English SummaryCan you get any wiser from studying the reading debate? Analysis of a pedagogical controversy.
Introduction
For many years there has been a controversy in the field of reading. It concerns the way in which initial reading instruction should be carried out. The representatives of both sides have been involved in debates of a surprisingly high temperature. This controversy has occurred in many countries, but it appears most bitterly in the U.S. and in Sweden.
The initial question for my work on this dissertation was: Why is it that scholars and experienced practising teachers take part in a controversy on a subject like this with such intensity and anger?
To try to answer this question I have concentrated in this study on three polarized debates in a Swedish teachers´ magazine, Lärartidningen/Svensk Skoltidning (LT). One debate took place in 1977 and 1978, another in 1981 and the third in 1986. Altogether more than 40 articles are included in my data.
Background
A background of American efforts to resolve the controversy by means of research on reading programmes is sketched out. The conclusion is that results from such research have not settled the problem. The renewed, possibly more successful, attempts during the nineties are referred to.
Positions in the polarized American debate are marked and compared in a ring diagram (figure 1, chapter 2).
Phonics Middle way Whole language
A: Reading method dimension
B: Reading theory dimension
C: Learning theory dimension
D: Scientific theory dimension
E: Political and ideological dimension
Figur 1. Starting points which govern the various positions adopted in the reading controversy. The different starting points for each of the positions are marked by a thicker ring.
The differences between the positions are discussed in terms of influences from diverse dimensions or perspectives in the debate. The figure suggests that there may be one or more dimensions concerned. In the centre of the diagram is the practical dimension, then comes the reading process dimension, followed by the psychological and pedagogical dimension on learning, then a science theory dimension and finally an ideological and political dimension.
Another part of the introduction covers the Swedish context of the focused debates during the seventies in Lärartidningen/Svensk Skoltidning, giving a short historical background to the Swedish situation concerning initial reading instruction.
Aims
My aim has been to document the arguments in these debates and also the dynamics in them. In my analysis I have also tried to understand the underlying forces of the controversy. My wish is to help to create new starting points for a more constructive and fruitful discussion on the way pupils are taught to read in the future.
Methodology
To accomplish my aim I have taken a model for my analysis from the field of controversy analysis. My main inspiration is a model used in Sweden by the sociologist Thomas Brante, professor at the University of Lund, and other researchers.
I have defined this reading controversy as 'scientifically-based' in the same sense as Brante and Norman (1995) use the concept. This means that the main participants are scientists and that there are scientific arguments on both sides, although the dispute is not a purely scientific one. Others than scientists can take part.
In the debates I have studied, researchers and their scientific arguments play the leading roles, but practising teachers react to the debate and give their opinions on learning to read and reading instruction.
The execution of the study
The data are presented extensively so that the reader can see for him or herself the arguments and also experience the rhetoric used to express the controversy.
The first step in the analysis focuses on the arguments. These are initially compared on three levels: arguments concerning the reading process, arguments concerning theories of learning and arguments with practical concerns.
Then the streams formed by the arguments at these levels are categorized and discussed according to the positions in the American debate. Similarities are found, but the arguments in the Swedish debate are mainly based on the two or three inner dimensions of the ring diagram.
The second step in the analysis focuses on the dynamics of the debate. First, factors related to commitments to various scientific reading paradigms are discussed. Second, rhetorical features of the argumentation, i.e. analogies and metaphors, are highlighted.
Signs of incommensurabilities and tendencies to classify the arguments of the opponents as non-epistemic are discussed. Incommensurability means that the same question is discussed by opponents from different perspectives. They argue from different starting points and talk at cross-purposes, unable to see each other's point of view or understand the conclusions. Non-epistemic arguments are non-factual arguments; the antagonist is accused of being ignorant or unwilling to familiarize him or herself with given arguments.
The third step of the analysis aims at factors underlying the polarizing forces of the debate in order to get a better understanding of the roots of the controversy in Sweden. Key concepts here are 'problem', 'uncertainty' and 'interests'. The dimensions of the earlier mentioned ring diagram are also used here.
