective, efficient way to teach reading. Basal readers were marketed as an effective way to teach reading: teachers' guides streamlined instructional planning, and vocabulary were controlled, phrases were repeated, and workbook pages kept children busy as teachers led small ability groups. (p. 5)</p> <p>Indeed, the field of literacy and reading has some of its origins in the early scientific eye‐tracking studies of psychology in the era that Gurley described, such as the work of pioneering literacy researcher Edmund Huey (1908) in the early 1900s. Ironically, Huey recommended not teaching phonics to students in the early grades (Walczyk, Tcholakian, Igou, & Dixon, 2014).</p> <p>In this article, we discuss <emph>science of reading</emph> as a term that has strong roots in the history of centuries‐long and recurring debates over the extent to which explicit phonics instruction should be prioritized in the early grades. The legacy of these enduring reading debates is also a narrative of long‐running heated arguments (Chall, 1967, 1983a, 1996) over whether to focus on the reading process from the bottom up (reading words from part to whole) or from the top down (reading words from whole to part), and how much and when to teach phonics. Reading debates that are conceived of as contemporary were considered in the 18th and 19th centuries (Balmuth, 2009). Noah Webster's (1792) <emph>The American Spelling‐Book</emph>, for instance, relied heavily on a code‐focused teaching approach. Educators who favored the methods of Horace Mann (1838) and John Dewey (1933) advocated a whole‐word approach, whereas the historic McGuffey Readers books from the 19th and 20th centuries promoted a decoding‐centered, skills‐based approach.</p> <p>In the 1950s, the publication of the popular <emph>Why Johnny Can't Read—and What You Can Do About It</emph> by Rudolf Flesch (1955) sparked heated discussion over what to do about students who were unable to read with proficiency. Flesch stated that phonics was the answer. He strongly asserted that a meaning‐centered look‐say method (Gray, 1948) incorporating the use of sight word recognition, popularly used in books such as The New Fun With Dick and Jane series (see Gray, 1956), left many students with undeveloped reading skills. Flesch instead favored a direct and systematic study of phonics. Flesch's (1981) sequel, <emph>Why Johnny Still Can't Read: A New Look at the Scandal of Our Schools</emph>, continued to make the case for a phonics‐centered curriculum. Later, the cognitive revolution in the field of psychology of the 1960s and 1970s brought to the forefront the influence of psycholinguistics (K.S. Goodman, 1967) and sociolinguistics (Labov, 1972) in the reading field, leading to approaches that focused on semantics and meaning in language and the process of learning to read.</p> <p>We examined the reading debates by looking at the historic work of Jeanne Chall. We explored her research in terms of the reading debates and her six‐part developmental stages of literacy model (Chall, 1983b) that allows for both a code‐focused approach and more holistic and meaning‐centered approaches. We suggest that this knowledge about Chall, who was a forerunner of the science of reading, is a crucial component in discussions of how students learn to read and become literate in the current context. Chall (1967, 1983a, 1996) deemed these ongoing reading debates to be the foundation of her work <emph>Learning to Read: The Great Debate</emph>, which was funded by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. In this important text, which came out in three editions, Chall's work was grounded in her awareness of the contested areas of reading instruction that preceded her and in response to current events and contexts. Her contribution in <emph>Learning to Read</emph> focused on a large comprehensive study of how teachers taught beginning reading. She contended that research must inform practice, favoring an evidence‐oriented approach to literacy research and instruction. Debates between Chall and those who preferred the whole language approach provided a touchstone for this article. Later scholars built on Chall's ideas, such as the work Marilyn Jager Adams (e.g., 1994) did, building on the reading debates, and the code‐ and practitioner‐focused work of Louisa Moats (e.g., 1999).</p> <p>The ideas in this article are situated in the context of the reignition of reading debates in the United States. Lobbying efforts under the umbrella of the science of reading have called for mandated policies to teach reading using systematic phonics. In the Implications and Practical Considerations section, we address considerations to interpret what Chall would say about teaching in the 21st century, and we offer suggestions for what guidance she might provide for teachers, researchers, publishers, and policymakers. The implications include grounding strategic incorporation of evidence‐based phonics instruction into teacher training and early literacy instruction, tempered with the idea that older students can decelerate in their progress in reading if meaning‐ and vocabulary‐focused approaches are not considered (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990).</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-2">The Code‐Focused Reading Debates</hd> <p>Chall's (1967, 1983a, 1996) <emph>Learning to Read: The Great Debate</emph> was first published the same year as "The Cooperative Research Program in First‐Grade Reading Instruction" (Bond & Dykstra, 1967), also known as the First‐Grade Studies. Both are important touchstones in the code‐focused reading debates. Chall suggested across the three editions of <emph>Learning to Read</emph> that in addition to phonics instruction, students should receive comprehension‐based instruction that includes reading children's literature, such as the basal readers of her time, provided with an array of genres, literature, and real stories.</p> <p>The First‐Grade Studies, referred to in Chall's 1967 work, investigated various approaches to reading instruction by bringing together the combined work of 27 experimental research projects. In the First‐Grade Studies, Bond and Dykstra (1967) recommended linking a writing component to reading programs and also cautioned against viewing any single instructional method as a panacea. Systematic phonics was found to be more effective than the look‐say approach in basal readers of the 1960s, but Bond and Dykstra also stated that context needs to be considered and that opportunities for writing and dialogue are important. Likewise, Chall (1967) warned against adopting a one‐size‐fits‐all approach to teaching phonics, in line with similar cautions found in the First‐Grade Studies to remember that the instructional context is key when discussing which instructional strategies are more effective than others.</p> <p>Kenneth Goodman's seminal text "Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game" also came out in 1967 and is one of the foundational texts in the whole language movement (e.g., K. Goodman, 1986, 2014; F. Smith, 2011). Whole language teachers value reading experiences that are transactional (Rosenblatt, 1978) and inquiry driven, with students developing a habit of reflective thinking as understood by Dewey (1933). Teachers in whole language classrooms also tend to encourage students to become immersed in authentic literature (Harste & Burke, 1977). Yetta Goodman (1989) traced the rise of whole language in "Roots of the Whole‐Language Movement" and stressed that whole language is not a fixed set of instructional methods but rather should be viewed as an evolving set of beliefs about teaching that adapt to new challenges and contexts. Whole language approaches to early literacy instruction teach phonics within the context of diverse literature and dialogue (e.g., Teale & Sulzby, 1986), using socially and culturally meaningful reading experiences and cues (K. Goodman, 1993; Y.M. Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 2005).</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-3">Chall's Impact on the Reading Debates and the Science of Reading</hd> <p>In this section, we examine the impact of Chall (see Figure 1) and her body of work on beginning reading, her developmental stage model of reading, and her comprehensive landmark study and book, <emph>Learning to Read: The Great Debate</emph>, as well as its importance in our examination of the broader historical picture of how students learn to read. She was a highly distinguished researcher and literacy advocate, and the book ignited a lasting conversation about methods of teaching beginning readers. It was updated with a new preface across three editions, attesting to the longevity of her work (Chall, 1967, 1983a, 1996). Her work is archived and affiliated with the Monroe C. Gutman Library at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where the first author (Semingson) was a Jeanne S. Chall Visiting Scholar and examined the collection:</p> <p>The collection consists of several thousands of volumes documenting the history of reading research and the teaching of reading, spanning both the 19th and 20th centuries. Most of the materials dates from the 1950s to 1980s and includes textbooks, curriculum sets and scholarly works. (Gutman Library, n.d., para. 1)</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/02May21/rrq405-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq405-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Jeanne S. Chall, Circa 1991Note. Photograph courtesy of Special Collections, Monroe C. Gutman Library, Harvard Graduate School of Education." