TRT Podcast#58: Reaction to Fountas & Pinnell #2: Fountas and Pinnell are wrong about three-cueing
Despite the lack of evidence for three-cueing, Fountas and Pinnell aren’t budging. In this episode I respond to their recent blog post in which they claim that we must help students use multiple sources of information to solve words.
Listen to the episode here
Full episode transcript
Related resources
- Fountas & Pinnell’s series: Just to Clarify
- Emily Hanford’s response: Influential authors Fountas and Pinnell stand behind disproven reading theory
- Mark Seidenberg’s response: Clarity about Fountas and Pinnell
- The Three-Cueing System in Reading: Will it Ever Go Away? (from the National Institute for Direct Instruction)
- The Learning Spark: What are Your Pet Peeves about Reading?
- Podcast episode: What’s wrong with three-cueing?
- Podcast episode: How the brain learns to read
Love Freebies?
Subscribing to our email newsletter is completely free. And when you do, you'll get access to our library of subscriber freebies! Sign up below to get access to a wonderful variety of math and literacy resources.
Saundra Campa
Thank you for a great podcast. When I attended college to become a reading teacher, I was taught Reading Recovery/F and P in one class and Orton Gillingham in another. Then when I became a 4th grade teacher working with learning disabled kids I saw that the kids could not use the ” three cueing system” and other “guess strategies.” The books they were supposed to be reading for class had no pictures – they were chapter books. They couldn’t use the other strategies such as read on and use context clues because they could not “read” the other words either. It was then that I used what I had learned in my Orton Gillingham class. The students began to read. Not guess. They learned to decode. And as they were learning decoding skills, we worked on comprehension. And I read TO them so they WERE learning about dinosaurs etc. F and P has never worked with any of my learning disabled students. And the teachers I worked with did not use the cueing mistakes to guide their instruction due to several factors (not enough time in school day with all the other things that needed to get done; their own lack of understanding the English language system and how to teach reading, etc.). As an independent reading specialist, I am so glad that I can use the materials that I know will bring my students success.
Anna Geiger
I think it’s fabulous that you received training in both, Saundra, so you could understand both sides and make a thoughtful analysis/decision about which approach would be best. I’m thrilled to hear that as you taught your students to decode, you simultaneously worked on a comprehension. That’s definitely a win-win approach!
Andrew
I see what you’re saying, and it’s right. But also misleading.
your example of book doesn’t work because the meaning isn’t in the word. Some people don’t know what a book is.
Now consider to, two, too.
3 queuing is giving them the answer. It all depends on whether the child actually uses that answer to remember the letters, or just skips on because they put little effort into the answer.
So the real question is:
If meaning is important, how are you going to bring it into your lesson without picture cues making it too easy?
Heather
I am a Reading Recovery teacher and although I use PM books not Fountas and Pinnell, I totally believe in using the ” 3 cuing system” as you call it. I do not think children who struggle, can use sounding out as a way to learn to read. They need to be thinking about meaning and syntax and visual info to become readers and to be able to understand what they read.
Anna Geiger
Thank you for your comment, Heather! What would you recommend for these students when they are in third grade and get to a word they can’t solve with context or meaning – for example, a science word they’ve never seen before? How would you help them read the word?
Beth
I use “the science of reading” (without the term) to teach young ones to read. I was previously a 5th-grade teacher during a transitional time where I was taught to use Whole Language (including phonics) in college, but the standards movement was just starting up. I did not hear the terms “Balanced Literacy” or “3-cueing” until recently, but I remember hearing about the 3 cues once I was in the field. I don’t think they should be thrown out for older kids who have already been taught using the science of reading. In our complicated language, they will continue to come upon strange letter combinations from other languages and new words that have become so widely used they are allowed into the dictionary. These words do not usually follow any of the standard phonics that they were taught. So, they can take a stab at it. Consonants are often the same, but French words will throw you off even there. Completely stumped? Take the parts of the word you sounded out, think about the context, think about the part of speech, and look at the picture (if there is one). Sometimes they can figure out a difficult word like “chandelier” by adding those steps. I do emphasize sounding out above and beyond the “3 cueing,” but I think it has some use to teach older kids (3rd grade and up if they are overall good readers) another “trick” if a difficult word comes up. Do you think this is harmful or is there something better I could be doing? I do also explain the foreign language phonics, to the extent I know them.
Anna Geiger
You could be referring to set for variability, which is a good thing. It’s when kids attempt to decode a word, but don’t end up with a real word, and then they adjust the word based on how a word should actually be pronounced (and context helps them with this). Does that sound like what you mean?
Mary W.
Anna, thank you for your post and continued research into this topic. Jennifer Serravallo is one professional in this field whom I highly regard and respect. As a researcher and practitioner, she uses the leading scientific research in addition to her work in the field to guide her thinking and practice. Based on the new research, she recently modified and added new strategies to her Reading Strategies book that focus on this very issue with printwork. While not discounting the three-cueing system altogether, she instead shifted the focus to visual first, followed by meaning and syntax. You can find her explanation for revising her chapter here: https://blog.heinemann.com/serravallo-reading-with-accuracy. Burkins and Yates also recommend this V-MS shift in instruction in their book, Shifting the Balance: 6 Ways to Bring the Science of Reading into the Balanced Literacy Classroom.
