This is the Reading Instruction Show.
I'm your host, Liz Owies, Dr. Andy Johnson.
Topic of today's podcast, Real Science and the Ideology of Reading.
Now I want to open up this podcast with four ridiculous claims that are often made.
Ridiculous claim number one, there's a massive reading crisis.
Some have bought into this claim that there's a massive reading crisis based on unscientific
data.
I want to see the data.
Two second ridiculous claim number two, children aren't learning to read because they're not
taught enough phonics in the right way.
That's ridiculous. Of all the possible variables impacting students learning, they have determined
that this was the cause of all reading problems.
Phonics, lack of phonics, was the cause of all reading problems.
They, meaning science of reading advocates, ignored overcrowded classrooms, lack of health
care, poor nutrition, parents who are working two jobs just to try to put food on the table,
unqualified teachers, systemic racism with all the variables.
Someone determined that phonics is the root of everything.
And of course, show me some scientific data to support that.
That phonics is the cause of all reading problems.
First claim number three, systematic phonics instruction is the answer.
According to the science of reading, more systematic phonics will fix everything.
And of course, we know there's a body of research that says if you teach phonics, children
will score higher on phonics measures.
What is there some blind peer reviewed research that says massive systematic phonics instruction
is the answer?
And ridiculous claim number four, I hear this a lot based on anecdotal evidence.
Teacher preparation programs are not preparing teachers to teach reading.
And that course is based on I think is an anecdotal evidence, not scientific data.
Now you know what I'm teaching.
You have no idea what I'm teaching.
You have no idea what the majority of teacher preparation programs are teaching.
You just say stuff and people buy into it.
Now let's look at science and ideology.
Despite having the word science in the title, the ideas put forth by the science of reading
group seem not to be grounded in real science, but in pseudoscience and I think isms and
anecdotal evidence.
In fact, they are not promoting science, but an ideology.
An ideology is a system of ideas and beliefs.
Hence the science of reading would more accurately be named the ideology of reading.
That's because what the science of reading promotes is based far more on a belief system
than on reading science.
Real science puts forth conclusions and recommendations based on a wide body of research.
An ideology puts forth a dogma and mandates based on a very narrow range of data that
must be adhered to.
Now around the country, state legislators are being pressured to pass laws based on this
narrowly defined ideological position and they call it science.
And since science is in the title, they think it must be science.
And people listen to Emily Hanford, a radio journalist.
I'm sure she's a fine person, but she's had no experience as a teacher and no expertise
in the field of literacy.
They listen to her instead of experts in the field.
Now Emily Hanford cherry picks data and selects people that support a very narrow point of
view.
This creates a warped version of reading reality because it creates good radio.
I'd like to ask Ms. Hanford, have you ever read a research article?
Would you ever put me on your program?
I think not.
Has your thinking ever changed with new data?
And that's the mark of science.
As new data comes in, your ideas are ever evolving.
There's no such thing as a fixed idea, something that's proven for all times.
And last thing for Emily Hanford.
Does she rely on peer reviewed research to come to her conclusions?
Or are they more personal stories and anecdotal evidence?
Which are you relying on?
Peer reviewed research or personal stories and anecdotal evidence?
Now there are international organizations devoted to literacy, research and instruction,
like the International Literacy Association and the National Council of Teachers of English.
These have been around for decades.
They have thousands of members who are literacy experts, researchers, scholars, teachers, educators
who have devoted their working lives to literacy instruction.
And these groups offer a thorough yet sometimes complex view of literacy.
And this is a view that is constantly changing as new science emerges.
And that's appropriate.
I would believe thousands of experts versus a radio journalist.
Yet the science of reading seems to reject all of this for simplistic answers to a complex
problem.
And this is the simplistic answers we get.
Morphonic is good, balanced literacy bad.
And that's not science.
That's an ideology.
Now the science of reading or the ideology of reading does not tolerate discussion or
debate.
They seek to silence dissenting voices.
People like me are never engaged in it.
We're to be silenced.
Now the ideology of reading can't win in the arena of ideas in an academic discourse,
so they attack.
Now any ideology, whether it's an academic ideology, a political or religious ideology,
if attacking another position is akin to making a point for their own position.
So instead of making a position for the rightness of their claim, they describe the wrongness
of another claim.
They're so wrong, they say.
They're so very, very wrong.
And that's what makes me right.
So the thinking goes.
Not this narrowness of thinking, this exclusion of ideas does not move the conversation forward.
