WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.620 This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your 00:00:02.620 --> 00:00:06.400 host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Let us see if we can 00:00:06.400 --> 00:00:10.240 learn a little something today. This is an excerpt 00:00:10.240 --> 00:00:13.320 from my book, Understanding the Science of Reading, 00:00:13.320 --> 00:00:17.820 Context Matters. Now we are looking at defining 00:00:17.820 --> 00:00:22.879 our terms. When somebody asks you, what's the 00:00:22.879 --> 00:00:27.219 science of reading? What do you say? Is it a 00:00:27.219 --> 00:00:31.379 process? Is it a set of strategies? An approach 00:00:31.379 --> 00:00:35.359 or method? A reading program? A group or organization? 00:00:36.500 --> 00:00:40.060 In this podcast, I'm going to attempt to define 00:00:40.060 --> 00:00:44.799 the science of reading. And notice, in my writing, 00:00:45.060 --> 00:00:49.719 I use capital letters. This enables us to differentiate 00:00:49.719 --> 00:00:52.119 between a science of reading, and it's one of 00:00:52.119 --> 00:00:56.060 several sciences, and the, quote, science of 00:00:56.060 --> 00:01:01.179 reading as a proper noun or title. Now, Louisa 00:01:01.179 --> 00:01:06.019 Moats in 2019 defined the science of reading 00:01:06.019 --> 00:01:10.280 as an emerging consensus. IT, the science of 00:01:10.280 --> 00:01:13.439 reading, is the emerging consensus for many related 00:01:13.439 --> 00:01:17.939 disciplines based on literally thousands of studies 00:01:17.939 --> 00:01:21.760 supported by hundreds of millions of research 00:01:21.760 --> 00:01:26.579 dollars conducted across the world in many languages. 00:01:27.530 --> 00:01:32.230 Pretty pretty words. Who could argue with such 00:01:32.230 --> 00:01:38.069 an important sounding sentence? But what exactly 00:01:38.069 --> 00:01:42.709 does she mean here? Let's do a bit of unpackering. 00:01:43.849 --> 00:01:48.230 Consensus. Okay, consensus is a general agreement 00:01:48.230 --> 00:01:52.170 about things. Within any field or discipline, 00:01:52.430 --> 00:01:56.510 there are always a variety of consensus. on all 00:01:56.510 --> 00:01:59.810 sorts of things. The field of reading instruction 00:01:59.810 --> 00:02:04.090 is no different. In fact, there are emerging, 00:02:04.569 --> 00:02:07.849 non -emerging, and receding consensuses on a 00:02:07.849 --> 00:02:10.909 whole bunch of things going on all the time. 00:02:11.729 --> 00:02:18.009 It's not a static monolithic field. Emerge. Emerge 00:02:18.009 --> 00:02:21.689 means to come forth or to arise from something. 00:02:22.439 --> 00:02:26.719 Why is it that just now a consensus is forming? 00:02:27.939 --> 00:02:31.020 The National Council of Teachers of English has 00:02:31.020 --> 00:02:36.639 been around since 1911. The International Literacy 00:02:36.639 --> 00:02:39.020 Association, used to be called the International 00:02:39.020 --> 00:02:43.060 Reading Association, has been around since 1956. 00:02:44.219 --> 00:02:47.539 And membership in these organizations over the 00:02:47.539 --> 00:02:51.539 years? have included hundreds of thousands of 00:02:51.539 --> 00:02:55.080 teachers, researchers, scholars, and educators. 00:02:56.300 --> 00:03:00.599 One would have thought a consensus would have 00:03:00.599 --> 00:03:03.759 emerged long before now, if there was indeed 00:03:03.759 --> 00:03:09.319 an emerging consensus. Related disciplines. Now 00:03:09.319 --> 00:03:12.280 the related disciplines are not identified here 00:03:12.280 --> 00:03:16.879 by Dr. Motz. but may include fields such as psychology, 00:03:17.900 --> 00:03:21.039 educational psychology, linguistics, cognitive 00:03:21.039 --> 00:03:26.900 psychology, and neuroscience. These other disciplines 00:03:26.900 --> 00:03:31.960 provide depth and dimension to our understanding 00:03:31.960 --> 00:03:35.500 of the reading process and reading instruction. 