This is the Reading Instruction Show. I'm your host as always, Dr. Andy Johnson. Topic
of today's podcast or the title, pictures, word cues, and memorization, foolishness or
fall to all. And I'm dissecting an article written by Corinne Hess for Wisconsin Public
Radio published on September 26, 2023. And the title of that article is Teacher Prep
Programs Not on the Same Page as Wisconsin's New Reading Law. A law about reading. A law
about how you should teach reading. Now, I'm addressing Corinne's article here
because the severe un-understandings of this article and found therein is illustrative
of what we see on the national level. So, as a public service, I'm pointing out the
comedy of errors and clownery in this article and in so doing pointing out the many errors
and clownery occurring in states all over the nation and in other countries. And it is
a comedy without a laugh track. And many of these errors and clownisms are perpetuated
by what scientists call a clown. And this is a technical term used to delineate those
who think they know much more about literacy than they actually do. And a gathering of
clowns is called a clown club and an organized attempt to spread clownery is called the science
of reading. So, Corinne Hess writes the following, by next year Wisconsin schools will have to
change the way they're teaching children to learn to read. A sweeping bipartisan bill
signed into law this summer will shift schools from what has been known as quote, balanced
literacy, unquote, to the quote, science of reading, unquote, approach. Now, here's
my question to Corinne and the clowns and the science of reading and all those people.
What exactly do you mean by science of reading approach and approach? What would I see if
I were to step into a one hour science of reading reading class? What specific strategies
would teachers be using? Please, oh, please take me through a 60 minute first grade class.
What activities would I see? What would they not be doing that they currently are? And
how do you know they are or are not be using these? Give me a list of exactly what you
want to see. And another question, what do you mean by balanced literacy? I would posit
that 98% of those who think balanced literacy is a bad thing, don't know what it is. They've
been told it's bad by the bad thing police, therefore they think it's bad. But if balance
literacy is bad, does that mean the National Reading Panel report was wrong? Did they get
this wrong? Now, in the world of reading research, not the fake kind of research used by journalists,
but real reading research, you can't just use words. You have to know what the words
mean. So please, State of Wisconsin and Science of Reading and Corinne Hess and Emily Hanford
define your terms. That's not too much to ask for. What do you mean by balanced literacy?
What do you mean by science of reading? What instructional practices do you want to see
more of and less of? And another question, the assumption here is that balanced literacy
is a causal factor leading to bad reading scores. The State of Wisconsin has somehow
determined that balanced literacy is what has caused reading scores to plummet, although
outside a COVID dip, reading scores have been consistent, if not steadily rising since 1971.
This idea that there's a crisis in reading is just another hoax, kind of like the Big
Foot hoax and the fake moon landing. Nonetheless, the Wisconsin State Legislature has listened
only to the science of reading clown club. They have determined what the variable is.
They've isolated it. They've determined that they know the cause of this mythological reading
crisis that really isn't and this variable they have determined is balanced literacy.
What science of reading? What science was used to determine the causal factor and the
effect? We know the science of reading clown club loves good science. They're all, science
see this and science see that. But real reading science does not use anecdotal evidence or
personal experience. I think isms or data pulled out of context to come to conclusions
on things. So please point me to any peer reviewed research study showing that balanced
literacy is the cause of anything other than good literacy instruction. Point me to a peer
reviewed research article that shows that another approach leads to better results than balanced
literacy instruction. Show me some peer reviewed research that shows a science of reading approach
whatever that is is better than another and not anecdotal evidence, not personal experiences
or perceptions and not data pulled out of context, but peer reviewed research. All you
sciencey people that's not too much to ask for. And unless I'm going to tell you can
do this, your arguments are without merit. Well, they're without merit in an academic
setting anyway. And an academic setting is where academic decisions like reading instruction
should take place. But the clown club operates outside an academic setting in this dimensional
plane. The rules of cause and effect don't apply outside an academic environment. The
only variable that matters is the amount of money you can get for speaking fees or that
which gives you more attention and higher speaking fees or more profits or more votes
for elective office is good. That which doesn't is irrelevant. Ms. Hess goes on to say, quote,
data shows data shows data that most teacher education programs at college and universities
are still not fully teaching the science of reading unquote data shows this the data shows
and this kind of makes my point doesn't it? It makes my point in an academic environment.