But of course, that's the very point, isn't it?
Now let's take a review of what reading science is or the science of reading is.
Tim Shanahan, I don't always agree with him, but he's got some good ideas out there.
I thought he did a good job in defining and describing reading science or the science
of reading.
So I'm going to rely on his description here.
He says that reading science is that that is based on research conducted in a classroom
using controlled experimental studies or controlled experimental research.
And this is his quote directly to me, a science of reading, if we're talking about education,
is that our prescriptions for teaching be tempered by rigorous instructional evaluations.
If a claim hasn't been tried out and found effective, then the claims, no matter how
heartfelt, aren't part of reading science.
In other words, to simplify, only practices and strategies that have been shown to be
effective using controlled experimental research and conducted in an actual learning environment
are to be considered reading science.
These should be used to determine what effective reading instruction is.
This is the only type of research that should be used to design reading programs and make
reading policy.
Now there are different views and interpretations on reading science, but according to Dr. Shanahan,
reading science is based on the premise that only findings that come from controlled experimental
research from applied research should be used to determine what reading instruction should
look like.
And even though I think this provides a limited view and excludes a lot of important qualitative
and descriptive research, I could live with this interpretation of reading science if
it were used correctly and consistently.
That is, if the science of reading advocates use the same criterion to come to conclusions
about reading instruction.
If they use science to determine their belief system, instead of using their belief system
to determine what science to look at.
The science of reading seems to be cherry picking data that reinforces two predetermined
beliefs.
Predetermined belief number one, reading is essentially sounding out words.
And predetermined belief number two, you create better readers by providing more sounding
out word instruction.
That seems to be the essence of the science of reading in a nutshell.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Now here are four ideas that we can all agree upon.
And I say this because these four ideas are often used to mischaracterize people that
don't buy in to the science of reading ideology.
The first one, everybody believes that phonics is an instruction, is helpful in helping children
learn to decode words.
Everybody believes that.
Everybody believes phonics instruction should be an important part of early literacy.
Kindergarten in first grade, everybody believes that whether you're a balanced literacy approach
take that or a whole language teacher, everyone believes that.
Everyone believes direct instruction is needed to initially teach letter sound relationships.
Again, everyone believes that.
However, this is what the National Reading Panel said.
Phonics instruction has been shown to be more effective when embedded within a comprehensive
literacy program.
Or what the National Reading Panel called, wait for it, balanced reading program.
Interesting balance.
Now let me leave you with six ideas put forth by the National Reading Panel report.
And I encourage you to actually read this report.
And many consider this to be the Bible of gold standard research related to reading instruction.
And as I said in a previous podcast, there's some good stuff there, nothing new, but it
reinforces what the International Literacy Association and the National Council of Teachers
of English, what they had been saying for decades.
So wonderful, you've got this report.
So six conclusions.
Number one, there are several ways to teach phonics.
Synthetic phonics, analytic phonics, embedded phonics, analogy phonics or large unit phonics,
onset rhyme phonics, and phonics through spelling.
Which one is most effective?
All approaches are effective.
All approaches are equally effective.
We tend to think of traditional phonics instruction as synthetic phonics.
We tend to think of that synthetic synthesis, putting letter sounds together to create words.
It's synthetic phonics, but all these types of phonics are equally effective.
Big idea number two, systematic phonics instruction should be integrated with other reading instruction
to create a quote, balanced reading program, unquote, page two dash 97 of the National
Reading Panel report.
Conclusion number three, there were insufficient data to draw any conclusions about the National
Reading Panel report.
Conclusions about the effects of phonics instruction with normally developing readers above first
grade.
Conclusion number four, phonics instruction fails to exert a statistically significant
impact on poor readers in second through sixth grade.
But what happens to poor readers in second through sixth grade?
They're often sent off someplace to get this star or title one or more phonics, even when
though this shown no statistically significant impact on poor readers.
And by the way, there are three deficit areas related to reading.
There's comprehension, there's fluency, and there's word identification.
All struggling readers aren't the same.
Some have deficits in one of those areas, two are all three.
So if you're a student who has trouble just with fluency, hitting them with a bunch of
phonics word identification does not address their need.
And the last one, I lied, I said six, but there's only five conclusions.
Phonics instruction contributed only weekly, if at all, in helping poor readers apply these
skills to reading actual text.
There you go.
This has been the reading instruction show.
I'm your host, as always, Dr. Andy Johnson.