This is the Reading Instruction Chill. I am your genial host, Dr. Hendy Johnson.
Today's topic is orthographic mapping.
And let's start with this idea and the rubbish which is letters professional development.
Orthographic mapping seems to be all the rage right now. Yes, it does.
And the term orthographic mapping sounds also very important. Yes, it does.
It's a big person term.
Look, Mom, I went to college. I know a big person term.
And using terms like orthographic mapping sounds quasi-academic,
as if we're supposed to accept these ideas and these terms without question.
But question, yes, I do.
And I've noticed that the science of reading zelots tend to throw around a lot of words and terms
without fully understanding them or knowing what they mean.
So let's do a little unpacking with this whole thing called orthographic mapping.
Mapping here is when they refer to the neural pathways or neural networks in our cortex.
And think of our brain as a billion dot dot dot picture in our head.
Each neuron is a dot and each neuron contains a bit of micro information.
Dots that are similar to each other are connected by neural pathways.
All your information related to particular concepts or related informations are in a dot to dot picture called a neural network.
And these are not separate neural networks, but interconnecting and interacting neural networks.
And we have billions of them, billions.
Now an orthographic system, what is that?
Orthography or orthographic has to do with letters, letter patterns and arrangements of letters.
And our English written language is an orthographic system,
meaning that it consists of letter symbols representing sounds.
And it relies on arrangements of letters to represent sounds and words.
Now a logographic system is different.
Other systems are logographic.
A logo is a symbol used to represent a thing.
Think of a team logo.
It's a symbol.
Not a symbol to represent a sound, but a symbol used to represent an idea.
And Chinese characters are an example of logographic systems.
The symbol doesn't stand for sounds, but for things or ideas.
Now orthographic mapping is based on the idea that words are memorized and stored in long-term memory based on letter patterns.
It's based on the idea that you can create a universal cognitive map based on these letter patterns
that are universally stored in all of human consciousness, or most of human consciousness.
And based on this orthographic map, if letter sounds and patterns are taught in a magical sequence,
that is aligned with cognitive mapping.
According to this theory, students will be better able to store and retrieve these words during the process of reading.
That's the basis of orthographic mapping.
And it's an interesting theory, and yes, there's data to support it, absolutely.
But there's data to support most theories, including the flat earth theory.
Theories are neither right nor wrong, rather they are robust or weak.
And strong theories account for a lot of data and explain a lot of phenomena.
Weak theories leave much data unaccounted for, and are useless in explaining many phenomena.
And orthographic mapping is based on a very, very weak theory.
Yes, there's data to support the idea of orthographic mapping, just not a lot of data and not the right kind of data.
Two ideas here. First, if reading were merely recognizing individual words floating in space,
orthographic mapping might make sense.
That is, if reading was merely pattern recognition, then a case could be made for cognitive mapping based on letter patterns.
But we never encounter individual words floating in space outside a meaningful context, unless we're taking a Dibble's test.
Words are always found in some context.
They're found in the context of a sign, or a product, or a label, or a sentence.
And the context provides just as much information about the word, perhaps more, than the simple arrangement of letters.
That's the first idea.
And the second idea, words are not meaningless patterns.
Words mean something. There's a semantic element to it, meaning, meaning.
But if reading was simply recognizing a set of meaningless patterns based on the meaningless patterns stored in your head,
then maybe just maybe orthographic mapping would have some credibility.
But it's not, and it doesn't.
Now some of the spreading activation studies in 1975, Collins and Luftus put forth the spreading activation theory suggesting that semantic memory,
memory of things, is organized by semantic distance, or the relatedness of things.
Semantic distance, things that mean the same are more closely associated.
The neurons in the neural networks are closer together.
That means that things are organized in the brain by associations, by how close the related thing is to the similar thing.
How close the thing is to a related thing or a similar thing, not by higher arches or letter patterns, by associations.
Semantic similarities, not orthographic similarities, meaning not letters.
But Clowden and Rommel Hart's 1981 parallel processing model demonstrates that a person can take in and understand a lot of different stimuli at the same time.
And for reading, this means that we're using a lot of different information to create meaning, not just the code.
Children of the code, we decode.
That is based on a simple understanding of reading and research.
I found an interesting study by Domacio in 1996 and found that our brain has three levels of representation for words.
The top level is the conceptual level, that's all the semantic information about a word, meaning.
The second level is the lexical level, this is the word form that matches the concept or matches meaning.
And the third and lowest level is the final logical level, and that's the sound and letter information corresponding to the word.
This means that the strongest level of word representation in long-term memory is not letter patterns, but meaning.
Meaning that orthographic mapping may be a thing, but semantic mapping is much more of a thing.
For example, when you hear the word cat, or see the word cat in print, you automatically associated with cat things.
Soft, furry, paws, kitty, pet.
These are things closely related to cat.
The neural pathways leading to these things are activated.
These things come to mind, these are semantic maps or relatedness.
What is not activated when you hear the word cat?
You don't think of short A words, or CVC pattern words, or AT phonograms, that's not what is activated.
You don't think about letter sounds or letter patterns, you think of things.
Clearly, we have access to semantic information when we see the word cat in print.
Yes, there is some orthographic information on the page and some orthographic mapping is stored in the head, but it's very weak.
Semantic information takes precedence over orthographic information, and again, orthography, orthographic, refers to letter arrangements and spelling.
Now, if reading were purely sounding out words, then orthographic mapping might make sense.
There is orthographic mapping, yes, this does exist, but semantic mapping has far more impact on the reading process on creating meaning with print.