We don't walk around saying data shows this and data shows that data Schmada data outside
a meaningful context is just noise. Data is different from peer reviewed research peer
reviewed research puts data in a context. It clarifies it and it allows for checks and
balances. Data you say I say nuts to your data. I mean if data were the bottom line,
I could get you all sorts of data. I could get you data to show that children who put
clothes pins on their noses would score higher on a reading test. Absolutely I could easily
manipulate the conditions where that was the outcome where students who put clothes pins
on their nose got higher scores on reading tests. Easy peasy. Then I could walk around
saying data shows that putting clothes pins on your nose results in higher reading test
scores. And I would be stating some facts but I would not be telling the truth. My data
would never pass peer review muster. No. And again data shows that most teacher education
programs at colleges and universities are still not fully teaching the science of reading.
And if you're using data, okay, but what data? What data are used to come to this conclusion?
And what do you mean by science of reading? What should we be doing more of and less of?
And how do you know these more ofs and less ofs are causal factors or variables for anything?
And do you really want non experts to dictate the curriculum at our universities? And sadly
the answer to that is yes, you do. And do you really believe that having passed the first
grade makes you a reading expert? And sadly the answer to this again is yes, you do. Ms.
Hess goes on to say, quote, instead of learning how to read through pictures, word cues and
memorization, children will be taught using a phonics based method that focuses on sounding
out letters and phrases with the hope of addressing the state's lagging reading scores. Oh, they've
determined that that's going to fix it. They've determined that interesting. But let's unpack
that first sense, learning how to read through pictures, word cues and memorization. This
is an off repeated idea. And it's just as naive as it is ignorant. I don't know what
else to call it. It's not even a talking point. It's just a bunch of talking, a bunch of words
thrown together to create a word salad full of spoiled cucumbers and stale cheese. So
what in the hell are you talking about? Learning to read through pictures? Do you seriously
think that someplace in Wisconsin or in America or in the world, there's a teacher saying,
boys and girls, we're just going to look at pictures today by just looking at pictures.
You learn to read today. I will show you how to look at pictures. Then we're going to
practice looking at pictures and your homework for tomorrow is to look at pictures. Yes, I'm
sure that happened. And I say this with all due respect, but pull your heads out of your
collective asses pictures. Nobody teaches reading through pictures. Literacy is a skill
that emerges as children are exposed to good literacy instruction as well as a good healthy
literacy environment. And how do I know this? Well, the work of researchers like Brian Canborn
and others. Effective reading instruction enables this skill, this literacy skill to
emerge more quickly. Ineffective reading instruction like a purely skills based approach.
Impedes the development of literacy. I'm not saying we shouldn't have skills based.
Some students need more, some students need less, but there is no one size fits all. In
preschool and kindergarten, it is developmentally appropriate. You clowns you to use the pictures
to retell a story that children have already heard. This is sometimes called pretend reading.
This helps to develop the concept of print as well as the concept of a word, story, grammar,
oral language, thinking and vocabulary. And it also exposes them to print. This is much
different from learning how to read through pictures. Picture reading is an important
research base step for children from birth to age five or six. And further, some think
that we should give children books without pictures. The I think is here is that children
would learn to read faster without looking at the pictures. And I don't know how to
say this politely, but this is one of the dumbest ideas, one of the dumbest I think
isms I've ever heard. You think because there are good pictures in children's books, they're
going to look at the pictures and not the words. How exactly did you come to this conclusion?
Did you read it on Wikipedia? Did scientists tell you this? Did researchers tell you this?
Did you go to a psychic or perhaps Emily Hanford called you up on the telephone and told you
this? Eye movement research looks at the path that people's eyes take as they're reading.
It tracks the path of their eyes on the text. And when you look at some of this eye movement
research of early readers, they usually look at the sentence first and then the picture.
But if they looked at the picture first and then the sentence, what is the problem? If
you think it's a problem, how do you know it's a problem? In science, you can't just
walk around randomly assigning variables to various outcomes here and there. Let's take
a look at word cues. Again, what are you talking about? Word cues. You can't just say stuff.
What is a word cue? What do you mean here? Isn't every word a cue for something? What
does it mean to teach reading through word cues? What is a word cue and where in America
or the world is anybody teaching children to read using word cues? Again, we have rules.