Anna Geiger
Thank you for sharing that info, Mary! I have pretty much all of Jennifer Serravallo’s books, so I did receive the update to Reading Strategies. I appreciate that she is studying the research and not refusing to budge, as it appears F & P are doing. I also have read and appreciate Shifting the Balance. I agree that kids should look at the print first and make their best attempt at the word by sounding it out. Syntax and context can help them self-correct.
Justine
Thank you – this was short and to the point. Well done. I’d add a small point that there is plenty of thinking going on when students are ‘sounding out’ and to diminish that process alone shows an incomplete understanding of how reading actually occurs. English is not an easy language to decode, after breaking the 26 lettered code that represents 44 sounds, with 5 vowel symbols that represent 18 sounds, readers have plenty of work to do to achieve accuracy and automaticity as they build their reading skills. Blending sounds into words and vice versa is in itself a skill that isn’t naturally obvious for all learners and the assumption that it is simple and not amazing isn’t helpful. Thank you for this series, I look forward to hearing more.
Anna Geiger
Great point, Justine! So often in the balanced literacy professional reading that I have done, “sounding it out” is presented as a low-level skill. Thanks so much for pointing out that this isn’t the case!
Kathy Kersul-Wiener
Maybe you could consider reading those books by Marie Clay instead of the writings of a journalist named Emily Hanford who has no educational degree or classroom experience. Clay’s Reading Recovery has earned a Strong rating from Evidence for ESSA and a positive rating from the What Works Clearinghouse. Evidence for ESSA found no research to support LETRS, a program advocated by Hanson. A report from the WWC describes how LETRS improved teachers’ knowledge but had no effect on their students’ reading (https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/QuickReview/pdr_rev0309.pdf).
I feel sorry for children who don’t get to read stories about elephants and dinosaurs and birthdays because they can’t sound out those words yet.
Anna Geiger
Hi Kathy! I actually discounted Emily Hanford’s article for a year or two because of exactly what you wrote – “no educational degree or classroom experience.” Multiple blog readers directed me to it, and I didn’t take it seriously. It wasn’t until I really studied the research surrounding reading that I began to realize that she had quoted all the relevant resources. I know exactly how you feel about feeling sorry for kids who can’t read interesting stories because they can’t sound out the words, but in all honesty, using the picture and context to “read” a word isn’t really reading. I’m happy to share more resources with you if you’d like. In the meantime, I’d love to see evidence of Clay’s research. I do have her books (which I bought years ago), but my understanding is that her research is based on observation. I’m happy to read her research if it exists, provided it is more than case studies. Links to articles are welcome! In the meantime, I would encourage you to read Margaret Goldberg’s writings on her site, the Right to Read Project. She is a former balanced literacy teacher and comes at it with a gentle approach, as I hope that I have done.
Kathy Kersul-Wiener
Not all research is quantitative; that’s why doctoral candidates in reading typically have to take a course in qualitative assessment. Clay’s findings are based on years of systematic observation, not just random case studies. In An Observation Survey she describes standardized observation techniques that create reliability and validity in assessment. Chapter 6 of Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training has enough data to keep any statistician happy. Although this data is “old,” studies reviewed by the Institute for Educational Sciences (What Works Clearinghouse) continue to show similar findings.
There is more than one way to read a word. If the reader comes across a word that follows the rules of a foreign language, he has to rely on cues other than decoding. If I were to try to read the manual from the nuclear power plant near me, I could probably read most of the words using my proficient decoding skills–but I would just be saying the words because they would be meaningless to me. That’s not reading. Sounding those words out wouldn’t help me read–but it would get me a great score on a decoding assessment, which would make me look like a good reader.
To answer the question you posed to Heather: a struggling 3rd grader is not going to be able to decode a multisyllable word in a science textbook. That reader is likely to be back in an earlier stage of reading development, probably still working on single-syllable words. That’s why we directly teach Tier 3 words. It’s also why authors of informational texts and textbooks directed at transitional readers typically include maps, diagrams, charts, photos, etc. When was the last time you saw an informational book without these aids? Should we take them away so that we can force kids to sound out the words?
Anna Geiger
What I’m confused about is when you would give this struggling reader the tools to identify a longer word.
I agree with what you wrote earlier in the comment – decoding words by themselves is NOT reading. That’s why the Simple View of Reading shows us that word identification AND language comprehension must both be present for true reading comprehension to occur. Though I know it can feel like it, the science of reading isn’t just about phonics.
I don’t quite understand your reference to text features. They’re useful for giving information, not to help kids identify words.
Also, I’m struck by this … “force kids to sound out the words” … what’s wrong with that, exactly?
