Teach Effectively!

Over on EdNews under the provocative title, “The three-cueing model: Down for the count?,” Kerry Hempenstall published an article examining the conceptual, ideological, and evidentiary bases for the widely touted idea that children should learn to draw upon semantic, syntactic, and (only lastly) phonologic aspects of written material when reading. Professor Hempestall’s dismantling of the three-cuing model is about the best one I’ve read since Marilyn Adams’ thorough discussion that appeared in 1998.

Here’s his lead:

The three-cueing system is well-known to most teachers. What is less well known is that it arose not as a result of advances in knowledge concerning reading development, but rather in response to an unfounded but passionately held belief. Despite its largely uncritical acceptance by many within the education field, it has never been shown to have utility, and in fact, it is predicated upon notions of reading development that have been demonstrated to be false. Thus, as a basis for decisions about reading instruction, it is likely to mislead teachers and hinder students’ progress. In the recently released Primary National Strategy (2006a), the three cueing model (known in Great Britain as the Searchlight model) is finally and explicitly discredited. Instead, the Strategy has acknowledged the value of addressing decoding and comprehension separately in the initial stage of reading instruction.

Read the original. Follow this link to Professor Hempenstall’s column.