Personally-Valued and Researched-Based Practice in Literacy Instruction

If you have been in one of my graduate classes in literacy education, it is quite likely that I began the class by discussing the concepts of “personally-valued practice” and “research-based practice.” I believe that these are valuable concepts that explain a lot of what goes on with regard to literacy instruction at the classroom level and that can be used by teachers and schools to reflect on and evaluate their current literacy instruction and how it measures up to relevant research. So, I thought that it would be valuable to introduce them here, in the inaugural post for this restart of the CLC blog.

I believe that literacy instruction in most classrooms represents a mixture of personally-valued practices and research-based practices, and I think that it is critical that teachers grow increasingly more to able to distinguish between the two.

Personally-valued practices are instructional approaches, activities, or routines that are based on our philosophies of childhood, learning, or literacy (preexisting personal beliefs or values about how kids learn, what they “need,” etc…), on personal history and anecdotal evidence (“I have always done it this way, and it seems to really work…”), or simply on what we like to do with kids and think that they find engaging, enjoyable, etc... Note that what is absent from this description is clear evidence that an instructional approach has empirical research support, i.e., that there are research studies that demonstrate that it worked better than other approaches in one or more settings. Personally-valued practices simply don’t have this kind of clear research to support them; we simply can’t say, with any surety, that they are good for the students that we teach.

In contrast, research-based practices are those instructional approaches, activities, or routines that do have clear research support, meaning that they have been shown to produce greater outcomes than other approaches in carefully conducted research in one or more settings. Now, research findings have varying degrees of limitations. A practice may have produced greater learning in one study in a suburban 5^th grade, and, thus, we may not know if it will produce the same benefits in a setting with a high percentage of English learners. Another practice may have been the focus of numerous intervention studies in many different settings, and, in each case, it may have produced benefits. Thus, we could turn to the instruction in the second case with great confidence that it is good for students. In the first case, we could say that we know that the practice has worked in one setting and that there is a rationale for trying it in our setting, but that we better watch closely to see if it is producing the outcomes that we are seeking.

 At this point, I should also make the point that I have heard Tim Shanahan make. “Research support” vs. “no research support” doesn’t mean that the former produces wildly positive gains for every student and that no one learns anything in the later. It is not all-or-nothing. Generally, a research-based practice shows small-to-medium benefits in learning over another practice. Said another way, kids in nearly all forms of instruction do inevitably “develop” as readers or writers, but research-based instruction offers the best chance to maximize their learning.

Now, back to the distinction between personally-valued and research-based practice. To my mind, we owe it to “other people’s kids” to do what we know gives those kids the best chance to maximize their learning. Said another way, implementing personally-valued practices because “We believe that it is good for kids,” “We really think that they need this,” “We have always done it this way,” or “The kids really like it” basically puts a teacher’s needs or wants before the students’ needs. But, as teachers, we have already “made it:” we have college degrees, a career, a steady income, etc… Our students, on the other hand, haven’t obtained these things. Their futures hang in the balance, dependent, to some degree, on their teachers’ knowledge, decisions, quality of instruction, etc… In this situation, I believe that to displace research-based instruction with personally-valued practice is irresponsible, akin to “instructional malpractice.”

In many cases, I think that problems arise because we believe that personally-valued practices are indeed research-based practices. Trust me, I have been there! And, in these days, when literacy instruction has been highly commercialized, with private companies literally making hundreds of millions of dollars marketing and selling literacy instruction curricula and materials, it can be very difficult to wade through the glitzy marketing and various claims of “research-based.” The renewed “Reading Wars” further confuse the issue, as the competing sides and their respective "experts" claim that their favored methods are “research-based.” Consequently, I believe that teachers and schools need a high degree of expert knowledge on literacy development and literacy instructional research.

How do we get there? It is always helpful to begin with what are considered “consensus conclusions” in the field. These are conclusions that are typically supported by numerous studies and the vast majority of leading researchers. For example, the National Reading Panel report provides what can be considered “consensus conclusions.” Another important consideration is to look for “external” research. It is never a great idea to rely on research on an approach that was conducted by the very people who are selling the approach! It is also absolutely critical to keep learning, keep questioning, keep holding a “tentative” view on your instructional practices (i.e., “I think that these research-based activities, so I am going with them. But, if and when I hear otherwise, if and when I find compelling evidence to the contrary, then it will be time to change). Finally, perhaps the most important step is to honestly evaluate your “local data.” Is what you or your school doing producing robust outcomes for all kids (and not just those who would thrive in nearly any situation)? If not, do you know enough about the research in the areas that seem most relevant to your outcomes? How can you get highly pertinent research in your hands? Do you know someone who could help you think through the findings and their applications in your setting? 

Wow, that was a lot more long-winded than I had in mind! So, if you are still with me, thanks! I believe that this is a vital issue that each school and teacher faces today. If we are going to do the very best by our students, which I know is the intention of every teacher out there, then we need to rigorously reflect on where/whether we are providing research-based instruction or have fallen into personally-valued instruction. Hopeful, over time, this blog will serve as a trustworthy resource to you, spurring and informing you as you engage in this reflection and strive to fill your days with research-based reading and writing instruction.