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Semingson located the two updated versions of <emph>Learning to Read</emph> (Chall, 1983a, 1996) and read the updated sections closely and carefully. She also located articles that were cited in these two books, in which Chall wrote additional interim updates concerning <emph>Learning to Read</emph>. Semingson cross‐checked related publications that connected to the reading debates in Chall's curriculum vitae (Chall & Hibbert, 2001). Chall passed away in 1999, so Sharon Hibbert revised the curriculum vita in March 2001 (E. Copenhagen, personal communication, September 1, 2010). After reading all materials written by Chall related to her updates on <emph>Learning to Read</emph>, published between 1967 and 1996, Semingson located and examined materials that reflected Chall's belief in an evidence‐oriented view of the examination of teaching beginning reading.</p> <p>It became clear that the enduring theme in the original <emph>Learning to Read: The Great Debate</emph> (Chall, 1967) and her updates (Chall, 1983a, 1996) reflected the belief that reading should be based on research and evidence. Overall, two key themes emerged in, across, and within the scope of these readings of Chall's views on the reading debates. She greatly valued what can be called a big‐picture historical perspective in examining approaches to reading instruction (e.g., Chall, 1967, 1983a, 1991, 1996) and believed that research and evidence must inform practice (e.g., Chall, 1991). These are described here, including quotes from her foundational works as primary sources.</p> <p>Chall had a great passion for the historical aspects in the field of reading and the value of examining effective and evidence‐oriented teaching practices. Chall (1991) wrote, "One can assess trends in a field only from a deep grounding in its past theories, research, and writing" (p. 42). Whereas most academic discourse and debate is valued for the use of recent and current research, Chall held in high esteem seminal studies from the past that provided great insight into what is effective in teaching reading, which was a primary focus across her works.</p> <p>Her collection at the Gutman Library at Harvard contains a wide array of texts, from reading‐focused psychologists in the early 20th century, to Thorndike, to whole language figures such as Frank Smith and Ken Goodman, to novel teaching approaches, such as tools for the Initial Teaching Alphabet. Chall (1991) stated, "Unfortunately, some in the reading field act as if the solutions to our pressing problems lie mainly in changing the old, usually tested methods to untested methods, which results in polarization among teachers, parents, and reading specialists" (p. 49). She believed that new research is not always better than classic and explanatory studies on how students learn to read. She added, "I learned to make the most out of the knowledge that existed and not to resort, unless absolutely necessary, to the use of 'We need more research' as an answer to questions" (p. 39). According to Chall, at the time of her writing, the evidence was abundant in terms of what was needed to help teach reading.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-5">Chall as Forerunner of the Science of Reading</hd> <p>The importance of Chall's legacy to the current debates is that she was a forerunner in some of the current themes related to the contested areas in the "science of reading" discussion. In reflecting on her work across time in the autobiographical "My Life in Reading," Chall (1991) explained that writing <emph>Learning to Read: The Great Debate</emph> was motivated by her work with students who faced challenges in reading. Part of her publications included advocacy for students with dyslexia, and she was actively involved in literacy organizations, such as the Orton Dyslexia Society (now the International Dyslexia Association), where she was an advisor. She often advised national and federal boards and committees on policy regarding reading instruction (Chall & Hibbert, 2001) and provided input on educational children's shows, such as <emph>Sesame Street</emph>. This show was developed by the Children's Television Workshop with the purpose of "foster[ing] intellectual and cultural development in preschoolers" (Cooney, 1967, p. 20). <emph>Sesame Street</emph> has contributed to measurable, short‐term literacy gains among children in experimental studies and remains popular since first airing in November 1969 (Fisch, Truglio, & Cole, 1999). Chall professed a love for research and synthesis, especially for research that provided practical solutions for teachers who worked with students facing reading challenges (Chall, 1991). Chall (1994) said, "Concerned with prevention of reading problems, I sought to find whether there was any evidence that certain beginning reading methods produce better results and help prevent reading failure" (p. 1).</p> <p>Chall's (1996) concept of learning to read in primary grades and reading to learn in upper elementary grades also informed debates in the science of teaching reading. Students in lower elementary grades are learning the code in the first stage of reading (Chall, 1983b), and students in upper elementary grades are largely learning to comprehend increasingly conceptually dense and vocabulary‐rich texts. Upper grade students who are at risk in reading will likely continue to underachieve, with their performance falling further behind, thereby reducing their chances of ever catching up to grade level. In <emph>The Reading Crisis: Why Poor Children Fall Behind</emph>, Chall and colleagues (1990) discussed the key variables that impact why upper grade readers might struggle with reading instruction (the fourth‐grade slump), despite having sufficient cognitive skills and home support to read on grade level. The authors suggested that older elementary students who may have performed well when reading in lower elementary grades need support in the upper elementary grades when facing conceptually difficult text.</p> <p>Chall (1991) raised concerns about a lack of consensus in the research, which she said could lower confidence among teachers to problem solve in providing effective reading instruction. Practical solutions that stem from the research, she believed, needed to be easily understood and be useful for teachers. Chall stated, "I realized early that even the most theoretical studies ultimately boil down to a yes or no response" (p. 39). In updates to <emph>Learning to Read</emph>, Chall sought to provide clear and usable answers to help practitioners in their work with students. This sense of urgency and looking to evidence‐based research of practical use to teachers is clear across her writing.</p> <p>Chall's work impacted prominent literacy scholars whose work has often been cited in relation to the broader public discourse of the science of reading. Her legacy, research, and studies on early reading, such as her work on the reading debates and on readability and textbooks, impacted the work of eminent literacy scholar Marilyn Jager Adams. Adams's (1994) landmark book <emph>Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print</emph> is a foundational text on beginning reading processes and instruction, in which she reviewed 20 years of research in early literacy and extended Chall's research and views in support of the early, systematic, and explicit instruction of spelling–sound relations. In the foreword to the 1994 seminal text, Pearson (1994) wrote that Adams drew on the research on parallel distributed processing. Although building on the work of Chall, Adams's work was updated and more nuanced in that it introduced relevant research focusing on how the visual, phonological, semantic, and discourse‐level systems interact in the reading process. Pearson noted,</p> <p>Phonics advocates will applaud Adams's uncompromising emphasis on spelling patterns and their relation to speech patterns. At the same time, whole language advocates will appreciate her insistence that orthographic knowledge cannot simply be taught; it must be understood, and it can only be understood when it is used in meaningful engagements with print. (p. vii)</p> <p>Adams's seminal work extended Chall's research and needs to be part of the "science of reading" dialogue and debates.