Results
My conclusions from the analysis of the debates are of importance in several respects.
The matter of the dispute
The main issues in the Swedish debate are on a practical, reading methodology level. The viewpoints here have their theoretical background in the reading process. Differing opinions on the reading process and its nature are principally based on regarding the learning of reading either as a process of characteristic features or as a process similar to that of skilled reading.
The attitudes here are also influenced by the way in which the relation between speech and the written word is perceived, as well as the view of "entireness" (meaningful whole) and "partialness" in learning in general and specifically in the teaching of reading.
The factual dimension of the debate is presented and argued mainly by theorists. Attempts to really understand the arguments and perspectives of the opposite side and to give the dispute a more constructive tone do not occur, although there are materials on the 'matter' level that could be used for a more fruitful discussion between the 'poles'. The way the arguments are presented and the dynamics of the disputes seem to have had a restrictive effect on the debate. Participation from a broader spectrum of views on learning to read and reading instruction outside the 'poles' of the controversy and its divergent streams is thereby diminished.
Political-ideological background as an explanation
Hardly any political or ideological arguments are evident in the Swedish debates I have studied. Still, there may be a connection between the visible matters of the controversy and a hidden, deeper basis for this kind of argumentation. This is a possible explanation as such arguments connected with different opinions on the reading debate occur elsewhere: in the Swedish context (Isling, Å., 1989; Allard & Sundblad, 1987), in the history of reading (Mathews, 1966, Adams, 1990) and in other countries, e.g. Denmark (Dalby et al., 1983) and the U.S. (Goodman, 1992, Deegan, 1995).
Dynamics of the controversy and underlying causes
The different opinions on the 'problem', the scientific aspect of the controversy about learning to read, have led to a heated debate and a sharper tone. Strong forces are evoked at the poles, making their representatives more aggressive in the debate.
As the opposite sides make different assumptions about learning to read and reading instruction and refer to partly different kinds of research, certain incommensurability problems occur. In the three debates studied here too, non-epistemic arguments are used. This can partly be explained by incommensurability, but it could also be seen as a means of underlining the accuracy of one´s own argument and getting at one's opponents by undermining people's confidence in them.
The fact that the controversy has not been solved by research creates a degree of 'uncertainty' in the field of reading. 'Uncertainty' is according to Brante a major condition for controversy.
'Interests' can be tied to the context at each pole, but also to personal territories and to outside educational ideological forces.
For ethical and methodological reasons connected with the kind of data at hand, I have refrained from carrying out an analysis of the third step on an individual level and instead exemplified possible factors more generally.
The perspective of practitioners as it appears in the debate
My analysis shows that practising teachers raise certain content themes when giving their opinions in connection with the debate. They refer to their teaching expertise vis-à-vis that of the researchers on the issue of reading instruction. This is especially evident in the first debate, where practising teachers disassociate themselves from the sharp tone and rhetoric of the theorists. In this debate signs of polarization among practising teachers are still weak but they grow stronger during the period as theorists and practitioners join forces and support each other's arguments. This has an impact on polarization and makes it an even more important factor in the debate.
Another theme brought up by practising teachers is the description of personal teaching experience. The LTG method enjoys growing appreciation during this period. (LTG translated word for word means Reading on the Basis of Speech. It has traits of both LEA and Whole Language but is not the same as either of these.)
The final part of this thesis contains a discussion of Chall´s findings in 'Learning to Read: The Great Debate' (1967) about conditions and reasons for teachers to change ways of teaching reading.
The reading debate merges with the dyslexia debate
At the end of this study brief parallels are drawn to the present debate concerning dyslexia, where the same kind of polarized controversy is found. Reference is made here to a hearing of dyslexia in the Swedish parliament in 1994, an official report from 1997 and one pedagogical analysis (Bladini, 1994) and one sociological analysis (Solvang, 1998) of the Swedish controversy about dyslexia.