00:03:36.460 --> 00:03:41.039 However, just like reading instruction, these 00:03:41.039 --> 00:03:44.580 related disciplines are not static or monolithic. 00:03:45.939 --> 00:03:50.039 At any given time, one can select from a variety 00:03:50.039 --> 00:03:53.819 of consensus from a variety of disciplines to 00:03:53.819 --> 00:03:57.939 support a variety of consensus within reading 00:03:57.939 --> 00:04:03.620 instruction. Based on literally thousands of 00:04:03.620 --> 00:04:07.740 studies, Of all the, quote, literally thousands 00:04:07.740 --> 00:04:12.139 of studies, unquote, it's a mystery as to why 00:04:12.139 --> 00:04:15.319 so few of the literally thousands of studies 00:04:15.319 --> 00:04:19.220 are put forward to support science of reading 00:04:19.220 --> 00:04:24.079 mandates. It's a mystery as well as to why Orton 00:04:24.079 --> 00:04:27.899 Gillingham, Wilson Reading, Foundations, the 00:04:27.899 --> 00:04:31.819 American Reading Company, others, and other scripted 00:04:31.819 --> 00:04:37.509 for -profit products are given a free pass. They're 00:04:37.509 --> 00:04:41.589 accepted as research -based when, in fact, there's 00:04:41.589 --> 00:04:46.930 little, if any, peer -reviewed research to demonstrate 00:04:46.930 --> 00:04:50.610 the products A, ability to improve students' 00:04:50.970 --> 00:04:56.089 reading achievement, B, impact on teachers' ability 00:04:56.089 --> 00:05:01.449 to teach reading, and C, its greater effectiveness 00:05:01.449 --> 00:05:06.610 when compared to legitimate, meaning -based, 00:05:07.110 --> 00:05:11.350 balanced literacy approaches or methods. In these 00:05:11.350 --> 00:05:15.029 cases, we don't need literally thousands of studies, 00:05:15.129 --> 00:05:19.730 we need literally just a few. So the three big 00:05:19.730 --> 00:05:23.250 research questions are this. Does that product 00:05:23.250 --> 00:05:27.089 improve students' reading achievement? That product. 00:05:27.290 --> 00:05:30.910 Does that product improve teachers' ability to 00:05:30.910 --> 00:05:35.350 teach reading? And when compared to other similar 00:05:35.350 --> 00:05:39.310 things, is that product more effective? Those 00:05:39.310 --> 00:05:44.110 are the big three questions. Now, there is no 00:05:44.110 --> 00:05:48.829 doubt that each of the for -profit products I've 00:05:48.829 --> 00:05:52.689 listed have elements within them that can be 00:05:52.689 --> 00:05:56.910 supported by research. This is true of almost 00:05:56.910 --> 00:06:01.790 any commercial product. Having research -based 00:06:01.790 --> 00:06:05.750 components within a product does not make that 00:06:05.750 --> 00:06:09.670 product research -based. That's like saying, 00:06:10.069 --> 00:06:13.230 since 60 % of my body contains water, I am a 00:06:13.230 --> 00:06:17.569 lake. It just means that there is research to 00:06:17.569 --> 00:06:20.350 support certain parts of the product for certain 00:06:20.350 --> 00:06:25.269 students for certain things. And the last one, 00:06:25.370 --> 00:06:27.430 supported by hundreds of millions of research 00:06:27.430 --> 00:06:31.350 dollars, says Motz. Well, this is not something 00:06:31.350 --> 00:06:35.209 of which to be proud. This simply means there's 00:06:35.209 --> 00:06:39.410 a lot of money involved, and money always comes 00:06:39.410 --> 00:06:45.889 with a price. In the case of research related 00:06:45.889 --> 00:06:48.949 to reading instruction, money comes with the 00:06:48.949 --> 00:06:52.449 expectation of political or economic return. 00:06:53.420 --> 00:06:57.480 Let's see what Dr. Shanahan, Timothy Shanahan, 00:06:57.759 --> 00:07:00.420 according to Timothy Shanahan, the science of 00:07:00.420 --> 00:07:04.019 reading is a set of applied research studies. 