</p> <p>When considering Chall's legacy, it was also important to the work of Louisa Moats, a student of Chall and popular scholar often cited by those who use the phrase <emph>science of reading</emph>. Moats's work has been cited and implemented as training by state education agencies in Texas and Arkansas using the LETRS (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) program and by other U.S. states as instrumental to teacher preparation and inservice teacher training. Moats's (1999) belief that reading is a specialized subject is captured in her statement, "Learning to read is not natural or easy for most children" (p. 14), a viewpoint that Chall also held. Moats's work is also often cited by those seeking curricular reform and change in the area of instruction and interventions for students with dyslexia. Parent advocacy groups, dyslexia advocacy groups, and state‐level policy mandates have encouraged further instruction in teacher preparation programs and inservice training for phonics‐focused programs. Part of what is currently happening at the state level and in school districts is largely the result of parents of children with dyslexia strongly advocating such phonics‐based programs (see, e.g., Decoding Dyslexia: https://dysle​xiaida.org/decod​ing-dysle​xia/).</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-6">Chall's Critique of Whole Language</hd> <p>Chall found whole language to be problematic in several ways. However, she was not entirely opposed to the principles of holistic and meaning‐centered approaches to teaching reading. Proponents of whole language value the meaning‐making exchanges among the teacher, the student, and a text, while considering the social and aesthetic aspects of the reading experience (K. Goodman, 2014). Skills tend to be practiced in the context of reading whole passages that, as proponents have asserted, are more meaningful for students than decontextualized drills (F. Smith, 2011).</p> <p>The key issues in the debate about learning to read largely centered on teaching beginning reading. In her decades of tracking the debate, Chall (1992, 2002) identified several key reasons why she disagreed with the whole language philosophy, which can be summarized from the third edition of <emph>Learning to Read: The Great Debate</emph> (Chall, 1996):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Students who are at risk in reading benefit from a code‐centered and systematic approach to reading (Adams, 1994 ; Chall, 1967 , 1983a , 1996).</item> <p></p> <item> The role that phonological and phonemic awareness play in learning to read is crucial and important. According to Chall, they are historically known to be causes of reading failure. She suggested that advocates of whole language do not focus enough on directly teaching phonological awareness and that this can have a consequent negative effect on students who are at risk in reading and need greater phonological development.</item> <p></p> <item> Learning to read is a developmental process (Chall, 1983b), and different stages of reading require different instructional methods; learning to read is not the same process at different stages of development.</item> <p></p> <item> The research literature regarding whole language is grounded in rhetoric rather than reason and evidence, which "is an ironic twist since the research and theoretical evidence on beginning reading today is much stronger than it was in the earlier periods" (Chall, 1996 , "Introduction to the Third Edition," n.p.).</item> <p></p> <item> Whole language is presented as if it were something new, but examining it historically, it has been around since the 1700s and Webster's (1792) <emph>The American Spelling‐Book</emph>.</item> </ulist> <p>Although Chall's work was primarily code focused, she made significant space for holistic approaches to literacy learning in stage 0 of her stages of reading development (Chall, 1983b), as well as further stages of the model that focus on reading for understanding and meaning making of content in text. Her model of the stages of literacy development suggested that learning to read was a developmental process, with different skills appropriate at different stages of development. As a caveat, it is important to note that Chall's stage model was not intended to be conceived of as rigid and in strict sequential phases for the reader. The stages depended on the reader, the type of text, and the reading purpose. For instance, students in the prereading stage (stage 0) typically read and write at a more global and holistic level than those who are "glued to the print" (p. 40) at a later beginning stage of reading when the code is emphasized. Additionally, the stage model allows for more holistic views beyond just stage 0. For instance, in stage 3 (when readers are reading for learning the new), typically in upper grades and middle school, comprehension and a meaning‐focused approach are emphasized as texts become more complex and information dense.</p> <p>Throughout her body of work, Chall believed that meaning making was the central goal of reading. She believed that students should be reading and listening to high‐quality text and literature, in addition to reading texts especially suited for their developmental stage (e.g., high percentages of decodable text designed for beginning readers, series books in the upper elementary years to develop fluency and readerly identities). Indeed, the Chall collection at Harvard contains a large number of literature‐based readers full of stories and across a variety of genres.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-7">Implications and Practical Considerations</hd> <p>Drawing on the historical perspective provided in this article and Chall's ideas on the roots and origins of the reading debates, we next look at what Chall might say today if it were possible to ask for her advice on guidance for teachers, researchers, educational publishers, and policymakers regarding the current reading debates, which are focused on the science of reading. The implications address the current reading debates and suggest her possible opinions about learning to read in a digital era and the pressures put on teacher educators and teachers to align their practice with the science of reading. We encourage readers to consider Chall's historic work, intellectual legacy, impact on current scholars and practitioners, and commitment to literacy (e.g., Semingson, 2010). Many of her protégés and others who felt her influence continue to form and shape the current debates and issues in the science of reading.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-8">What Would Chall Say to Teachers and Teacher Educators About Teaching Reading in the 21st Cen...</hd> <p>Since Chall passed away in 1999, the classroom is quite a different place. Students increasingly read digital, web‐based, and multimodal texts. Teachers make use of digital resources for reading and writing instruction. Literacy activities in the modern classroom are increasingly multimodal, involving kinesthetic, gestural, and spatial modes, in addition to the traditional linguistic modes (New London Group, 1996). As seen during the COVID‐19 pandemic, some classroom spaces have the potential to be entirely virtual. E‐books and tablets (e.g., iPads) have at times replaced print reading materials both in and out of school. Textbooks have become digital and multimodal and incorporate hyperlinks and external media, fostering a more nonlinear reading process (Coiro, 2021; B.E. Smith, Shen, & Jiang, 2019). Discussion of the term <emph>science of reading</emph>, as we define it in this article, would be incomplete without considering ways that the decoding process changes when encountering digital texts with hyperlinks, moving imagery, or other demands that do not exist in printed texts. Discourse related to the way instruction can be adapted for students when reading digital texts should remain clear about the context of activities that involve reading digital texts, the nature of texts themselves, and the social and culturally situated meaning making of the readers (Coiro, 2021).</p> <p>Chall would likely suggest that these supports provide enhanced ways to comprehend, provide vocabulary support for, and provide access to literature such as found in basal readers. We suspect that she would encourage educators to learn from the past and integrate lessons from prior research and theory with current perspectives and contexts. She might point to evidence that students generally benefit from systematic and explicit instruction in phonics, arguing in favor of explicit phonics instruction at early stages. However, Chall also consistently recognized that literacy instruction should take place within a rich and diverse language and literacy context. She would wish educators to be open to new research evidence that might improve instruction, but when presented with instructional programs, to ask, Where is the evidence?