1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:05,280
This is the Reading Instruction Show. I'm your host as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.

2
00:00:05,280 --> 00:00:12,680
In this podcast, I examine Ken Goodman, Penguins, the Psycholinguistic

3
00:00:12,680 --> 00:00:19,720
Guessing Game, Emily Hanford, American Public Media, some flawed ideas about

4
00:00:19,720 --> 00:00:26,680
reading instruction, and some flawed ideas about flawed ideas. So let's get to

5
00:00:26,680 --> 00:00:34,320
it. The guessing thing, the Psycholinguistic Guessing Game. In 1967,

6
00:00:34,320 --> 00:00:38,880
Ken Goodman published an article in Reading Research Quarterly with the

7
00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:46,800
title, Reading Full Colon, A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game. Now, eventually, a

8
00:00:46,800 --> 00:00:53,040
herd of angry penguins came along. They would read just the title of this

9
00:00:53,040 --> 00:00:59,280
article, and obviously they never read the article or any other of Ken

10
00:00:59,280 --> 00:01:06,760
Goodman's work. From this title, they selected two words to project onto, kind

11
00:01:06,760 --> 00:01:14,280
of like a Rorschach ink block test. The two words were reading and guessing. The

12
00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:19,840
Rorschach response from this herd of angry penguins, flapping their wings and

13
00:01:19,840 --> 00:01:26,320
swacking about for the last 55 years, has been that whole language teachers

14
00:01:26,320 --> 00:01:35,800
teach students to guess at words. 55 years. You'd think that in 55 years since

15
00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:41,480
the publication of this article, that these penguins might actually take the

16
00:01:41,480 --> 00:01:48,800
time to read the article. And when I say read, I don't mean just sound out the

17
00:01:48,800 --> 00:01:59,440
words. Don't do any decoding, but actually read the article. That is, use the text to

18
00:01:59,440 --> 00:02:08,000
create meaning with this article. Check for understanding along the way. If this

19
00:02:08,000 --> 00:02:14,960
is done, these penguins would soon be disabused of the whole language guessing

20
00:02:14,960 --> 00:02:22,760
at words notion. I would invite the angry penguins who think Ken Goodman is the

21
00:02:22,760 --> 00:02:30,720
reading anti-Christ to actually read his work. What exactly is it that he writes

22
00:02:30,720 --> 00:02:37,880
about with which you disagree? Not what you think he wrote, not what someone else

23
00:02:37,880 --> 00:02:46,040
said he wrote, but what exactly is it that he got wrong? Now, nobody agrees 100%

24
00:02:46,040 --> 00:02:53,440
with anybody and everybody's thinking evolves over time as more information is

25
00:02:53,440 --> 00:03:00,840
encountered. What he wrote in 1967 might be a little different than his later

26
00:03:00,840 --> 00:03:10,600
work 30 plus years later, but he got a lot of things right. So let's look at some

27
00:03:10,600 --> 00:03:15,880
of the basics. Some of the basics that Kenneth Goodman pointed out early on

28
00:03:15,880 --> 00:03:22,640
that have been subsequently reified by research in psycholinguistics, neuroscience,

29
00:03:22,640 --> 00:03:27,800
cognitive science, eye of movement and a miscue analysis and reading instruction.

30
00:03:27,800 --> 00:03:35,280
Here are six things we know based on Kenneth Goodman's work. Number one, humans

31
00:03:35,280 --> 00:03:41,280
use the information in their head to make sense of what's on the page during the

32
00:03:41,280 --> 00:03:49,360
act of reading. What's in their head? Neuroimaging shows that almost 10 times

33
00:03:49,360 --> 00:03:57,600
more information flows from the cortex down to the thalamus during reading than

34
00:03:57,600 --> 00:04:04,040
from the page to the thalamus and up to the cortex. Information is flowing down

35
00:04:04,040 --> 00:04:12,160
more so than is flowing up. Number two, we don't attend to every word as we are

36
00:04:12,160 --> 00:04:20,560
reading. Eye movement research shows that expert readers ignore about 40% of the

37
00:04:20,560 --> 00:04:28,880
words on the page. We skip right over them. Instead, our brain is filling in the

38
00:04:28,880 --> 00:04:37,440
blanks based on semantic, syntactic and phonological clues. We only think we're

39
00:04:37,440 --> 00:04:44,160
processing each individual word. Number three, expert readers use minimal

40
00:04:44,160 --> 00:04:50,920
letter clues to recognize words. Recognizing words is different from

41
00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:56,680
identifying words. Recognizing words is you see a word in print and you

42
00:04:56,680 --> 00:05:03,760
automatically know what it is. Identifying words means that you see a word in

43
00:05:03,760 --> 00:05:09,440
print. It's in your lexicon or the dictionary in your head. You don't

44
00:05:09,440 --> 00:05:16,040
automatically recognize it so you need to use some strategy to identify it.

