Using Decodable Texts
From no thank you to yes please
Last spring I was deep into my journey of learning about and embracing the science of reading. I regrouped hundreds of high frequency words according to spelling patterns and made new lists. I analyzed all of the irregular high frequency words and made a slide show of words with hearts under the “hard parts to remember by heart.” And I started using decodable passages during small group instruction. There was one thing I was reluctant to do, however, and that was to dispose of all the leveled texts I’ve been using to teach my kindergartners to read and replace them with decodable books.
I’ve never been a fan of decodable books with a controlled vocabulary. You know, the ones where it’s very apparent that someone is trying to use as many short i words as possible? I’ve come across many books that are quite decodable and have no issue with them as far as readability; but the ones that are written specifically to aid reading instruction in a controlled manner all seem horrible. Horrible because they don’t seem to make any sense to me and if they don’t make sense to me, how can they possibly make sense to a five-year-old?
Last spring, I went through all of the leveled texts in my classroom that I use to teach reading. I had made a decision to keep any book that was 80% decodable (common high frequency words plus words that could be sounded out). In my opinion, kindergarten students need to be reading books early on to develop concepts of print, practice voice-print match, practice their nascent phonics skills, and get repeated exposures to high frequency words such as I, can, a, the, see, etc. Also, in my opinion, I wasn’t going to ruin them if I let them use a picture clue to figure out one of the words per page. I had no idea why 80% decodable sounded about right to me, but as it turns out this percentage allowed me to keep almost all of the books that I had been using for the purpose of teaching reading. This confirmed for me that, even before knowing about the science of reading, I had a good idea that students should be mostly sounding words out and/or recognizing high frequency words we’d practiced and I had collected and was providing books that facilitated the opportunity to do both.
With the decodable passages that I have and the assurance that the books I’m using for instruction are mostly decodable, I figured I was set for the upcoming school year. But the issue of decodable texts wasn’t going away and I knew I needed to learn more.
I would like to thank Wiley Blevins, author of Choosing and Using Decodable Texts: Practical Tips and Strategies for Enhancing Phonics Instruction, for providing me with exactly what I needed to know, as well as alleviating my guilt for not liking decodable books and confirming my reasons as to why.
Don’t get me wrong though. Blevins is no proponent of using leveled texts; in fact, he is a big fan of decodable texts and writes many titles himself.
Apparently I’m not the only one who isn’t impressed with decodable books. Blevins has heard it straight from many teachers over the years that they think these books are “boring and stupid.” Curious, he asked teachers to show him the decodable texts provided with their reading programs. He had to agree; they were boring and stupid.
In the research that supports the use of decodable texts, the standard for decodable texts has always been high; unfortunately, however, some publishers have created weak—to put it nicely—decodable texts. In his book, Wiley discusses what distinguishes strong from weak when it comes to decodable texts. There are three criteria:
Comprehensible - “The stories should make sense and follow natural-sounding English spoken and written patterns. No sentences should be in the stories that you, as a proficient speaker and reader of English, have not uttered, written, or read. Vocabulary must be understandable. Words must be derived primarily from children’s speaking and listening vocabularies.”
Instructive - “The majority* of the words must be decodable based on the sound spellings previously taught. In addition, there should be enough words with the new, target phonics skill for children to get ample practice decoding words with that skill. There must be a strong connection between instruction and text.”
*Note - “Research has NEVER given a percentage of decodability, and sources that require or claim a decodability requirement (e.g., 80 percent or 90 percent) have arbitrarily decided on their definition of majority.”
Engaging - Connected, decodable texts must be engaging and worth talking and writing about. Children must have the desire to revisit these texts and repeatedly reread them to develop fluency. For beginning readers, some of the engagement will come from high-quality photos and illustrations.
These three criteria stunned me! I must say that my greatest concerns with decodable texts have always been the comprehensibility and engagement factors. And, if those two criteria cannot be met then it’s hard to imagine that a book would be instructive, no matter what phonics skills are being covered.
I feel relieved that Blevins noticed that some of these criteria were often missing in decodable books. So it wasn’t just me, all these years, after all.
In addition to keeping in mind the three criteria—comprehensible, instructive, engaging—Blevins cautions against using decodable texts with these common issues:
Using low-utility words to try to squeeze in more words with the target skill - Let Lin dab a lip.
Using non-standard English sentence structures - The pup did run at Kit.
Using nonsensical sentences or tongue twisters - Fun Fran flips, flaps, flops.
Using too many easy pronouns that make the meaning difficult to figure out - She did not see it, but she did kick it.
Using too simple language to explain scientific concepts - The sun will make plants rise.
Using odd names to get more decodable words in the story - Ben can see Mem.
Avoiding using the word the just because it is an irregular word.
As I began reading this book, I wondered if the author would talk about what percentage of a text needed to be decodable for it to qualify as decodable. I was fascinated to learn that there is no research that specifies a certain percentage of decodability. The California Department of Education required 75 percent and Texas 80 percent. Publishers often focused on the higher percentage and tried to write stories based on a formula rather than thinking about comprehensibility and level of engagement. It shows. And that is why I originally said no thank you to using decodable texts as my primary way of teaching children to read.
Wiley Blevins suggests that we think of texts as accountable instead of decodable. We need texts that will hold children accountable for the skills we have taught them. “…yes, it is beneficial if the majority of the words can be sounded out in the text using children’s growing knowledge of phonics. But if one story is more comprehensible and engaging at 65 percent or 70 percent decodable than another story at 80 percent decodable that has stilted sentences and odd language structures, I prefer the story with a slightly lower decodability. Children will still get loads of decoding practice.”
There is a lot more to his book, but wow, I feel legitimized after reading just the first third of it. I was not open to the idea of using decodable books because I haven’t seen any examples of high-quality ones. I do have high quality decodable passages and I thought I would just stick with those. Blevins also talks about writing our own accountable (trying to change my language here from decodable to accountable) sentences and questions for students to practice reading, especially if we want to incorporate a topic or weekly theme that is being studied. I feel that I am knowledgeable and talented enough to do this and have actually tried it in the past with great success. And, I hold out hope that we will be seeing more and more high-quality accountable texts for our young readers.
So, thank you, again, Wiley Blevins, for taking me from no thank you to yes please when it comes to using accountable/decodable texts in my kindergarten classroom. I look forward to changing up yet another component of my reading instruction to better align with the science of reading.
I think you and Blevins make many good points in your blog post, especially if one is teaching kindergarten in a Tier 1 environment (especially the comment about using decodable text to teach science concepts!). I can tell you this, however: if one is teaching children who have struggled to conquer text, these children do not care to much if the text is a bit stilted if they can READ it independently after so many years of frustration...and using decodables doesn't last forever--or even that long. The goal is to decipher the code and apply what has been taught when reading authentic text--and I know you know that very well!! Thanks for the great summary of Blevins' book.