</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-9">Reading Multimodal Texts</hd> <p>Given changes in the shift from print to digital text and how readers interact with text, Chall would suggest that multimodal literacies have the potential to engage readers in a wide variety of ways, but she would, as always, ask for evidence while bearing historical context in mind. We suspect that she would point to opportunities for expanding literacy experiences through an exploration of different genres and modes of texts. She would also urge discussion about how research informs instruction to include support for elementary, middle, secondary, and adult readers. Chall (1983b) would suggest that readers continue to move through the stages of reading development that she identified in terms of the types of text they interact with and the process of learning to read, in general.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-10">Addressing Reading Instruction in the Digital Age</hd> <p>Reinking (2019) described a transition from the typographical era to the current post‐typographical era, a distinction that we find extremely relevant to discourse over the term <emph>science of reading</emph>. In the typographical era, students predominantly read words in printed texts, so a key task in early literacy was for students to learn to pay attention to the letters and words, gain automaticity in the act of decoding, and make sense of the text they just read. By contrast, Reinking pointed to key differences in reading a printed text as compared with varied forms of digital texts that are increasingly dominant in the post‐typographical era. Post‐typographic texts contain different types of visual cues that place different demands on the reader.</p> <p>Reading digital text requires a different skill set than reading text from a printed page, and the needs of readers vary depending on their background with reading digital text (Leu, Forzani, Timbrell, & Maykel, 2015) and their access to both print and digital text (van Dijk, 2020). Online environments are also well structured to take advantage of text, hyperlinks, and video to foster reading comprehension (Dalton & Proctor, 2008; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2018). Educators need to carefully plan instruction that guides students to become fluent and strategic readers of digital and multimodal texts. Digital texts can draw on the interests of students within online environments because of their enhanced ability to be interactive and present dynamic visuals (Alvermann, 2004; B.E. Smith et al., 2019; Thibaut & Curwood, 2018). Fluent readers recognize words effortlessly and read with appropriate expressiveness (Rasinski, Reutzel, Chard, & Linan‐Thompson, 2011). Recording technology (e.g., video, audio) can be used, for instance, as a tool in fluency lessons involving print or digital texts.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-11">Designing a Curriculum That Is Adaptive to Diverse Needs</hd> <p>CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology; 2011) developed the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework for the purpose of minimizing barriers to instruction in both general education and exceptional education (see also Edyburn, 2013). The UDL design principles focus on providing students with multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression and action (Rose & Meyer, 2002; Rose & Strangman, 2007). Instruction guided by UDL flexibly uses technological tools that aid students with physical and learning disabilities (Edyburn, 2010), in alignment with established instructional goals (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Rao, Ok, & Bryant, 2014). The COVID‐19 pandemic has highlighted the value of UDL for informing instructional choices in online instruction, with an emphasis placed on integrating technological tools in the context of setting specific learning goals and achieving learning outcomes (Basham, Blackorby, & Marino, 2020). Chall would likely acknowledge the importance of context and establishing a well‐designed learning environment. Further, she would also probably agree that students need multiple and varied forms of experiencing reading and expressing themselves. Due to the changing nature and shift from print to more digital literacies, we encourage researchers to focus on new literacies and multiliteracies with a focus on UDL principles.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-12">Addressing Demographic Changes</hd> <p>Chall wrote primarily in the 1960s to 1990s; since then, considerable changes have taken place in school demographics, such as the rapid rise of English learners in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). Bi/multilingual students can benefit from multimodal texts to communicate using the broad range of linguistic skills that they bring with them (B.E. Smith, Pacheco, & de Almeida, 2017). Reading comprehension strategies that are systematically planned and implemented in a well‐structured digital environment benefit both monolingual and bi/multilingual readers (Dalton, Proctor, Uccelli, Mo, & Snow, 2011). Researchers focusing on the processes of reading and beginning reading should consider ways that the reading wars (Pearson, 2004) have impacted literacy instruction and policy for a broad demographic, such as English learners. Additionally, in emphasizing Chall's long‐standing dedication to teaching students who face challenges in reading, we advocate a continued focus on these students.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-13">Addressing Gaps in Teacher Knowledge</hd> <p>According to Chall (1967), disagreement over what teachers and students need to know about the alphabetic code and how best to deliver this instruction is arguably the biggest sticking point in the reading debates. She would agree that teachers need to have a solid knowledge base in the reading process and a grasp of the existing evidence in terms of reading research. Researchers have critiqued the lack of knowledge base that some practicing K–12 teachers hold to teach beginning and/or struggling readers (Binks‐Cantrell, Washburn, & Joshi, 2020; Joshi et al., 2009). Background knowledge about phonics varies for teachers and teacher candidates regarding the more technical aspects of literacy learning in that area (Pittman, Zhang, Binks‐Cantrell, Hudson, & Joshi, 2020). Research also has suggested that some teachers have gaps in their background knowledge about phonics (Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, & Stanovich, 2004; Joshi et al., 2009). Accordingly, Chall (1983b) would agree that teachers need to know the research, be able to draw on a rationale for evidence‐based practices, and have a solid grounding in the stages of development in addition to knowledge of the code. Given this variance in teachers' background knowledge about phonics, Chall would suggest a broader differentiation in teacher knowledge development rather than a one‐size‐fits‐all approach to literacy teacher preparation and professional development.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-14">Encouraging Service in Professional Organizations</hd> <p>Educators can make a direct impact and have an influence on policy issues in literacy. Chall provided extensive consultation and service to teachers, publishers, policymakers, and government agencies, in addition to her groundbreaking work in advising popular children's media projects. She had an extensive record of service in offering guidance on ideas relating to government agencies (see Table 1). Teacher educators and elementary and secondary level teachers might consider service in professional organizations, such as the International Literacy Association (ILA), state education agencies, and national education organizations. Such service for educators can allow input on curricular choices and decision making at the local, state, and even national policy levels. Educators, for example, provided input on ILA's (2019) literacy leadership brief "Meeting the Challenges of Early Literacy Phonics Instruction."</p> <p>1 TABLESelected Federal and State Advisory Groups and Service by Jeanne Chall</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Program</th><th align="left">Agency</th><th align="left">Years of service</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Steering Committee, Project Literacy</td><td align="left">U.S. Office of Education</td><td align="char" char="–">1964–1970</td></tr><tr><td align="left">National Advisory Committee on Dyslexia and Related Reading Disorders</td><td align="left">U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare</td><td align="char" char="–">1968–1970</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Advisory Council for Title III</td><td align="left">Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Commonwealth of Massachusetts</td><td align="char" char="–">1968–1972</td></tr><tr><td align="left">National Reading Council</td><td align="left">Commission appointed by the president and the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare</td><td align="char" char="–">1970–1973</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Commission on Reading</td><td align="left">National Academy of Education</td><td align="char" char="–">1984–1985</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Elementary Education Study Group</td><td align="left">U.S. Department of Education</td><td align="char" char="–">1985–1986</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note.