1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:02,160 This is the Reading Instruction Show. 2 00:00:02,160 --> 00:00:05,360 I'm your host, Liz Owies, Dr. Andy Johnson. 3 00:00:05,360 --> 00:00:12,520 Topic of today's podcast, Real Science and the Ideology of Reading. 4 00:00:12,520 --> 00:00:19,680 Now I want to open up this podcast with four ridiculous claims that are often made. 5 00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:24,480 Ridiculous claim number one, there's a massive reading crisis. 6 00:00:24,480 --> 00:00:31,760 Some have bought into this claim that there's a massive reading crisis based on unscientific 7 00:00:31,760 --> 00:00:32,760 data. 8 00:00:32,760 --> 00:00:35,760 I want to see the data. 9 00:00:35,760 --> 00:00:43,400 Two second ridiculous claim number two, children aren't learning to read because they're not 10 00:00:43,400 --> 00:00:47,240 taught enough phonics in the right way. 11 00:00:47,240 --> 00:00:56,160 That's ridiculous. Of all the possible variables impacting students learning, they have determined 12 00:00:56,160 --> 00:01:01,960 that this was the cause of all reading problems. 13 00:01:01,960 --> 00:01:07,440 Phonics, lack of phonics, was the cause of all reading problems. 14 00:01:07,440 --> 00:01:15,120 They, meaning science of reading advocates, ignored overcrowded classrooms, lack of health 15 00:01:15,120 --> 00:01:21,560 care, poor nutrition, parents who are working two jobs just to try to put food on the table, 16 00:01:21,560 --> 00:01:28,200 unqualified teachers, systemic racism with all the variables. 17 00:01:28,200 --> 00:01:31,480 Someone determined that phonics is the root of everything. 18 00:01:31,480 --> 00:01:36,920 And of course, show me some scientific data to support that. 19 00:01:36,920 --> 00:01:41,720 That phonics is the cause of all reading problems. 20 00:01:41,720 --> 00:01:48,200 First claim number three, systematic phonics instruction is the answer. 21 00:01:48,200 --> 00:01:53,400 According to the science of reading, more systematic phonics will fix everything. 22 00:01:53,400 --> 00:02:00,440 And of course, we know there's a body of research that says if you teach phonics, children 23 00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:05,080 will score higher on phonics measures. 24 00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:13,200 What is there some blind peer reviewed research that says massive systematic phonics instruction 25 00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:16,240 is the answer? 26 00:02:16,240 --> 00:02:22,000 And ridiculous claim number four, I hear this a lot based on anecdotal evidence. 27 00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:27,920 Teacher preparation programs are not preparing teachers to teach reading. 28 00:02:27,920 --> 00:02:34,200 And that course is based on I think is an anecdotal evidence, not scientific data. 29 00:02:34,200 --> 00:02:35,840 Now you know what I'm teaching. 30 00:02:35,840 --> 00:02:38,280 You have no idea what I'm teaching. 31 00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:45,240 You have no idea what the majority of teacher preparation programs are teaching. 32 00:02:45,240 --> 00:02:49,400 You just say stuff and people buy into it. 33 00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:53,600 Now let's look at science and ideology. 34 00:02:53,600 --> 00:03:01,280 Despite having the word science in the title, the ideas put forth by the science of reading 35 00:03:01,280 --> 00:03:08,560 group seem not to be grounded in real science, but in pseudoscience and I think isms and 36 00:03:08,560 --> 00:03:10,880 anecdotal evidence. 37 00:03:10,880 --> 00:03:15,760 In fact, they are not promoting science, but an ideology. 38 00:03:15,760 --> 00:03:21,400 An ideology is a system of ideas and beliefs. 39 00:03:21,400 --> 00:03:28,760 Hence the science of reading would more accurately be named the ideology of reading. 40 00:03:28,760 --> 00:03:35,920 That's because what the science of reading promotes is based far more on a belief system 41 00:03:35,920 --> 00:03:39,920 than on reading science. 42 00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:48,160 Real science puts forth conclusions and recommendations based on a wide body of research. 43 00:03:48,160 --> 00:03:56,440 An ideology puts forth a dogma and mandates based on a very narrow range of data that 44 00:03:56,440 --> 00:03:59,960 must be adhered to. 45 00:03:59,960 --> 00:04:05,960 Now around the country, state legislators are being pressured to pass laws based on this 46 00:04:05,960 --> 00:04:12,200 narrowly defined ideological position and they call it science. 