45
00:05:16,040 --> 00:05:23,240
There's four word identification strategies. Analogy, you look for parts

46
00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:30,520
that you recognize. Morphemic analysis, prefix, suffix and words.

47
00:05:30,520 --> 00:05:36,640
Semantic clues, what word makes sense within the sentence and phonics or

48
00:05:36,640 --> 00:05:44,680
phonological clues. These are four strategies that we use. Number four,

49
00:05:44,680 --> 00:05:51,920
during reading our eyes don't move in a straight line from left to right. We

50
00:05:51,920 --> 00:05:58,040
skip over words. These skips are called saccades. We stop and focus on some words.

51
00:05:58,040 --> 00:06:04,600
The focus points are called fixations and we often counter words or out of order

52
00:06:04,600 --> 00:06:13,120
or go back. These going back things are called regressions. When we read eye

53
00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:20,800
movement research shows that our eyes flitter about like hummingbirds. Five,

54
00:06:20,800 --> 00:06:27,720
expert readers often insert words that aren't on the page but are semantically

55
00:06:27,720 --> 00:06:35,400
and syntactically correct. That is, we often use words that aren't on the page

56
00:06:35,400 --> 00:06:43,480
but make sense within the sentence. This tells us that expert readers aren't

57
00:06:43,480 --> 00:06:53,160
just sounding out words during reading. We're creating meaning with print.

58
00:06:53,160 --> 00:07:00,360
Expert readers don't attend to surface structure of sentences as much as deep

59
00:07:00,360 --> 00:07:07,400
structure or meaning. Just like when you're listening, you aren't attending to

60
00:07:07,400 --> 00:07:17,320
the individual phonemes. You're hearing phrases and ideas, deep structure during

61
00:07:17,320 --> 00:07:22,400
reading and during listening. Your brain is making sense and it's making a

62
00:07:22,400 --> 00:07:28,840
series of micro predictions while simultaneously using metacognition to

63
00:07:28,840 --> 00:07:35,280
ensure that what is being read or listened to makes sense. And the sixth idea,

64
00:07:35,280 --> 00:07:41,520
our brain has a good sense of what the next word is as we're reading before. We

65
00:07:41,520 --> 00:07:46,720
encounter it based on a lot of different types of data. This would be the

66
00:07:46,720 --> 00:07:51,920
information found within the sentence and paragraph. This is semantic

67
00:07:51,920 --> 00:07:56,960
information, the knowledge the reader has about the thing, background knowledge,

68
00:07:56,960 --> 00:08:05,200
grammar in word order clues, this is syntax, and letter clues. This multi-data

69
00:08:05,200 --> 00:08:13,800
hot dish enables our brain to operate quickly and efficiently during reading.

70
00:08:13,800 --> 00:08:22,840
However, if we had to move from left to right using only letter clues and attending

71
00:08:22,840 --> 00:08:28,560
to each and every letter and word in a linear progression, we would overwhelm

72
00:08:28,560 --> 00:08:34,560
our short-term memory. We'd remember very little of what we read and we'd have

73
00:08:34,560 --> 00:08:40,960
trouble reading more than 20 words a minute. Now, I wish Kenneth Goodman would

74
00:08:40,960 --> 00:08:47,360
not have used the phrase psycholinguistic guessing game. Instead, I wish he would

75
00:08:47,360 --> 00:08:51,640
have used the frayed psycholinguistic filly in the blanks with multiple kinds

76
00:08:51,640 --> 00:08:57,440
of data before encountering the word game. But this last one doesn't roll off the

77
00:08:57,440 --> 00:09:04,640
tongue as easily as psycholinguistic guessing game. Yes, I wish he would have

78
00:09:04,640 --> 00:09:12,360
used a different phrase back in 1967, but he had no idea back then that hordes of

79
00:09:12,360 --> 00:09:17,720
ill-informed penguins would be so easily whipped into a frenzy by politicians

80
00:09:17,720 --> 00:09:25,640
and profiteers. Now, let's look at Emily Hanford, American public media, and some

81
00:09:25,640 --> 00:09:32,200
flawed ideas about reading instruction. Emily Hanford of American public media

82
00:09:32,200 --> 00:09:38,480
did a whole series about what she determined to be the flawed ideas being

83
00:09:38,480 --> 00:09:44,200
used to teach millions of children to read, millions of children to read.