00:07:04.939 --> 00:07:08.519 Applied research means it was conducted in a 00:07:08.519 --> 00:07:12.920 classroom. This differs from basic research, 00:07:13.019 --> 00:07:15.819 which is conducted apart from the context in 00:07:15.819 --> 00:07:21.019 which it is used or applied. Dr. Shanahan also 00:07:21.019 --> 00:07:23.579 said that, quote, the science of reading should 00:07:23.579 --> 00:07:28.399 refer to all empirical studies of any aspect 00:07:28.399 --> 00:07:32.220 of learning to read, write, and spell in any 00:07:32.220 --> 00:07:36.920 language. Now empirical research is research 00:07:36.920 --> 00:07:40.459 that's based on the observation and measurement 00:07:40.459 --> 00:07:46.600 of phenomena as directly experienced by the researcher. 00:07:47.720 --> 00:07:51.620 However, when we apply the US Department of Education 00:07:51.620 --> 00:07:56.420 standard to it, we see that the science of reading 00:07:56.420 --> 00:08:00.860 includes only a single type of empirical study 00:08:00.860 --> 00:08:05.740 or empirical research. Scientifically -based 00:08:05.740 --> 00:08:08.620 research in education is that which, according 00:08:08.620 --> 00:08:12.750 to the US Department of Education, is evaluated 00:08:12.750 --> 00:08:16.930 using experimental or quasi -experimental designs 00:08:16.930 --> 00:08:21.029 in which individuals, entities, programs, or 00:08:21.029 --> 00:08:24.209 activities are assigned to different conditions 00:08:24.209 --> 00:08:27.689 and with appropriate controls to evaluate the 00:08:27.689 --> 00:08:30.970 effects of the condition of interest, with a 00:08:30.970 --> 00:08:33.809 preference for random assignment experiment or 00:08:33.809 --> 00:08:36.429 other designs to the extent that these designs 00:08:36.429 --> 00:08:39.690 contain within -condition or across -condition 00:08:39.690 --> 00:08:43.470 controls. Okay, very good, good, we see this. 00:08:43.669 --> 00:08:46.389 But this is similar to the standard as well, 00:08:46.769 --> 00:08:49.750 employed by Dr. Shanahan and the National Reading 00:08:49.750 --> 00:08:54.549 Panel in 2000. The panel wrote on page 7, quote, 00:08:54.830 --> 00:08:57.509 to make a determination that any instructional 00:08:57.509 --> 00:09:00.350 practice could be or should be adopted widely 00:09:00.350 --> 00:09:04.049 to improve reading achievement requires that 00:09:04.049 --> 00:09:07.659 the belief, assumption, or claim supporting the 00:09:07.659 --> 00:09:11.779 practice be causally linked to a particular outcome. 00:09:12.659 --> 00:09:15.600 The highest standard of evidence for such a claim 00:09:15.600 --> 00:09:19.240 is the experimental study, in which it is shown 00:09:19.240 --> 00:09:24.860 that treatment can make such changes and affect 00:09:24.860 --> 00:09:28.519 such outcomes. Sometimes when it is not feasible 00:09:28.519 --> 00:09:32.279 to do a randomized experiment, a quasi -experimental 00:09:32.279 --> 00:09:36.720 study is conducted. This type of study provides 00:09:36.720 --> 00:09:40.399 a standard of evidence that, well not as high, 00:09:40.840 --> 00:09:44.080 is acceptable depending on the study design, 00:09:44.220 --> 00:09:48.519 unquote, National Reading Panel. Okay, so let's 00:09:48.519 --> 00:09:51.580 pull it all together then. What is the science 00:09:51.580 --> 00:09:57.090 reading? According to Motz and Shanahan, the 00:09:57.090 --> 00:10:00.309 National Reading Panel in the U .S. Department 00:10:00.309 --> 00:10:04.009 of Education, the science of reading seems to 00:10:04.009 --> 00:10:08.889 refer to a general consensus related to the strategies 00:10:08.889 --> 00:10:13.129 and practices that lead to improved reading outcomes. 