47 00:04:12,200 --> 00:04:17,400 And since science is in the title, they think it must be science. 48 00:04:17,400 --> 00:04:22,840 And people listen to Emily Hanford, a radio journalist. 49 00:04:22,840 --> 00:04:29,480 I'm sure she's a fine person, but she's had no experience as a teacher and no expertise 50 00:04:29,480 --> 00:04:32,240 in the field of literacy. 51 00:04:32,240 --> 00:04:36,240 They listen to her instead of experts in the field. 52 00:04:36,240 --> 00:04:42,800 Now Emily Hanford cherry picks data and selects people that support a very narrow point of 53 00:04:42,800 --> 00:04:44,240 view. 54 00:04:44,240 --> 00:04:51,200 This creates a warped version of reading reality because it creates good radio. 55 00:04:51,200 --> 00:04:57,560 I'd like to ask Ms. Hanford, have you ever read a research article? 56 00:04:57,560 --> 00:05:00,240 Would you ever put me on your program? 57 00:05:00,240 --> 00:05:02,600 I think not. 58 00:05:02,600 --> 00:05:07,360 Has your thinking ever changed with new data? 59 00:05:07,360 --> 00:05:09,640 And that's the mark of science. 60 00:05:09,640 --> 00:05:14,120 As new data comes in, your ideas are ever evolving. 61 00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:20,440 There's no such thing as a fixed idea, something that's proven for all times. 62 00:05:20,440 --> 00:05:24,440 And last thing for Emily Hanford. 63 00:05:24,440 --> 00:05:29,440 Does she rely on peer reviewed research to come to her conclusions? 64 00:05:29,440 --> 00:05:34,000 Or are they more personal stories and anecdotal evidence? 65 00:05:34,000 --> 00:05:36,800 Which are you relying on? 66 00:05:36,800 --> 00:05:42,040 Peer reviewed research or personal stories and anecdotal evidence? 67 00:05:42,040 --> 00:05:49,160 Now there are international organizations devoted to literacy, research and instruction, 68 00:05:49,160 --> 00:05:56,680 like the International Literacy Association and the National Council of Teachers of English. 69 00:05:56,680 --> 00:05:59,880 These have been around for decades. 70 00:05:59,880 --> 00:06:07,880 They have thousands of members who are literacy experts, researchers, scholars, teachers, educators 71 00:06:07,880 --> 00:06:13,120 who have devoted their working lives to literacy instruction. 72 00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:19,480 And these groups offer a thorough yet sometimes complex view of literacy. 73 00:06:19,480 --> 00:06:24,920 And this is a view that is constantly changing as new science emerges. 74 00:06:24,920 --> 00:06:27,080 And that's appropriate. 75 00:06:27,080 --> 00:06:33,320 I would believe thousands of experts versus a radio journalist. 76 00:06:33,320 --> 00:06:41,640 Yet the science of reading seems to reject all of this for simplistic answers to a complex 77 00:06:41,640 --> 00:06:43,520 problem. 78 00:06:43,520 --> 00:06:46,560 And this is the simplistic answers we get. 79 00:06:46,560 --> 00:06:49,960 Morphonic is good, balanced literacy bad. 80 00:06:49,960 --> 00:06:52,360 And that's not science. 81 00:06:52,360 --> 00:06:55,520 That's an ideology. 82 00:06:55,520 --> 00:07:02,040 Now the science of reading or the ideology of reading does not tolerate discussion or 83 00:07:02,040 --> 00:07:03,760 debate. 84 00:07:03,760 --> 00:07:09,320 They seek to silence dissenting voices. 85 00:07:09,320 --> 00:07:13,240 People like me are never engaged in it. 86 00:07:13,240 --> 00:07:15,640 We're to be silenced. 87 00:07:15,640 --> 00:07:22,080 Now the ideology of reading can't win in the arena of ideas in an academic discourse, 88 00:07:22,080 --> 00:07:24,280 so they attack. 89 00:07:24,280 --> 00:07:31,360 Now any ideology, whether it's an academic ideology, a political or religious ideology, 90 00:07:31,360 --> 00:07:39,680 if attacking another position is akin to making a point for their own position. 91 00:07:39,680 --> 00:07:46,480 So instead of making a position for the rightness of their claim, they describe the wrongness 92 00:07:46,480 --> 00:07:48,840 of another claim. 93 00:07:48,840 --> 00:07:50,400 They're so wrong, they say. 94 00:07:50,400 --> 00:07:51,800 They're so very, very wrong. 95 00:07:51,800 --> 00:07:54,440 And that's what makes me right. 96 00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:56,360 So the thinking goes. 97 00:07:56,360 --> 00:08:04,520 Not this narrowness of thinking, this exclusion of ideas does not move the conversation forward. 