84
00:09:44,200 --> 00:09:51,160
Flawed ideas, she called them. Ideas like balance literacy and whole language.

85
00:09:51,160 --> 00:09:59,640
Imagine that. She determined them to be flawed. Now, I'm sure Emily Hanford is a

86
00:09:59,640 --> 00:10:07,080
wonderful person and a wonderful reporter. I'm sure she creates some very

87
00:10:07,080 --> 00:10:15,000
fascinating radio documentaries. If I were putting together a radio documentary,

88
00:10:15,000 --> 00:10:22,880
she'd be on the top of my list of experts with whom I might consult. But

89
00:10:22,880 --> 00:10:28,480
for getting accurate information related to reading instruction, she's quite a

90
00:10:28,480 --> 00:10:37,240
bit further down the list. To be truthful, she's not even on the list. In fact, she

91
00:10:37,240 --> 00:10:45,120
doesn't even know there is a list. Now, here's four things I want to tell you

92
00:10:45,120 --> 00:10:53,600
about radio commentators and documentarians. First, radio commentators

93
00:10:53,600 --> 00:10:59,520
and documentarians can say whatever they want as long as they're making good

94
00:10:59,520 --> 00:11:06,040
radio. They don't have to cite their sources. They don't have to make sure

95
00:11:06,040 --> 00:11:12,920
they're getting an accurate picture. They're making good radio. They can use

96
00:11:12,920 --> 00:11:22,760
anecdotal evidence and personal accounts to generalize about things. As long as

97
00:11:22,760 --> 00:11:29,960
it's good radio, nobody seems to care. Anecdotal evidence and first person

98
00:11:29,960 --> 00:11:35,840
accounts are very powerful because we identify with the individual people and

99
00:11:35,840 --> 00:11:42,720
their stories. This is very powerful, but it's not very accurate. This is

100
00:11:42,720 --> 00:11:48,320
sometimes called my grandpa data. My grandpa smoked a pack of cigarettes and

101
00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:54,400
lived to be a hundred. My grandpa did X. Therefore, X is good for all of

102
00:11:54,400 --> 00:12:02,160
humanity or the epitome of human evolution argument. Back in the day, I

103
00:12:02,160 --> 00:12:08,720
learned to read using X. Therefore, since I am the epitome of human evolution, X

104
00:12:08,720 --> 00:12:15,000
must be good. The second idea, radio commentators and

105
00:12:15,000 --> 00:12:21,240
documentarians can ignore anything that doesn't conform to the picture they're

106
00:12:21,240 --> 00:12:28,800
trying to create. After all, they're making good radio. So they start with a

107
00:12:28,800 --> 00:12:36,840
belief, then go out and look only for data that reinforces that belief. Now, if

108
00:12:36,840 --> 00:12:42,120
there's a pesky bit of data that might messy up the picture, they can skip right

109
00:12:42,120 --> 00:12:49,480
over it. Who cares? They're making good radio. They can ignore anything they want

110
00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:55,520
to and include only what they want to so that they're able to create the picture

111
00:12:55,520 --> 00:13:03,480
they want to create. Again, not very accurate, but they're making good radio.

112
00:13:03,480 --> 00:13:09,120
The third thing about radio commentators and documentarians is that

113
00:13:09,120 --> 00:13:15,480
there's no blind peer review. There's no expert looking at their work and

114
00:13:15,480 --> 00:13:22,280
deciding if it's accurate or not. Nobody reviews the methodology behind their

115
00:13:22,280 --> 00:13:29,440
work, the methodology used to collect the data and analyze the data. Oh, sure, there

116
00:13:29,440 --> 00:13:36,080
might be station managers and producers and such, but they're radio experts not

117
00:13:36,080 --> 00:13:45,920
reading instruction experts. And fourth, if there are experts related to the topic,

118
00:13:45,920 --> 00:13:52,560
the radio commentators and documentarians get to select the experts.