So, the science of reading zealots insists that we not include activities to develop these other ways of recognizing and using information.
And they are so wretchedly misinformed.
Focusing only on decoding will result in better scores on decoding tests.
Yes, science of reading zealots, I'll agree with you there.
Students will be able to identify a list of nonsense words faster on a Dibbles test, yes,
and they may even be able to decode a list of CVC words faster. Okay, fine, no argument.
If you teach something, you get higher measures of that something. But is that something? Anything.
Meaning, are they better able to create meaning with print? That's what reading is.
Not sounding out words, but creating meaning.
Now, Letters is a teacher professional development program based on the concept of orthographic mapping.
And Education Week, which is a biased sort of thing, this is what they said about it.
The program is long, intensive, and expensive, can take upward to 160 hours to complete over the course of two years.
But it's also become one of the most frequently used options for reading professional development, and that is a scary, scary thing.
What does the website say about letters? It says, and I'm going to break this down, I'm going to use more than sounding out words,
I'm going to use semantic and syntactic information.
The website said that letters is a training course developed by Louisa Mott's in Perotolin, both literacy experts and consultants.
So let's unpack that. Mott's, she may be a consultant, and I'll agree with you there, but it's only because people are silly enough to pay her.
But a critical read of the research and scholarly work written by the good Dr. Mott provides research based evidence that she is not a literacy expert.
Based on the research she conducts, the research she cites, and how she interprets and insights that research.
I don't know which is scary, that she thinks she's appropriately using and interpreting and citing research to make her case,
or that she knows she's not and she's doing it anyway. Both of these are very scary propositions.
The next thing on the website says this. The first part of the course explains why learning to read can be difficult and how the reading brain works.
Well, it can be difficult because people use these bottom-up skills-based reading programs that really are not very effective.
But this thing, how the reading brain works, that is interesting. Reading brain, reading brain.
A 2013 analysis of neurocognitive studies by Bishop found that many of these brain imaging studies have serious methodological concerns, many flaws.
But people tend to give credence to studies and articles that use the word brain, are referred to brain images, or use brain words.
And people include that to give themselves more credence. And this is a long way of saying that when Dr. Mott talks about the reading brain,
she doesn't know what in the hell she's talking about. Again, she's using words to try to sound smart, and she's trying to sound smart to sell product.
And I can guarantee you, a bit of research will show that the good Dr. Mott's is not driving a rusted-out 1996 Chevy Malibu.
She's making good money. So of course, she's not going to change her view on things.
The site goes on to say, it, meaning letters, introduces the simple view of reading, a research-tested model that holds that
skilled reading is a product of two factors, word recognition, decoding the letters on the page, and language comprehension,
which allows students to make meaning from the words on the page they read.
Sounds good. Makes sense, doesn't it? But let's do a little unpacking here.
And again, Dr. Mott, I don't know which is scarier, that you think this makes sense, or that you know that it doesn't,
and you're using these words anyway. Tell me which one, please.
But a research-tested model. Okay, very good. It sounds, it makes sense. We want research-tested models.
But in an academic setting, models are demonstrations of how theories work in reality.
And theories in an academic setting are based on many research studies, and theories are used to explain research-based facts
and to understand phenomena. And all theories, by definition, are research-tested.
And all theoretical models are, by definition, research-tested.
The question to ask is whether the research-tested model is based on a weak theory or a robust theory.
And the simple view of reading is based on a simple view of science, which is a weak theory.
The simple view of reading, this theory states that skilled reading is a product of decoding letters on the page,
sounding out words, and she incorrectly calls this word recognition, and that's not what it is.
And listening to the decoding in your head, which she refers to as language comprehension.
And again, there's some data to support this theory, absolutely, but it leaves far more data unaccounted for.
A much more robust theory is the interactive theory of reading or the neurocognitive model of reading.
So, it's fairly clear to see that an approach to reading instruction based on orthographic mapping is really based on ignorance mapping.
But sadly, this ignorance-based idea has real-life research-based consequences.
The results of this theory is that schools are being forced to purchase expensive, code-oriented, one-size-fits-all reading programs
that have no basis and legitimate literacy research.
And as my dear listeners know, it is incumbent on us to become good, responsible consumers of educational research.
And in doing so, we must ask for questions when claims are made that research proves something,
that research proves these expensive, code-oriented, one-size-fits-all reading programs are effective.
Research proves that, okay? So, these are the four questions we must ask when someone makes that research-based claim.
One, are the results of these code-oriented reading programs persistent?
That means, do the effects last after the code-oriented instruction has been discontinued?
Is it a little short-term blip?
Two, do the skills learned in these code-oriented reading programs transfer to real life?
What good is it to learn something in one context, a school context, if that's the only context in which it has any use,
if it has no use outside that context? In the real world, what good is it?
We're preparing students not to exist in a school world, but in a real world.
And three, third question, do these code-oriented programs enhance students' ability to create meaning with print?
And that's what reading is.
There's a difference between scores on a Dibble's test and creating meaning with print.
And fourth, are these expensive, mind-numbing, code-oriented reading programs more effective than balanced literacy instruction?
Are they more effective than reading and talking about good books and writing and sharing stories and writing and sharing students' authentic writing and stories?
Are they more effective than falling in love with books and adjoining literacy?
Those are the questions that must be asked.
If you're making a comparison between structured literacy, whatever that is, and balanced literacy,
has there been a legitimate comparative research comparing alike populations with all the variables controlled,
showing that one has a greater impact on the other in creating meaning with print?
Just some questions to ask.
This has been the Reading Instruction Show. I am your host, Dr. Andy Johnson.