This is The Reading Instruction Show. I'm your
host, Dr. Andy Johnson. Let us see if we can
learn a little something today. This is an excerpt
from my book, Understanding the Science of Reading,
Context Matters. Now we are looking at defining
our terms. When somebody asks you, what's the
science of reading? What do you say? Is it a
process? Is it a set of strategies? An approach
or method? A reading program? A group or organization?
In this podcast, I'm going to attempt to define
the science of reading. And notice, in my writing,
I use capital letters. This enables us to differentiate
between a science of reading, and it's one of
several sciences, and the, quote, science of
reading as a proper noun or title. Now, Louisa
Moats in 2019 defined the science of reading
as an emerging consensus. IT, the science of
reading, is the emerging consensus for many related
disciplines based on literally thousands of studies
supported by hundreds of millions of research
dollars conducted across the world in many languages.
Pretty pretty words. Who could argue with such
an important sounding sentence? But what exactly
does she mean here? Let's do a bit of unpackering.
Consensus. Okay, consensus is a general agreement
about things. Within any field or discipline,
there are always a variety of consensus. on all
sorts of things. The field of reading instruction
is no different. In fact, there are emerging,
non -emerging, and receding consensuses on a
whole bunch of things going on all the time.
It's not a static monolithic field. Emerge. Emerge
means to come forth or to arise from something.
Why is it that just now a consensus is forming?
The National Council of Teachers of English has
been around since 1911. The International Literacy
Association, used to be called the International
Reading Association, has been around since 1956.
And membership in these organizations over the
years? have included hundreds of thousands of
teachers, researchers, scholars, and educators.
One would have thought a consensus would have
emerged long before now, if there was indeed
an emerging consensus. Related disciplines. Now
the related disciplines are not identified here
by Dr. Motz. but may include fields such as psychology,
educational psychology, linguistics, cognitive
psychology, and neuroscience. These other disciplines
provide depth and dimension to our understanding
of the reading process and reading instruction.
However, just like reading instruction, these
related disciplines are not static or monolithic.
At any given time, one can select from a variety
of consensus from a variety of disciplines to
support a variety of consensus within reading
instruction. Based on literally thousands of
studies, Of all the, quote, literally thousands
of studies, unquote, it's a mystery as to why
so few of the literally thousands of studies
are put forward to support science of reading
mandates. It's a mystery as well as to why Orton
Gillingham, Wilson Reading, Foundations, the
American Reading Company, others, and other scripted
for -profit products are given a free pass. They're
accepted as research -based when, in fact, there's
little, if any, peer -reviewed research to demonstrate
the products A, ability to improve students'
reading achievement, B, impact on teachers' ability
to teach reading, and C, its greater effectiveness
when compared to legitimate, meaning -based,
balanced literacy approaches or methods. In these
cases, we don't need literally thousands of studies,
we need literally just a few. So the three big
research questions are this. Does that product
improve students' reading achievement? That product.
Does that product improve teachers' ability to
teach reading? And when compared to other similar
things, is that product more effective? Those
are the big three questions. Now, there is no
doubt that each of the for -profit products I've
listed have elements within them that can be
supported by research. This is true of almost
any commercial product. Having research -based
components within a product does not make that
product research -based. That's like saying,
since 60 % of my body contains water, I am a
lake. It just means that there is research to
support certain parts of the product for certain
students for certain things. And the last one,
supported by hundreds of millions of research
dollars, says Motz. Well, this is not something
of which to be proud. This simply means there's
a lot of money involved, and money always comes
with a price. In the case of research related
to reading instruction, money comes with the
expectation of political or economic return.
Let's see what Dr. Shanahan, Timothy Shanahan,
according to Timothy Shanahan, the science of
reading is a set of applied research studies.
Applied research means it was conducted in a
classroom. This differs from basic research,
which is conducted apart from the context in
which it is used or applied. Dr. Shanahan also
said that, quote, the science of reading should
refer to all empirical studies of any aspect
of learning to read, write, and spell in any
language. Now empirical research is research
that's based on the observation and measurement
of phenomena as directly experienced by the researcher.
However, when we apply the US Department of Education
standard to it, we see that the science of reading
includes only a single type of empirical study
or empirical research. Scientifically -based
research in education is that which, according
to the US Department of Education, is evaluated
using experimental or quasi -experimental designs
in which individuals, entities, programs, or
activities are assigned to different conditions
and with appropriate controls to evaluate the
effects of the condition of interest, with a
preference for random assignment experiment or
other designs to the extent that these designs
contain within -condition or across -condition
controls. Okay, very good, good, we see this.
But this is similar to the standard as well,
employed by Dr. Shanahan and the National Reading
Panel in 2000. The panel wrote on page 7, quote,
to make a determination that any instructional
practice could be or should be adopted widely
to improve reading achievement requires that
the belief, assumption, or claim supporting the
practice be causally linked to a particular outcome.
The highest standard of evidence for such a claim
is the experimental study, in which it is shown
that treatment can make such changes and affect
such outcomes. Sometimes when it is not feasible
to do a randomized experiment, a quasi -experimental
study is conducted. This type of study provides
a standard of evidence that, well not as high,
is acceptable depending on the study design,
unquote, National Reading Panel. Okay, so let's
pull it all together then. What is the science
reading? According to Motz and Shanahan, the
National Reading Panel in the U .S. Department
of Education, the science of reading seems to
refer to a general consensus related to the strategies
and practices that lead to improved reading outcomes.
These strategies and practices have been determined
to be effective using experimental or quasi -experimental
research and conducted in authentic learning
environments. Also, this research has established
a causal link between strategies of practices
and student outcomes, which in this case is reading
achievement. Thus, the science of reading can
be thought of as a process that uses these standards
when making decisions related to reading instruction
and policy. These standards are, and there's
four, science of reading standards. One, strategies
and practices lead to improved reading outcomes,
as determined by research. Two, strategies and
practices are supported by experimental or quasi
-experimental research. Three, research establishes
causal variables between strategies and practices
and improved reading. And four, research has
been conducted in an authentic learning environment,
a classroom. However, the science of reading
might best be described today as a self -defined
movement that advocates these standards be used
for making decisions related to reading policy
and instruction. And I just said the four science
of reading standards. Now, even though the science
of reading standards just describes, represents
a very narrow and distorted view of reading research,
I could live with it if, dramatic pause, science
of reading advocates would hold themselves to
the same standards. That is, if the programs
and policies they advocate were all based on
the standards described. Four standards. Instead,
we see the words research -based plastered on
products, but very seldom do we see the relevant
research. And a good example of this is a product
like Orton Greenham. The Minnesota Deep. Department
of Education identified this as one of three
research -based programs that they allow, thank
you Minnesota Department of Education, they allow
schools to use with struggling readers. Now there
may be parts of Orton -Gillingham that research
has shown to be effective for some students in
some settings for some purposes, but there is
little, if any, legitimate peer -reviewed research
asking the big three questions about Orton -Gillingham.
The big three research questions. Number one,
does it improve students' reading achievement?
Does Orton -Gillingham improve students' reading
achievement? Two, does Orton -Gillingham improve
teachers' ability to teach reading? And three,
when compared to similar things, is Orton -Gillingham
more effective. Now if I've missed some research,
please send it on to me and I'll make another
podcast. This has been The Reading Instruction
Show. I'm your host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.