And one of the most important rules is that words are supposed to mean things. These are
the rules. The noise that comes out your mouth and the words that slip from your fingers
onto the page are supposed to have actual meaning. But you're just blabbering stuff.
You think sounds right. You're doing that. But instead you're breaking the rules. We
have rules. Memorization. The same with memorization. Teaching reading to read through memorization
where in America is anybody teaching children to read using memorization and what would
that instruction look like? Boys and girls, here are a list of words to memorize for reading
class today. Form your homework, memorize these words. Now, are you referring to sight
words? Is that what you mean? Yes, there are a list of words called sight words or most
frequent words. Is this what you're referring to? The fry list contains the hundred most
frequent words, the doce list, the two hundred and twenty most frequent words and the zeno
sight word list contains a hundred and seven most frequent words that students will encounter.
These are usually function words, words like the, of, he, in, there, and these three lists
are relatively the same. They're based on different research conducted at different
times. Sight words are usually addressed in kindergarten, first grade, sometimes early
second. And there's plenty of research to support the practice of helping students memorize
sight words, just like you memorize math facts. If students don't have to actively process
the letters of these function words, more space is available to address the content
words and to create meaning with text. Learning the hundred, hundred seven or two hundred
twenty words by sight is one part of reading instruction, one small part, but that does
not mean we teach children to read by memorizing words. Be serious. Have you ever read any
research, Emily Hanford, clown clubs, state of Wisconsin, about sight words? Do you know
anything about how sight words are used in the early grades? Yeah, this is the kind of
falder all and foolishness put out by the clown club and promoted by the high priest
of clownery Emily Hanford. Going on, quote, Wisconsin's new reading
law doesn't explicitly tell the universities how to teach, but it will prohibit the Department
of Public Instruction from approving teacher education programs unless they include science
based early literacy instruction and do not incorporate, do not incorporate, they shall
not incorporate three queuing. A model that emphasizes that skilled reading should include
using meaning and sentence structure cues to read new words. Wisconsin teachers who do
not receive this training and they're talking to science based early literacy will not be
eligible for a license beginning July 1st, 2026. Do not receive science based early literacy
instruction. So they're going to check and they can't incorporate three queuing.
Now this Wisconsin reading law doesn't explicitly tell universities how to teach. And right,
I'm not going to tell you that you have to give me your money, but I'm going to hit
you with a hammer unless you do give me your money, but you don't have to. I'm not telling
you it's your choice. And again, what exactly is science based early literacy instruction?
Are you saying state of Wisconsin that what we currently teach is not backed by reading
science? Do you mean to tell me that all those peer reviewed academic journals I've been
reading for over 30 years are nothing more than comic books?
Now I'll tell you I teach a literacy methods course just across the state here in Minnesota
at Minnesota State University. And I will tell you as well that every word that comes
out of my mouth in my literacy methods course can be supported not by data, not by a single
outlier study, but by a wide range of research. And that's what I teach looks much different
from what the clown club and the letters lunatics think I should be teaching. And you're forcing
universities not to teach something just like the state of Florida. You want certain things
banned from our college classrooms. And this mandate is based on I think isms and data.
You say that universities must not incorporate the three queuing systems. You're saying
that this is a model that emphasizes that skills instruction should not include meaning
and certain structure. And do you see why real reading scientists call you clowns? First
of all, the three queuing systems is not a model. A model in an academic sense shows
how theories work in reality. The three queuing systems is an understanding. I'll explain
this for the last time. I'll explain the three queuing systems. And that's what I said
about 17 last time ago. But a system consists of interdependent and interacting elements
or subsystems working together. They are interdependent, meaning that one relies on the other and
they are interacting because what occurs in one subsystem impacts the other. A word recognition
system in our brain consists of three interacting and interdependent queuing subsystems. It's
a system of neural networks working together to create meaning with print during reading.