</p> <p>2 This information was culled from Chall and Hibbert (2001).</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-15">What Would Chall Say to 21st‐Century Literacy Publishers and Policymakers?</hd> <p>Earlier, we stated that policymakers and publishers would benefit from following reading research; however, the research alone is not sufficient in and of itself. Policymakers and publishers can also benefit from guidance in using research from stakeholders such as educators. Chall would suggest that although phonics is a crucial component of learning to read, meaning‐focused approaches centered on authentic literature are also crucial, as are opportunities for readers at all ages to read complex expository text with rich vocabulary. Phonics is a developmental stage that provides a foundation for accessing literature. Chall would likely agree with Darling‐Hammond (2006), who stated,</p> <p>Rather than being subject to the pendulum swings of polarized teaching policies that rest on simplistic ideas of best practice—"whole language" versus "phonics," for example, or inquiry learning versus direct instruction—teachers need to know how and when to use a range of practices to accomplish their goals with different students in different contexts. (p. 304)</p> <p>Thus, publishers should attend to moving beyond just phonics‐only curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-16">Providing Challenging Texts With Adequate Support</hd> <p>In <emph>The Reading Crisis</emph>, Chall et al. (1990) suggested that the text read should be challenging and attend to vocabulary development, an especially important component for students from low‐income backgrounds in fourth grade and beyond. Publishers should therefore continue to focus on providing challenging texts with vocabulary, multisyllabic words, and conceptually rich text for upper elementary grades and higher. Hyperlinks in digital texts that provide vocabulary support, pronunciation support, and support for building conceptual background knowledge would align well with Chall's recommendations regarding the importance of supporting students' access to complex texts. She would also include suggestions relating to the type of texts students read and the corresponding curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-17">Encouraging Research That Is Useful for Teachers</hd> <p>Chall would likely say that policymaking should be informed by ongoing inquiry into evidence‐based practices, as well historical contexts of the debates about the science of reading. She would likely recommend that policy discussion consider the ongoing quantitative and qualitative forms of scholarship related to early literacy, including evidence‐based practices related to phonics, as described in the three editions of <emph>Learning to Read: The Great Debate</emph>. The research should be easily understood by classroom teachers for classroom application and would need to be practical for meeting teachers' needs in the classroom context. Chall would likely advise that policy about literacy instruction should not be seen from a crisis standpoint but should consider a broad and comprehensive evidence‐based approach. Rather than one‐size‐fits‐all mandates, such an approach would be responsive to the contextual factors that influence classroom instruction and student learning.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-18">Funding in the Elementary and Upper Grades</hd> <p>A great deal of policy work has focused on early literacy prevention programs, such as Reading First initiatives in the early 2000s in the United States. Chall would say that improving instruction and funding for students who face challenges in reading in the upper grades is also essential (Chall et al., 1990). She would suggest that funding should focus on evidence‐based research, curriculum, and training of educators to enable at‐risk students, students from low‐income backgrounds, and students in upper elementary and secondary grades to gain the skills they need to be successful in reading. She would indicate that the underlying issues of poverty and the structural challenges confronting students from low‐income backgrounds and their families can significantly impact learning. These issues would need to be strongly addressed in addition to curricular and policy changes focused on literacy learning alone (e.g., Snow, Porche, Tabors, & Harris, 2007).</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-19">Conclusion and Future Directions</hd> <p>Drawing primarily on the legacy of the late Harvard scholar Jeanne Chall, we identified two main themes: valuing a historical perspective and requiring that reading instruction be evidence based. She would say that a broad dialogue about the role of history and context is needed to inform research and practice in reading. Likewise, publishers and policymakers would also be well served to keep the big picture with a historical perspective in mind while also seeking to encourage evidence‐based instruction. Chall (1983b) would advocate that educators need to fully understand the entire literacy spectrum, from early literacy through adult literacy, and grasp the complexities and nuances of the stage model. A more nuanced discussion of scientific research in reading should include a wide historical perspective that can provide insight into the longitudinal nature of the issues and enduring debates surrounding how readers best learn to read and comprehend.</p> <p>Chall would advocate for a broad view of the scope of literacy research. She strongly argued for the need to study historical contexts and the legacies of seminal studies. Consistent with her legacy, we contend that discourse and practice on literacy instruction need to address sociocultural contexts, longitudinal studies of intervention approaches, and current and future trends in digital reading (Coiro, 2021; Leu et al., 2018; Reinking, 2019). Advances in new literacies and the move toward digital texts, multimodality, and visual literacies will require reenvisioning what it means to read in terms of screens, the social nature of digital reading, and how information is processed while reading online (Duke et al., 2013; Leu et al., 2015). As readers increasingly move to screen‐based reading, we should not lose sight of the basic awareness that knowledge of the code is essential to reading. However, the present and future of literacy expectations call for defining, studying, and teaching reading in a way that draws on diverse sources rather than seeking a one‐size‐fits‐all solution. Suggested dialogue questions are provided in the Appendix.</p> <hd id="AN0150674349-20">NOTES</hd> <p>This work was informed by the first author's position in the Jeanne S. Chall Collection on the Teaching of Reading at the Harvard Graduate School of Education as a Jeanne S. Chall Visiting Scholar. We thank the librarians at Harvard's Gutman Library for support and Norman Stahl for support and access to other archived historical resources.</p> <p>APPENDIX</p> <p>In keeping with the aim of the theme of <emph>Reading Research Quarterly</emph>'s two special issues on the science of reading, "Supports, Critiques, and Questions," we provide some questions to foster dialogue. These ideas can be used in conjunction with reading scholarly articles in <emph>Reading Research Quarterly</emph> and other journals and digital resources that ILA offers. ILA provides a wealth of resources that can be used to foster a dialogic and comprehensive "beyond the debate" approach to teaching beginning readers and older students facing reading challenges. We present possible discussion questions for teachers and teacher educators to inspire nuanced dialogue about the complexities inherent in the science of reading relating to the reading debates in general and Chall's contributions in particular. Additionally, we refer readers to the ILA History of Reading Special Interest Group, which curated the <emph>History of Reading News</emph> newsletter[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>] from the early 1980s to the mid‐2010s (DeJulio, Stahl, & King, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref4">27</reflink>]); the Reading Hall of Fame; and other critical resources to enhance perspectives on teaching reading.