Reading for fun Vs explicit instruction

The LEARN Act assumes that direct instruction is the only way children become literate. It says, “The intellectual and linguistic skills necessary for writing and reading must be developed through explicit, intentional, and systematic language activities. …” And it assumes that there is no contrary view. LEARN requires: “ … direct and explicit instruction that builds academic vocabulary and strategies and knowledge of text structure for reading different kinds of texts within and across core academic subjects.”

There is not only a contrary view, but there is good evidence, published in scientific journals and books, supporting the contrary view: The direct teaching/skills approach is very limited. Most of our knowledge of phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, and text structure, as well as the ability to read fluently and with understanding, is the result of reading, not explicit instruction.

[This was written by linguist Stephen Krashen, professor emeritus at the University of Southern California, is an educational researcher and activist. He has written hundreds of articles and books in the fields of second language acquisition, bilingual education, and reading.]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/the-learn-act-an-expensive-mistake/2011/05/23/AFG4569G_blog.html

[Sam: Le Beaumont combines story telling with reading in its playgroups. Parents should cultivate a habit of story time cum reading after dinner with toddlers at home, even for just 15 minutes every day.]