We use three queuing systems to recognize words during reading. And recognizing words
is different from identifying words. Recognizing words is seeing a word in print and instantly
knowing what it is. To recognize words, we use phonetic cues. Yes, that's phonics. But
we also use semantic cues, which is context or meaning and syntactic cues, grammar or
word order. These interact and are interdependent. And that's empirical. There are plenty of
studies in a variety of fields showing that people recognize words quicker when they're
found within a meaningful context. That's a semantic cue. And when a word, when readers
read a word, when they can use grammar in word order to determine what that word is,
they read it quicker. That's syntactic cues. Words presented in isolation or outside meaningful
contexts are not recognized as quickly. And there are plenty of studies. But if you think
that reading is just a sounding out words, and if you only look for sounding out word
studies, you get a very narrow view of the reading world. You're looking at reading
reality through a people. And this essentially is what Emily Hanford and the science of reading
clown club are doing. They're looking through their people and declaring that what they
see is the truth. Now, what they see is a real picture of reading reality. But the things
they see through their people are indeed there, but it's just a very narrow view. And this
very narrow view, this reading as sounding out words view leads to a distorted view of
reading reality. And it's based on what it doesn't include. Now, let's look at syntactic
cues. Writing is one of the best ways to develop the syntactic cueing system. The reading and
writing connection has been firmly established. Writing, authentic writing should be part of
literacy instruction of a reading program. There's plenty of research that shows that
children use context, semantic cues enhances their ability to read. Plenty of evidence
to say that show that writing influences reading. And there's plenty of evidence showing that
using letter sound cues, phonics is essential. Now, this is what research conducted by real
reading science tells us that yes, we should be teaching phonics as well as including activities
to develop these other cueing systems. And as far as phonics goes, we should include
various types of phonics instruction, including synthetic phonics, analytic phonics, large
unit or analogy phonics and embedded phonics. And the National Reading Panel report tells
us this. Are you saying that the report is lying that they got it wrong? Here's the
thing, Emily, clowns, you've become research resistant. I and others can provide and have
provided you with plenty of research demonstrating that skilled readers use all three cueing
systems when reading. We can provide and have provided you with research that shows a bad
balanced approach to literacy instruction is more effective than a skills-based perspective,
but you've become research resistant. As I said, recognizing words is different from
identifying words. Identifying words is when a word is in your lexicon, but you don't recognize
it. So you have to consciously apply a strategy. And there are four strategies, phonics, morphemic
analysis, analogy and context. And there is an abundance of real research showing that
it is in children's best interest to teach all four word identification strategies,
not just phonics. And let's go on. In our article, quote, I do believe that universities
have been one of the major causes of the problems we see in reading, said State Representative
Joel Kitchens, Republican Sturgeon Bay, one of the lead authors on the reading legislation.
They now seem to be moving in the right direction, but change is hard. Now, I do agree with one
thing here that representative Kitchens says, he says he believes universities have been
one of the major causes of the problems we now see in reading. And I agree that he does
indeed believe this. He believes he has found a causal factor and he believes the causal
factor is university. He may also believe in unicorns and believe the moon landing was
fake. But just like he believes universities have been one of the major causes of problems
in reading, believing something doesn't make that something so. And it has not yet been
established that there is a problem in reading. You're just saying the stuff. It's a hoax.
So in summary, one, nine points. It is not clear exactly what they mean by science of
reading or science of reading approach. Two, most who are against balanced literacy do
not know what in the heck it is. Only that it's supposed to be bad because somebody
told them so. Three, doubt it is very different from research. Four, no legitimate research
has been provided showing that science of reading approaches, whatever they may be, are
better or worse than other approaches. As a matter of fact, it's been consistently pointed
out that there is no magic formula, no one size fits all approach. Five, the state, the
Wisconsin state legislature and the science of reading clown club seems to go about randomly
assigning variables to what they think is poor reading outcomes. They do not use the
very science they purport to advocate. And six, the idea that children are being taught
to read using pictures, word cues and memorization is clownishly silly. Pictures, word cues and
memorization are merely words that people heard were supposed to be bad. And these people
are using these words without understanding what they mean. Number seven, three queuing
is a model. We use a system of neural networks to recognize words. There are three interactive
and interdependent systems that work together. The phonetic system, the semantic system and
the syntactic system. And we create activities to develop these three systems. We don't teach
them. Number eight, recognizing words is different from identifying words. Recognizing words
is seeing a word and instantly knowing what it is. We create activities to develop this
ability, the ability to do this automatically. Nine, identifying word is seeing a word and
not recognizing it and applying a strategy. And there are four strategies that should
be taught explicitly to all children. This is what we do teach. We do teach phonics.
Yes, we teach also morphemic analysis, analogy and context clues. If we only taught one of
those, we'd be giving our children one fourth of a reading education. This has been the
Reading Instruction Show. I'm your host as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.