98 00:08:04,520 --> 00:08:08,320 But of course, that's the very point, isn't it? 99 00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:16,400 Now let's take a review of what reading science is or the science of reading is. 100 00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:20,040 Tim Shanahan, I don't always agree with him, but he's got some good ideas out there. 101 00:08:20,040 --> 00:08:26,080 I thought he did a good job in defining and describing reading science or the science 102 00:08:26,080 --> 00:08:27,080 of reading. 103 00:08:27,080 --> 00:08:29,520 So I'm going to rely on his description here. 104 00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:36,280 He says that reading science is that that is based on research conducted in a classroom 105 00:08:36,280 --> 00:08:42,640 using controlled experimental studies or controlled experimental research. 106 00:08:42,640 --> 00:08:50,920 And this is his quote directly to me, a science of reading, if we're talking about education, 107 00:08:50,920 --> 00:08:58,680 is that our prescriptions for teaching be tempered by rigorous instructional evaluations. 108 00:08:58,680 --> 00:09:04,960 If a claim hasn't been tried out and found effective, then the claims, no matter how 109 00:09:04,960 --> 00:09:09,680 heartfelt, aren't part of reading science. 110 00:09:09,680 --> 00:09:15,680 In other words, to simplify, only practices and strategies that have been shown to be 111 00:09:15,680 --> 00:09:24,240 effective using controlled experimental research and conducted in an actual learning environment 112 00:09:24,240 --> 00:09:26,280 are to be considered reading science. 113 00:09:26,280 --> 00:09:33,240 These should be used to determine what effective reading instruction is. 114 00:09:33,240 --> 00:09:38,400 This is the only type of research that should be used to design reading programs and make 115 00:09:38,400 --> 00:09:40,960 reading policy. 116 00:09:40,960 --> 00:09:48,320 Now there are different views and interpretations on reading science, but according to Dr. Shanahan, 117 00:09:48,320 --> 00:09:56,000 reading science is based on the premise that only findings that come from controlled experimental 118 00:09:56,000 --> 00:10:02,680 research from applied research should be used to determine what reading instruction should 119 00:10:02,680 --> 00:10:04,840 look like. 120 00:10:04,840 --> 00:10:11,640 And even though I think this provides a limited view and excludes a lot of important qualitative 121 00:10:11,640 --> 00:10:17,800 and descriptive research, I could live with this interpretation of reading science if 122 00:10:17,800 --> 00:10:22,360 it were used correctly and consistently. 123 00:10:22,360 --> 00:10:28,920 That is, if the science of reading advocates use the same criterion to come to conclusions 124 00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:32,080 about reading instruction. 125 00:10:32,080 --> 00:10:40,840 If they use science to determine their belief system, instead of using their belief system 126 00:10:40,840 --> 00:10:45,200 to determine what science to look at. 127 00:10:45,200 --> 00:10:51,640 The science of reading seems to be cherry picking data that reinforces two predetermined 128 00:10:51,640 --> 00:10:53,600 beliefs. 129 00:10:53,600 --> 00:11:00,320 Predetermined belief number one, reading is essentially sounding out words. 130 00:11:00,320 --> 00:11:06,880 And predetermined belief number two, you create better readers by providing more sounding 131 00:11:06,880 --> 00:11:10,080 out word instruction. 132 00:11:10,080 --> 00:11:13,960 That seems to be the essence of the science of reading in a nutshell. 133 00:11:13,960 --> 00:11:16,040 Correct me if I'm wrong. 134 00:11:16,040 --> 00:11:21,560 Now here are four ideas that we can all agree upon. 135 00:11:21,560 --> 00:11:27,440 And I say this because these four ideas are often used to mischaracterize people that 136 00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:32,280 don't buy in to the science of reading ideology. 137 00:11:32,280 --> 00:11:40,600 The first one, everybody believes that phonics is an instruction, is helpful in helping children 138 00:11:40,600 --> 00:11:42,980 learn to decode words. 139 00:11:42,980 --> 00:11:45,760 Everybody believes that. 140 00:11:45,760 --> 00:11:52,320 Everybody believes phonics instruction should be an important part of early literacy. 141 00:11:52,320 --> 00:11:57,240 Kindergarten in first grade, everybody believes that whether you're a balanced literacy approach 142 00:11:57,240 --> 00:12:02,560 take that or a whole language teacher, everyone believes that. 143 00:12:02,560 --> 00:12:09,880 Everyone believes direct instruction is needed to initially teach letter sound relationships. 