</p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td align="left"><bold>Resources to explore related to Jeanne Chall and Her Legacy From Harvard</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Chall is noted for her contributions to the following areas:</p><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>The stage model of reading development</p></list-item><list-item><p>The fourth‐grade slump and challenges in moving to the reading of more dense, vocabulary‐ and concept‐rich, and complex text</p></list-item><list-item><p>Families facing poverty and the impact it has on literacy learning</p></list-item><list-item><p>The role of evidence‐based research in learning to read</p></list-item><list-item><p>Tutoring and clinical settings (e.g., the Jeanne Chall Reading Lab at the Harvard Graduate School of Education [HGSE])</p></list-item><list-item><p>The need to connect theory, practice, and publishers (i.e., basal readers)</p></list-item><list-item><p>The role of textbooks in reading instruction and the need for challenge in the difficulty of reading texts (e.g., vocabulary)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Dyslexia and reading difficulties (across the age spectrum)</p></list-item><list-item><p>The role of code‐emphasis approaches to teaching reading</p></list-item><list-item><p>Beginning reading</p></list-item><list-item><p>Adults who face challenges with reading</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><bold>Web‐based resources focusing on Chall and Her Impact</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>The Reading Hall of Fame website (https://www.readi​nghal​loffa​me.org/): Read about Chall and other literacy pioneers.</p></list-item><list-item><p>"100 Stories of Impact: A Literacy Pioneer," a HGSE webpage showcasing the legacy of Jeanne Chall: https://www.gse.harva​rd.edu/hgse1​00/story/​liter​acy-pioneer</p></list-item><list-item><p>"Honoring Jeanne S. Chall at HGSE," a webpage from the HGSE's Gutman Library highlighting Chall's work:: https://guides.libra​ry.harva​rd.edu/Jeann​eChall</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><bold>Leveraging resources provided by the International Literacy Association (ILA)</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Explore the ILA website (https://www.liter​acywo​rldwi​de.org/) and social media (Twitter: https://twitt​er.com/ilato​day?lang=en ; Facebook: https://www.faceb​ook.com/Inter​natio​nalLi​terac​yAsso​ciati​on/) to engage in webinars and Twitter chats on topics related to the reading debates and learning to read.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Follow ILA on social media to engage in dialogue about a variety of literacy topics, including those related to the science of reading. Tweet links to research articles, websites, and other tweets that support comprehensive approaches to reading instruction.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><bold><italic>Reading Research Quarterly</italic> and other ILA journal articles related to Chall</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Aaron, Chall, Durkin, Goodman, and Strickland (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">1990</xref>)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Baumann, Hoffman, Moon, and Duffy‐Hester (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">1998</xref>)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Chall (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">1999</xref>)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Henríquez (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2005</xref>)</p></list-item><list-item><p>Hoffman and Alvermann (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2020</xref>)</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><bold>Dialogue questions: The historical approach that Chall fostered</bold></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Personal response and commentary</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>What are your thoughts on the code‐emphasis approach and the topic of teaching beginning reading now?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How have your thoughts been influenced by Chall? How does your philosophy align or not align with hers?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Do you consider your instructional approach to be more aligned with a code‐centric approach or a whole language approach? Why?</p></list-item><list-item><p>Is your instructional approach in alignment with your philosophical beliefs on how to deliver literacy instruction? Do you feel as if you are under pressure to teach in a way that contradicts your teaching philosophy? Please explain.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>The transformation of whole language approaches</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>How has the use of more holistic and meaning‐centered approaches and the later whole language movement (as defined and supported by Kenneth Goodman and others) changed from the time of Chall's work (1967–1996)?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How has curriculum and instruction been influenced by the ideas of whole language? How does your philosophy align or not align with the work, legacy, views, and approaches of whole language?</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Connections to the present debates on the science of reading</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>How have debates about phonics instruction changed between Chall's day and today? Did she influence the field? Does <italic>Learning to Read: The Great Debate</italic> stand the test of time?</p></list-item><list-item><p>How are debates regarding literacy and phonics teaching impacting policies and expectations for teachers in states, countries, and/or regions?</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ref id="AN0150674349-21"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> We thank Norman Stahl for archiving and curating the collection of the <emph>History of Reading News</emph> for us to review as a resource. We recommend these and other historical articles for review and discussion by educators, researchers, and teacher educators.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0150674349-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Aaron, I.E., Chall, J.S., Durkin, D., Goodman, K., & Strickland, D.S. (1990). The past, present, and future of literacy education: Comments from a panel of distinguished educators, part II. The Reading Teacher, 43 (6), 370 – 380.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, M.J. (1994). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alvermann, D.E. (2004). Media, information communication technologies, and youth literacies: A cultural studies perspective. The American Behavioral Scientist, 48 (1), 78 – 83. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027​64204​267271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Balmuth, M. (2009). The root of phonics: A historical introduction (Rev. ed.). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Basham, J.D., Blackorby, J., & Marino, M.T. (2020). Opportunity in crisis: The role of universal design for learning in educational redesign. Learning Disabilities, 18 (1), 71 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baumann, J.F., Hoffman, J.V., Moon, J., & Duffy‐Hester, A.M. (1998). Where are teachers' voices in the phonics/whole language debate? Results from a survey of U.S. elementary classroom teachers. The Reading Teacher, 51 (8), 636 – 650.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Binks‐Cantrell, E., Washburn, E.K., & Joshi, R.M. (2020). Do teacher candidates in English‐speaking countries understand the structure of the English language? In T.L. Gallagher & K. Ciampa (Eds.), Teaching literacy in the twenty‐first century classroom (pp. 39 – 62). New York, NY : Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bond, G.L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). Cooperative Research Program in First‐Grade Reading Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2 (4), 5 – 142. https://doi.org/10.2307/746948</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> CAST. (2011). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA : Author.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J.S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY : McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J.S. (1983a). Learning to read: The great debate (Rev. ed.). New York, NY : McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J.S. (1983b). Stages of reading development. New York, NY : McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J.S. (1991). My life in reading. In D.L. Burleson (Ed.), Reflections: Personal essays by 33 distinguished educators (pp. 38 – 51). Bloomington, IN : Phi Delta Kappan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J.S. (1992). The new reading debates: Evidence from science, art, and ideology. Teachers College Record, 94 (2), 315 – 328.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J.S. (1994). Fascination with psychology and teaching of reading: Part II. History of Reading News, 18 (2), 1 – 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J.S. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate (3 rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX : Harcourt Brace.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J.S. (1999). Commentary: Some thoughts on reading research: Revisiting the First‐Grade Studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 34 (1), 8 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J.S. (2002). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classrooms? New York, NY : Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J.S., & Hibbert, S. (2001). Curriculum vitae of Jeanne S. Chall (Unpublished manuscript). Cambridge, MA : Special Collections, Gutman Library, Harvard Graduate School of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J.S., Jacobs, V.A., & Baldwin, L.E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coiro, J. (2021). Toward a multifaceted heuristic of digital reading to inform assessment, research, practice, and policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 9 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooney, J.G. (1967). The potential uses of television in preschool education. Retrieved from https://www.joang​anzco​oneyc​enter.org/​wp-​conte​nt/uploa​ds/2014/01/JGC_1966_report.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham, A.E., Perry, K.E., Stanovich, K.E., & Stanovich, P. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K–3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54 (1), 139 – 167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1188​1-004-0007-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dalton, B., & Proctor, C.P. (2008). The changing landscape of text and comprehension in the age of new literacies. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 297 – 324). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dalton, B., Proctor, C.P., Uccelli, P., Mo, E., & Snow, C.E. (2011). Designing for diversity: The role of reading strategies and interactive vocabulary in a digital reading environment for fifth‐grade monolingual English and bilingual students. Journal of Literacy Research, 43 (1), 68 – 100. https://doi.org/10.1177/10862​96X10​397872</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling‐Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st‐century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57 (3), 300 – 314. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224​87105​285962</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeJulio, S.R., Stahl, N., & King, J.R. (2018). Creating, preserving, and exploring literacy archives: The History of Reading News as a case. In N.A. Vines & S. Botzakis (Eds.), American Reading Forum online yearbook (Vol. 38). Retrieved from https://www.ameri​canre​ading​forum.org/yearb​ook/18_yearb​ook/paper​s/Archi​ving_Histo​ry_Of_Readi​ng_News-DeJul​io_Stahl_King.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA : D.C. Heath.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N.K., Norman, R.R., Roberts, K.L., Martin, N.M., Knight, J.A., Morsink, P.M., & Calkins, S.L. (2013). Beyond concepts of print: Development of concepts of graphics in text, pre‐K to grade 3. Research in the Teaching of English, 48 (2), 175 – 203.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edyburn, D.L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33 (1), 33 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319​48710​03300103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edyburn, D.L. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Exceptional Children, 80 (1), 7 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144​02913​08000107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, A.D. (2020). A discourse analysis of the science of reading through the lens of a social media Twitter hashtag (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 28258428)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisch, S.M., Truglio, R.T., & Cole, C.F. (1999). The impact of Sesame Street on preschool children: A review and synthesis of 30 years' research. Media Psychology, 1 (2), 165 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532​785xm​ep0102_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flesch, R.F. (1955). Why Johnny can't read—and what you can do about it. New York, NY : William Morrow.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flesch, R.F. (1981). Why Johnny still can't read: A new look at the scandal of our schools. New York, NY : HarperCollins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, K.S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6 (4), 126 – 135. https://doi.org/10.​1080/19388​07670​9556976</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, K. (1993). Phonics phacts. Portsmouth, NH : Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, K. (2014). What's whole in whole language in the 21st century? New York, NY : Garn.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, Y.M. (1989). Roots of the whole‐language movement. The Elementary School Journal, 90 (2), 113 – 127. https://doi.org/10.​1086/​461607</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodman, Y.M., Watson, D.J., & Burke, C.L. (2005). Reading miscue inventory: From evaluation to instruction (2nd ed.). Katonah, NY : Richard C. Owen.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, W.S. (1948). On their own in reading. Chicago, IL : Scott Foresman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, W.S. (1956). The new fun with Dick and Jane. Chicago, IL : Scott Foresman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gurley, J.L. (2011). Pendulum or compass rose? Educational philosophy related to literacy instruction in the United States. History of Reading News, 34 (2), 4 – 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gutman Library, Harvard Graduate School of Education. (n.d.). Jeanne S. Chall Collection on the Teaching of Reading. Retrieved from https://guides.libra​ry.harva​rd.edu/gse/speci​alcol​lecti​ons/Chall​#s-lg-​box-13649990</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harste, J., & Burke, C. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both teaching and learning of reading are theoretically based. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Reading: Theory, research, and practice: 26th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 32 – 40). St. Paul, MN : Mason.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henríquez, A. (2005). The evolution of an adolescent literacy program: A foundation's journey. Reading Research Quarterly, 40 (3), 376 – 380. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.3.7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman, J.V., & Alvermann, D.E. (2020). What a genealogical analysis of Nila Banton Smith's American Reading Instruction reveals about the present through the past. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (2), 251 – 269. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.269</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huey, E.B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York, NY : Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Literacy Association. (2019). Meeting the challenges of early literacy phonics instruction (Literacy leadership brief). Newark, DE : Author. Retrieved from https://www.liter​acywo​rldwi​de.org/docs/defau​lt-sourc​e/where​-we-stand/​ila-meeti​ng-chall​enges​-early​-liter​acy-phoni​cs-instr​uction.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi, R.M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren, M.E., Ocker‐Dean, E., & Smith, D.L. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42 (5), 392 – 402. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222​19409​338736</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leu, D.J., Forzani, E., Timbrell, N., & Maykel, C. (2015). Seeing the forest, not the trees: Essential technologies for literacy in the primary grade and upper‐elementary grade classroom. The Reading Teacher, 69 (2), 139 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leu, D.J., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L.A. (2018). New literacies: A dual‐level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D.E. Alvermann, N.J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (pp. 319 – 346). New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mann, H. (1838). Second annual report of the secretary of the Board of Education. In M. Mann (Ed.), Life and works of Horace Mann: Vol. II. Lectures and annual reports on education (pp. 492 – 561). Cambridge, MA : Walker, Fuller.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA : Center for Applied Special Technology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moats, L.C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC : American Federation of Teachers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). English language learners in public schools. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/progr​ams/coe/indic​ator_cgf.asp</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1), 60 – 93. https://doi.org/10.17763/​haer.66.1.17370​n67v2​2j160u</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson, P.D. (1994). Foreword: How I came to know about Beginning to Read. In M.J. Adams (Ed.), Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print (pp. v – viii). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson, P.D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18 (1), 216 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959​04803​260041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pittman, R.T., Zhang, S., Binks‐Cantrell, E., Hudson, A., & Joshi, R.M. (2020). Teachers' knowledge about language constructs related to literacy skills and student achievement in low socio‐economic status schools. Dyslexia, 26 (2), 200 – 219. https://doi.org/10.​1002/dys.1628</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao, K., Ok, M.W., & Bryant, B.R. (2014). A review of research on universal design educational models. Remedial and Special Education, 35 (3), 153 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419​32513​518980</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rasinski, T.V., Reutzel, C.R., Chard, D., & Linan‐Thompson, S. (2011). Reading fluency. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 286 – 319). New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinking, D. (2019). Shattering the crystal goblet: Seeking a pedagogy of visuality in post‐typographic expository texts. The Journal of Literacy and Technology, 20 (1), 10 – 45.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinking, D., Risko, V.J., & Hruby, G.G. (2021, January 26). Is there really a 'science of reading' that tells us exactly how to teach kids to read? The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washi​ngton​post.com/educa​tion/2021/01/26/readi​ngwar​s-scien​ceofr​eadin​g-teach​ing/?fbcli​d=IwAR1​xy1ud​m02k0​jt5wY​PaOCl​P0R33​COxAA​981wP​Obzt5​lC6_PkojW​N7Yd_oI</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, D.H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, D.H., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal design for learning: Meeting the challenge of individual learning differences through a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5 (4), 381 – 391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1020​9-​006-​0062-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Semingson, P. (2010). The Jeanne Chall collection on the teaching of reading: Being mentored by the works of an eminent literacy scholar. History of Reading News, 32 (2), 1 – 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan, T. (2020). What constitutes a science of reading instruction? Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (S1), S235 – S247. https://doi.org/10.​1002/rrq.349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, B.E., Pacheco, M.B., & de Almeida, C.R. (2017). Multimodal codemeshing: Bilingual adolescents' processes composing across modes and languages. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 6 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, B.E., Shen, J., & Jiang, S. (2019). The science of storytelling: Middle schoolers engaging with socioscientific issues through multimodal science fictions. Voices From the Middle, 26 (4), 50 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, F. (2011). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (6 th ed.). New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C.E., Porche, M.V., Tabors, P.O., & Harris, S.R. (2007). Is literacy enough? Pathways to academic success for adolescents. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teale, W., & Sulzby, E. (Eds.). (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ : Ablex.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thibaut, P., & Curwood, J.S. (2018). Multiliteracies in practice: Integrating multimodal production across the curriculum. Theory Into Practice, 57 (1), 48 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405​841.​2017.1392202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Cambridge, UK : Polity.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walczyk, J.J., Tcholakian, T., Igou, F., & Dixon, A.P. (2014). One hundred years of reading research: Successes and missteps of Edmund Burke Huey and other pioneers. Reading Psychology, 35 (7), 601 – 621. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702​711.2013.790326</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webster, N. (1792). The American spelling‐book. New York, NY : Samuel Campbell.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Peggy Semingson and William Kerns</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>PEGGY SEMINGSON (corresponding author) is an associate professor in the Department of Linguistics and TESOL at The University of Texas at Arlington, USA; email. Her research focuses on digital pedagogies, new literacies, teaching English as a second or foreign language, and trends in reading instruction.</p> <p>WILLIAM KERNS is an assistant professor in the School of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, USA; email. His research interests are digital pedagogies, curriculum design, reflective thinking in writing, and trends in literacy and language arts.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref4"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1298082
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Where Is the Evidence? Looking Back to Jeanne Chall and Enduring Debates about the Science of Reading
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Semingson%2C+Peggy%22">Semingson, Peggy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kerns%2C+William%22">Kerns, William</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. May 2021 56:S157-S169.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Research%22">Reading Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonics%22">Phonics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beginning+Reading%22">Beginning Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decoding+%28Reading%29%22">Decoding (Reading)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Whole+Language+Approach%22">Whole Language Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Criticism%22">Criticism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Stages%22">Developmental Stages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/rrq.405
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0553
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this historical analysis, we examine the context of debates over the role of phonics in literacy and current debates about the science of reading, with a focus on the work and impact of the late literacy scholar Jeanne Chall. We open by briefly tracing the roots of the enduring debates from the 19th and 20th centuries, focusing on beginning reading, decoding, and phonics. Next, we explore insights drawn from the whole language movement as understood by Kenneth Goodman and Yetta Goodman, as well as a synthesis of key ideas from Chall's critique of the whole language approach. We then analyze the shifts across the three editions of Chall's "Learning to Read: The Great Debate" and summarize major ideas from her body of work, such as the stage model of reading development. We suggest that reading instruction should be informed by a broader historical lens in looking at the "science of reading" debates and should draw on a developmental stage model to teaching reading, such as the six-stage model provided by Chall. We describe implications for educators, textbook publishers, researchers, and policymakers that address the current reading debates, and provide considerations of what Chall might say about learning to read in a digital era given the pressures on teacher educators and teachers to align their practice with what is deemed to be the science of reading.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1298082
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1298082
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/rrq.405
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: S157
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Reading Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beginning Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decoding (Reading)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Whole Language Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Criticism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developmental Stages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Where Is the Evidence? Looking Back to Jeanne Chall and Enduring Debates about the Science of Reading
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Semingson, Peggy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kerns, William
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0553
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1