00:10:14.490 --> 00:10:17.570 These strategies and practices have been determined 00:10:17.570 --> 00:10:21.750 to be effective using experimental or quasi -experimental 00:10:21.750 --> 00:10:24.909 research and conducted in authentic learning 00:10:24.909 --> 00:10:29.590 environments. Also, this research has established 00:10:29.590 --> 00:10:32.750 a causal link between strategies of practices 00:10:32.750 --> 00:10:37.129 and student outcomes, which in this case is reading 00:10:37.129 --> 00:10:41.870 achievement. Thus, the science of reading can 00:10:41.870 --> 00:10:47.570 be thought of as a process that uses these standards 00:10:47.570 --> 00:10:51.590 when making decisions related to reading instruction 00:10:51.590 --> 00:10:54.600 and policy. These standards are, and there's 00:10:54.600 --> 00:10:59.279 four, science of reading standards. One, strategies 00:10:59.279 --> 00:11:02.000 and practices lead to improved reading outcomes, 00:11:02.460 --> 00:11:05.600 as determined by research. Two, strategies and 00:11:05.600 --> 00:11:08.980 practices are supported by experimental or quasi 00:11:08.980 --> 00:11:13.580 -experimental research. Three, research establishes 00:11:13.580 --> 00:11:16.960 causal variables between strategies and practices 00:11:16.960 --> 00:11:22.799 and improved reading. And four, research has 00:11:22.799 --> 00:11:26.559 been conducted in an authentic learning environment, 00:11:26.860 --> 00:11:31.879 a classroom. However, the science of reading 00:11:31.879 --> 00:11:36.220 might best be described today as a self -defined 00:11:36.220 --> 00:11:41.620 movement that advocates these standards be used 00:11:41.620 --> 00:11:45.120 for making decisions related to reading policy 00:11:45.120 --> 00:11:49.820 and instruction. And I just said the four science 00:11:49.820 --> 00:11:54.889 of reading standards. Now, even though the science 00:11:54.889 --> 00:11:58.809 of reading standards just describes, represents 00:11:58.809 --> 00:12:03.190 a very narrow and distorted view of reading research, 00:12:04.029 --> 00:12:11.110 I could live with it if, dramatic pause, science 00:12:11.110 --> 00:12:14.730 of reading advocates would hold themselves to 00:12:14.730 --> 00:12:18.850 the same standards. That is, if the programs 00:12:18.850 --> 00:12:22.389 and policies they advocate were all based on 00:12:22.389 --> 00:12:27.490 the standards described. Four standards. Instead, 00:12:27.970 --> 00:12:31.129 we see the words research -based plastered on 00:12:31.129 --> 00:12:35.289 products, but very seldom do we see the relevant 00:12:35.289 --> 00:12:40.809 research. And a good example of this is a product 00:12:40.809 --> 00:12:46.679 like Orton Greenham. The Minnesota Deep. Department 00:12:46.679 --> 00:12:50.600 of Education identified this as one of three 00:12:50.600 --> 00:12:54.679 research -based programs that they allow, thank 00:12:54.679 --> 00:12:58.120 you Minnesota Department of Education, they allow 00:12:58.120 --> 00:13:03.360 schools to use with struggling readers. Now there 00:13:03.360 --> 00:13:06.279 may be parts of Orton -Gillingham that research 00:13:06.279 --> 00:13:09.179 has shown to be effective for some students in 00:13:09.179 --> 00:13:13.700 some settings for some purposes, but there is 00:13:13.700 --> 00:13:18.379 little, if any, legitimate peer -reviewed research 00:13:18.379 --> 00:13:22.799 asking the big three questions about Orton -Gillingham. 00:13:23.259 --> 00:13:26.759 The big three research questions. Number one, 00:13:27.759 --> 00:13:30.980 does it improve students' reading achievement? 00:13:31.460 --> 00:13:34.200 Does Orton -Gillingham improve students' reading 00:13:34.200 --> 00:13:37.840 achievement? Two, does Orton -Gillingham improve 00:13:37.840 --> 00:13:41.059 teachers' ability to teach reading? And three, 00:13:41.299 --> 00:13:45.100 when compared to similar things, is Orton -Gillingham 00:13:45.810 --> 00:13:49.409 more effective. Now if I've missed some research, 00:13:49.970 --> 00:13:52.389 please send it on to me and I'll make another 00:13:52.389 --> 00:13:55.049 podcast. This has been The Reading Instruction 00:13:55.049 --> 00:13:57.750 Show. I'm your host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.