119
00:13:52,560 --> 00:13:59,680
Non-experts get to determine who the experts are. They get to put the dots on

120
00:13:59,680 --> 00:14:05,480
the dot-to-dot picture they're creating. They then connect their dots, ignore a

121
00:14:05,480 --> 00:14:10,480
whole bunch of other dots and proclaim it to be an accurate picture of reality

122
00:14:10,480 --> 00:14:16,920
when in reality it's nothing but a warp dot-to-dot picture with a lot of missing

123
00:14:16,920 --> 00:14:24,920
dots. Now, of course, when I contacted American public media after hearing

124
00:14:24,920 --> 00:14:30,680
Emily Hanford's documentary, I wanted to describe how incredibly inaccurate the

125
00:14:30,680 --> 00:14:37,120
information was that was presented. And I told them how I would be willing to

126
00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:44,400
provide an accurate, more some accurate information. But I was shooed away, shoo,

127
00:14:44,400 --> 00:14:52,520
they said. We talked to experts, they said. Go away, you pesky little man you. So, the

128
00:14:52,520 --> 00:15:00,280
non-experts got to decide who was an expert. Talking to their experts made the

129
00:15:00,280 --> 00:15:09,520
non-experts magically become experts. Poof, just like that. However, when Emily

130
00:15:09,520 --> 00:15:14,640
Hanford did her expert shopping, she clearly looked for experts who agreed

131
00:15:14,640 --> 00:15:21,600
with the picture she was trying to create. Excluding views and voices does not

132
00:15:21,600 --> 00:15:31,040
give you an accurate picture of reality. Now, let's look at this podcast. Emily

133
00:15:31,040 --> 00:15:36,800
Hanford produces a podcast. But first, Emily Hanford has a degree in English

134
00:15:36,800 --> 00:15:43,160
from Amherst College, a small private liberal arts college. Not in education,

135
00:15:43,160 --> 00:15:49,680
but English. And there's nothing wrong with that. She's now a senior correspondent

136
00:15:49,680 --> 00:15:56,640
and producer for APM, American Public Media. She also produces a podcast called

137
00:15:56,640 --> 00:16:03,440
Educate. It's about education and such. And there are four things I want to tell

138
00:16:03,440 --> 00:16:09,280
you about her podcast. First, it gets many more listeners than my podcast.

139
00:16:09,280 --> 00:16:15,560
Therefore, it must be better than mine. I don't have writers, producers, directors,

140
00:16:15,560 --> 00:16:22,000
researchers, sound engineers and such. The second thing, she must know a lot more

141
00:16:22,000 --> 00:16:30,280
about reading instruction than I do. After all, she's on the radio and I'm not.

142
00:16:30,280 --> 00:16:37,400
Third, she'll never have me on her podcast as a guest. If she does, she'll cut and

143
00:16:37,400 --> 00:16:43,160
paste what I say out of context. So I'll sound like a punch-drunk walrus. By the

144
00:16:43,160 --> 00:16:48,280
way, I'm hoping she hears this and does have me on as a guest. And the fourth

145
00:16:48,280 --> 00:16:55,720
thing, she has much better bumper music than I do. Bumper music is the intro music.

146
00:16:55,720 --> 00:17:01,480
It's the bumper between one thing and the next. Hers is much better than mine

147
00:17:01,480 --> 00:17:07,360
because I don't have any. I haven't had the time to figure out how to do this with

148
00:17:07,360 --> 00:17:13,800
my podcast yet. I've been too busy doing meaningless stuff like scholarly work

149
00:17:13,800 --> 00:17:20,640
related to reading instruction. So who should you believe? Emily Hanford has

150
00:17:20,640 --> 00:17:28,000
released three documentaries investigating what she describes as

151
00:17:28,000 --> 00:17:34,080
problematic approaches to reading instruction. Many are inclined to believe

152
00:17:34,080 --> 00:17:42,360
her because after all, she is a senior correspondent and producer. On a LinkedIn

153
00:17:42,360 --> 00:17:47,680
page, this is what she writes about herself and I quote, I've been working in

154
00:17:47,680 --> 00:17:53,040
public media for more than two decades as a reporter, producer, editor, news director,

155
00:17:53,040 --> 00:18:00,000
and program host. I've been at American public media since 2008 where I produce

156
00:18:00,000 --> 00:18:04,880
education documentaries that air on public radio stations nationwide and

157
00:18:04,880 --> 00:18:10,960
can also be heard on the Educate Podcast. I've written and produced for many

158
00:18:10,960 --> 00:18:15,840
publications including NPR, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times,

159
00:18:15,840 --> 00:18:23,120
Washington Monthly, MindShift, and PBS NewsHour. My work has won numerous

160
00:18:23,120 --> 00:18:28,920
honors including a DuPont Columbia Award, a Casey Medal, and awards from the

161
00:18:28,920 --> 00:18:37,000
Education Writers Association and the Associated Press. In 2017, I won the

162
00:18:37,000 --> 00:18:42,200
Excellence in Media Reporting on Education Research Award from the

163
00:18:42,200 --> 00:18:47,640
American Educational Research Associations. I am a frequent speaker and

164
00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:53,760
moderator and host of the Ways and Means Podcast. I graduated from Amherst

165
00:18:53,760 --> 00:19:04,200
College and lived in the Washington DC area. Unquote. Wow, very impressive, no? So

166
00:19:04,200 --> 00:19:13,600
who should I believe about reading instruction? One radio reporter investigating

167
00:19:13,600 --> 00:19:20,200
something that is clearly outside her area of expertise, using cherry-picked

168
00:19:20,200 --> 00:19:27,640
data, including anecdotal evidence and ignoring data and experts that have

169
00:19:27,640 --> 00:19:32,520
views that do not align with her preconceived perceptions. Should I believe

170
00:19:32,520 --> 00:19:41,040
her? Or an organization, let's say like the International Literacy Association.