Kathy Kersul-Wiener
I would give the struggling reader the tools to figure out a longer word when he is in the stage of spelling development that supports this. Bear and Templeton’s model of developmental spelling tells us that children aren’t ready to decode multisyllable words until they can successfully decode single-syllable words. (Decoding and encoding are flip sides of the same coin.) If a child can’t successfully decode a word such as “cat,” he isn’t going to be successful with a longer word such as “catastrophe.” Trying to force him to do this is only going to result in frustration.
Let’s say that we’re reading about an okapi. If the child decodes this word independently, he’ll probably say it with a short a. He used his decoding skills–it’s a closed syllable. Instead, I’ll do what Fountas and Pinnell recommend to do in a book introduction. I’ll show him the picture of the okapi, ask him what sound he hears at the beginning and what letter makes that sound, have him find the word on the page, and RUN HIS FINGER UNDER IT. That’s the part that often gets left out of discussions about figuring out words. We don’t have the child guess based on a picture and first letter; we have him use the visual cues to check. We use the same strategy if he reads the word incorrectly: Run your finger under the word. Does it look right? Try again.
Are there teachers who encourage students to guess at words? Yes. Are there teachers who give kids stacks of phonics worksheets to complete? Yes. Neither of these is Best Practices and they should be addressed. But they don’t make Balanced Literacy or the Science of Reading wrong.
Just to be clear, I was teaching phonics back when the Whole Language advocates said not to. I believe that students need systematic, explicit phonics instruction. I just don’t believe it’s the answer to all reading problems.
Anna Geiger
You wrote: I would give the struggling reader the tools to figure out a longer word when he is in the stage of spelling development that supports this.
Yes, exactly! So why would you include these words in the child’s reading material when s/he doesn’t have the tools to read it yet?
Then again, I know that sometimes (even in decodable books) there are story words that kids can’t sound out yet. I don’t have a problem with that as long as, like you said, we are addressing it in advance. But I would just want to make sure this is for just a few words. So often, with leveled books, kids cannot sound out MOST of the words. And that’s where the problem lies; they aren’t getting nearly enough practice using their phonics skills and are often taught to use other methods to get at the word.
Thank you for the discussion, Kathy! I am going to sign off on this one, but while we are not quite on the same page – I don’t think we’re too far apart!
Cindy
You make it sound like teachers who find the three cueing systems helpful don’t ever use a sound-it-out strategy. I taught with the Reading Recovery program for several years (first grade daily one-on-one intervention) and we had definite daily and weekly evidence that students using Marie Clay’s model succeeded in reading. Before I learned about the 3 cueing systems, I didn’t ever think about evaluating students’ errors. It really helped me listen to the types of mistakes students were making and direct my teaching to remedy it. It would be a shame if students only strategy is to “sound-it-out.” When this happens, doesn’t research say this slows students comprehension because they are so focused on sounding out words that they can’t focus on the meaning? I recall this from my own first grade experience back in the early 60s. Phonics was the main emphasis and I DID learn to read well orally and fast, but my comprehension was poor . . . which followed me throughout much of my school career. I believe there is room for all of these strategies. I will not give up on my F & P resources!!
Anna Geiger
Hi Cindy! I didn’t meant to imply that, and I’m sorry if it sounded that way. I do have to say, though, that in my reading as a balanced literacy teacher I was encouraged to use “sound it out” as only a last resort. I absolutely believe that some kids can succeed with balanced literacy, but often that success goes away when they start reading more challenging books and the cues are no longer helpful. That said, a good percentage of kids DO realize that sounding out words is the easier path to reading, and the other cues fade away. (The problem is that for another good percentage, sounding it out is too difficult and they hold on to context and picture clues, which eventually becomes guessing – esp. as they run into multi-syllable words).
You’re right on the money when you note that some kids can decode well using phonics but have poor comprehension. These must both be the focus, but when teachers use poor quality decodable books with stilted language, it’s hard for comprehension to result.
I still have my F & P books as well, and I would never say to pitch them. But I think we need to think long and hard about the foundation of their philosophy.
LR
Ann, Can you guide me to a good list of decodable books?
Also, is there any difference in the position you would take in teaching a Primary 1 6 yr old who is learning English as a 2nd or foreign language?
Anna Geiger
Hello!
Here are my favorite decodable books: https://www.themeasuredmom.com/where-to-find-decodable-books-for-short-a/
I do not have experience teaching English language learners, so I can’t offer much in that area. But I would say that learning the structure of the English language and how to decode words are important for everyone – as are attention to comprehension and fluency.
Sarah Perkins
I good resource for learning about reading with second language learners is Colorin Colorado – put out by the same people who do Reading Rockets. It contains a section titled Teaching ELLs where you can find current information about literacy instruction.
Sarah Perkins
I apologize – I should have clarified that Colorin Colorado is a website – https://www.colorincolorado.org/
Anna Geiger
Thank you SO much, Sarah! I’m so glad to have this link to send people to!
Charis Bower
letter-sound correspondence (can be different in other languages)
vocabulary, vocabulary, vocabulary (so student understands the decoded word)