144 00:12:09,880 --> 00:12:13,800 Again, everyone believes that. 145 00:12:13,800 --> 00:12:19,600 However, this is what the National Reading Panel said. 146 00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:26,640 Phonics instruction has been shown to be more effective when embedded within a comprehensive 147 00:12:26,640 --> 00:12:29,200 literacy program. 148 00:12:29,200 --> 00:12:37,440 Or what the National Reading Panel called, wait for it, balanced reading program. 149 00:12:37,440 --> 00:12:39,880 Interesting balance. 150 00:12:39,880 --> 00:12:48,480 Now let me leave you with six ideas put forth by the National Reading Panel report. 151 00:12:48,480 --> 00:12:52,360 And I encourage you to actually read this report. 152 00:12:52,360 --> 00:12:57,800 And many consider this to be the Bible of gold standard research related to reading instruction. 153 00:12:57,800 --> 00:13:02,000 And as I said in a previous podcast, there's some good stuff there, nothing new, but it 154 00:13:02,000 --> 00:13:07,120 reinforces what the International Literacy Association and the National Council of Teachers 155 00:13:07,120 --> 00:13:09,600 of English, what they had been saying for decades. 156 00:13:09,600 --> 00:13:11,960 So wonderful, you've got this report. 157 00:13:11,960 --> 00:13:14,680 So six conclusions. 158 00:13:14,680 --> 00:13:18,720 Number one, there are several ways to teach phonics. 159 00:13:18,720 --> 00:13:24,440 Synthetic phonics, analytic phonics, embedded phonics, analogy phonics or large unit phonics, 160 00:13:24,440 --> 00:13:28,120 onset rhyme phonics, and phonics through spelling. 161 00:13:28,120 --> 00:13:30,240 Which one is most effective? 162 00:13:30,240 --> 00:13:33,280 All approaches are effective. 163 00:13:33,280 --> 00:13:37,080 All approaches are equally effective. 164 00:13:37,080 --> 00:13:42,100 We tend to think of traditional phonics instruction as synthetic phonics. 165 00:13:42,100 --> 00:13:48,360 We tend to think of that synthetic synthesis, putting letter sounds together to create words. 166 00:13:48,360 --> 00:13:54,640 It's synthetic phonics, but all these types of phonics are equally effective. 167 00:13:54,640 --> 00:14:01,760 Big idea number two, systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction 168 00:14:01,760 --> 00:14:09,400 to create a quote, balanced reading program, unquote, page two dash 97 of the National 169 00:14:09,400 --> 00:14:12,440 Reading Panel report. 170 00:14:12,440 --> 00:14:16,800 Conclusion number three, there were insufficient data to draw any conclusions about the National 171 00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:18,440 Reading Panel report. 172 00:14:18,440 --> 00:14:24,880 Conclusions about the effects of phonics instruction with normally developing readers above first 173 00:14:24,880 --> 00:14:27,760 grade. 174 00:14:27,760 --> 00:14:34,000 Conclusion number four, phonics instruction fails to exert a statistically significant 175 00:14:34,000 --> 00:14:39,440 impact on poor readers in second through sixth grade. 176 00:14:39,440 --> 00:14:43,160 But what happens to poor readers in second through sixth grade? 177 00:14:43,160 --> 00:14:48,640 They're often sent off someplace to get this star or title one or more phonics, even when 178 00:14:48,640 --> 00:14:54,160 though this shown no statistically significant impact on poor readers. 179 00:14:54,160 --> 00:14:59,240 And by the way, there are three deficit areas related to reading. 180 00:14:59,240 --> 00:15:04,840 There's comprehension, there's fluency, and there's word identification. 181 00:15:04,840 --> 00:15:08,160 All struggling readers aren't the same. 182 00:15:08,160 --> 00:15:12,760 Some have deficits in one of those areas, two are all three. 183 00:15:12,760 --> 00:15:17,640 So if you're a student who has trouble just with fluency, hitting them with a bunch of 184 00:15:17,640 --> 00:15:24,000 phonics word identification does not address their need. 185 00:15:24,000 --> 00:15:28,960 And the last one, I lied, I said six, but there's only five conclusions. 186 00:15:28,960 --> 00:15:35,440 Phonics instruction contributed only weekly, if at all, in helping poor readers apply these 187 00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:40,000 skills to reading actual text. 188 00:15:40,000 --> 00:15:41,000 There you go. 189 00:15:41,000 --> 00:15:42,600 This has been the reading instruction show. 190 00:15:42,600 --> 00:15:44,840 I'm your host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.