171
00:19:41,040 --> 00:19:48,000
The International Literacy Association has come to a much different conclusion

172
00:19:48,000 --> 00:19:55,640
than Emily Hanford. The International Literacy Association is comprised of

173
00:19:55,640 --> 00:20:01,640
thousands of expert teachers, researchers, and scholars who've been

174
00:20:01,640 --> 00:20:07,600
investigating reading instruction and publishing their findings in blind, peer

175
00:20:07,600 --> 00:20:17,480
reviewed journals for over 65 years. Emily is one person, an English major,

176
00:20:17,480 --> 00:20:25,160
investigating something outside her area of expertise using dubious sources, but

177
00:20:25,160 --> 00:20:30,960
she has won the DuPont Columbia Award. Or should I believe the International

178
00:20:30,960 --> 00:20:36,760
Literacy Association, which is comprised of thousands of experts,

179
00:20:36,760 --> 00:20:43,920
investigating things within their area of expertise, using a variety of research

180
00:20:43,920 --> 00:20:51,480
methods, and publishing their findings in peer reviewed journals for over 65

181
00:20:51,480 --> 00:21:01,840
years. Which source should I believe? That's a tough one. But since Emily is

182
00:21:01,840 --> 00:21:09,320
good radio, this is the source that will reach parents and lawmakers. After all,

183
00:21:09,320 --> 00:21:15,640
all you have to do is listen to Emily. With the International Literacy

184
00:21:15,640 --> 00:21:21,840
Association, you actually have to read things. You have to think about things.

185
00:21:21,840 --> 00:21:30,080
With radio documentaries, all the thinking is done for you. In the meantime,

186
00:21:30,080 --> 00:21:36,080
the only things saidlier than Emily Hanford's documentaries are those

187
00:21:36,080 --> 00:21:42,280
people who cite Emily Hanford's documentaries as if they mean something.

188
00:21:42,280 --> 00:21:48,760
Now, I'm sure Emily Hanford made a name for herself, which I guess is the

189
00:21:48,760 --> 00:21:53,760
important thing here. I'm sure her documentary series about flawed reading

190
00:21:53,760 --> 00:21:59,960
instruction ideas has moved her career forward. Be it at the expense of children

191
00:21:59,960 --> 00:22:05,280
struggling to learn to read, but at least she got her three-part documentary

192
00:22:05,280 --> 00:22:13,040
series on NPR, which is the important thing. This radio documentary, even though

193
00:22:13,040 --> 00:22:18,680
it was filled with mistruths, untruths, semi-truths, and distorted information,

194
00:22:18,680 --> 00:22:25,520
was a good career for her. So good for you, Emily Hanford. Now, I don't mean to be

195
00:22:25,520 --> 00:22:31,920
dumping all over Emily Hanford. I know she's a very competent person. I'm sure

196
00:22:31,920 --> 00:22:38,400
she's a very good person. I imagine she wakes up every day and says to herself,

197
00:22:38,400 --> 00:22:44,120
look at you, Emily. Look at all the good things you've done for reading instruction

198
00:22:44,120 --> 00:22:52,640
and for children. However, documentaries like Emily Hanford's do more to

199
00:22:52,640 --> 00:22:59,600
misinform the public and promote bad reading instruction. As a result of

200
00:22:59,600 --> 00:23:06,440
Emily Hanford, millions of dollars and countless hours are spent on programs and

201
00:23:06,440 --> 00:23:12,640
curriculum that focus on teaching a series of meaningless low-level reading

202
00:23:12,640 --> 00:23:19,920
skills and sub skills. Time and money could instead be spent on things that

203
00:23:19,920 --> 00:23:25,920
would actually help children learn to read, like books, like good teachers, and

204
00:23:25,920 --> 00:23:32,920
good professional development. This has been the Reading Instruction Show. I'm

205
00:23:32,920 --> 00:23:50,920
your host, an actual reading expert, Dr. Andy Johnson.